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.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

As expected, on September 4, the House of Commons rejected the House of Lords’ amendments to the House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill.

https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2025-09-04/debates/32F69CEF-33BC-4387-BAF6-BFDBF2A27176/HouseOfLords(HereditaryPeers)Bill

One thing is deeply confusing.

Why did the Government rail against Lords Amendment 3, which would have confirmed that the monarch can create life peerages without granting the new peer a seat in the House of Lords? (King Charles III already did so in 2023, when he granted his brother Edward a non-hereditary dukedom without granting Edward a seat in Parliament.)

Given that Britons across the political spectrum agree the rising number of peers in the House of Lords is problematic, shouldn’t the Government be happy to confirm that a peerage does not necessarily need to come with a House of Lords seat?


Nevertheless, the Government spokesman mocked the proposal. His explanation for opposing it raises even more question marks:

“As has been said, being appointed as a peer is an honour, but it also brings the responsibility to contribute to the work of the second Chamber. The Government have a manifesto commitment to introduce a participation requirement to ensure that all peers contribute to the work of the other place—an approach that has received widespread support from peers. I certainly do not think that creating another layer to that system to provide for the statutory creation of non-sitting peers is in keeping with the mood of either House. I therefore urge the House to reject Lords amendment 3.”​

So, based on what Government spokesman Nick Thomas-Symonds stated to Parliament (see the quoted post): Will the Government demand that the Duke of Edinburgh, the Duke of York, the Duke of Sussex, and the Duke of Cambridge (Prince of Wales) all participate in the House of Lords, since they were all appointed as peers of the first creation (instead of inheriting their peerages)? Especially the Duke of Edinburgh, whose dukedom is a life peerage?

What will happen the next time the King wishes to create a new peerage for a prince of the royal family, if the current Government, or a Government with the same views, is in power? Will the Government insist that he make the peerage hereditary? Will it insist that the prince who is created a peer take up a seat in the House of Lords?

 

[Tatiana Maria]

As it has been mentioned in other news threads in the British subforum, here is the “Removal of Titles Bill” introduced on December 7, 2022 by Rachael Maskell, Member of Parliament (Labour party) for York Central. Per her media interviews, she had in mind the Dukedom of York.

Like the vast majority of bills not sponsored by the government, it failed to become law.

Ms. Maskell has not reintroduced the bill in the current session of Parliament. (That may not be her choice, as the opportunities for MPs to introduce bills are limited.)

Hypothetically, if her bill had become law, it would have allowed the King to remove any hereditary title in the UK nobility (without needing Parliament’s consent).

1 Power to remove titles

(1) His Majesty may remove any title.

(2) Where His Majesty has exercised the power under subsection (1)—

(a) if the person from whom a title has been removed is a peer, their name must be struck out of the Roll of Peerage, and all rights of such a peer to receive a writ of summons and to sit in the House of Lords or to take part in the election of representative peers shall cease and determine;​

(b) all privileges and all rights to any dignity or title, whether in respect of a peerage or under any Royal Warrant or Letters Patent, shall cease and determine.​

(3) His Majesty may exercise the power in subsection (1)—

(a) on his own initiative, or​

(b) following a recommendation made by a joint committee of Parliament.​

(4) In this Act, “titles” means—

(a) any hereditary peerage in the peerage of England, Scotland, Great Britain, the United Kingdom or Ireland;​

(b) any baronetcy or other hereditary title within England, Scotland, Great Britain, the United Kingdom or Ireland.​

(5) The powers conferred upon His Majesty by this Act shall be in addition to, and not in derogation of, any other powers of His Majesty.

2 Extent, commencement and short title

(1) This Act extends to England and Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland.
(2) This Act comes into force on the day on which it is passed.
(3) This Act may be cited as the Removal of Titles Act 2023.

https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/bills/cbill/58-03/0111/220111.pdf

https://bills.parliament.uk/bills/3289

 

[VictoriaB]

Hypothetically, if her bill had become law, it would have allowed the King to remove any hereditary title in the UK nobility (without needing Parliament’s consent).

Thank you for the link.

I'm assuming that if this or a similarly worded Bill became law, the King would only remove titles (hereditary or life peerages) on the advice of the government in the same way that, with the exception of peerages for members of the Royal Family, peerages are now granted on the advice of the government.