Royal Dukes, Royal Duchies and Royal Ducal Titles 2: 2022 -

[Denville]

But the fact that Louise was never in line for either title is proof she was sidelined. While James won't inherit his father's ducal title he will inherit the others. Louise won't, even James should die young, leaving her as Edward's only child and heir. Expressing sympathy for James but not Louise seems odd.

Its a mystery to me why anyone should feel sympathy for either of them

 

[Mbruno]

Its a mystery to me why anyone should feel sympathy for either of them

I feel sympathy for James and Louise for not being able to use the title of Prince/Princess when Beatrice, Eugenie, Archie and Lilibet can. I find it unfair.

The notion that they could "choose" to be styled Prince/Princess after they turn 18 (as their mother said) is not realistic once they have been styled as children of a peer only since they were born. In a way, the choice that their parents made for them when they were born has conditioned their style for the rest of their lives. In any case, if we are to believe the anonymous "souces" that other posters have mentioned in these forums, the King is opposed to James and Louise being styled HRH Prince/Princess now, so there isn't a choice in practice anymore.

 

[Denville]

So its really Ed and Sophi'es blame?

 

[Mbruno]

So its really Ed and Sophi'es blame?

At the time it was announced that the children would be styled as children of an earl on the request of the Earl and Countess of Wessex and with the Queen's approval. So it sounds like the proposal came from Edward and Sophie and was sanctioned by the Queen.


In practice it is hard to know whether it was indeed Edward and Sophie's decison or if the idea came from the Palace given the circumstances at the time (Edward not being expected to become a working royal, Diana's accident, etc.).

 

[Denville]

Yes Im well aware of all that happened in 1999 and IMO it was a good idea to give the children lesser titles. Even if they DID want to become Prince/ess now, and I'm fairly sure they dont, I think the public would not be too keen on the idea.
I think the queen would have liked to keep the children as titled as HRH, but she could see that the public were cooling on there being a lot of royals, too many of them working and trying to find a role, and carrying the style of HRH so she agreed to it in 1999. I think Edward and Sophie did not want their children to be Prince and Princess, they were well down the line of succession and were not supposed to be full time working royals and they were probalby pretty sure that in the next generation their kids would not be wanted as working royals. '
And I think they were right. I dont know of any evidence that Charles has said anything on the issue but in any case I think the public if asked would prefer it if the children remained as Lady and Earl.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

Thank you, Gawin, well said.

It has nothing to do wiht not being good enough. It is simply law and custom that peers were male.

Women not being considered good enough compared to men is why male-only laws and customs of inheritance and government are established.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

Royal correspondent Robert Jobson writes in his forthcoming book "Our King: Charles III" that the King would like the dukedom of Edinburgh to, after Prince Edward's death, be recreated for Princess Charlotte.

"Although the King has made his brother Edward the new Duke of Edinburgh, the title is only for life. After Edward dies, Charles has made it clear Charlotte (now aged seven) should become Duchess of Edinburgh."
​

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/...-away-Charles-foraged-mushrooms-Birkhall.html

I assume Mr. Jobson has his source(s), but I find it difficult to believe that a man who refers to his nieces as Mrs. Michael Tindall, Mrs. Edoardo Mapelli Mozzi and Mrs. Jack Brooksbank would approve of women being granted peerages in their own right.