Edinburgh and Wessex Titles

[stunking]

Congrats Sophie and Edward.

 

[yvr girl]

Sophie cannot be called Princess Sophie because she is not a princess in her own right. Marina was born a princess and Alice was given permission by the queen to use her own name. Of course Sophie could also be granted such permission but it is not automatic.

It is likely though. Sophie has served the family well.

 

[Noble Consort Ming]

It would not be necessary for Sophie to change her title until there was a new The Duchess of Edinburgh. If, for example, the dukedom was regranted to an unmarried Louis, Sophie would remain known as The Duchess of Edinburgh. Only in the event that Louis took a wife who became The Duchess of Edinburgh would Sophie need to change for the sake of avoiding confusion.

The use of "Dowager" was already viewed as old-fashioned in Marina and Alice's time, which is probably why they chose an alternative.

Dowager Peeresses

According to Debrett's Correct Form:

"Officially the widow of a peer is known as the Dowager Countess (or whatever) of X, unless there is already a dowager peeress of the family still living. In the latter event, the widow of the senior peer of the family retains the title of Dowager for life, and the widow of the junior peer in that family is known by her Christian name, e.g., Mary, Countess of X, until she becomes the senior widow. . . . When the present peer is unmarried, by custom the widow of the late peer continues to call herself as she did when her husband was living, i.e., without the prefix of (a) dowager, or (b) her Christian name. Should the present peer marry, it is usual for the widowed peeress to announce the style by which she wishes to be know in future."(113) This last bit is twentieth century, and Black's agrees: most widows don't use "dowager" at all anymore, and simply use the Mary, Countess of X option, announcing in the press the style they will be using.​

"Black's" is listed as the 1932 edition of Titles and Forms of Address: A Guide to Their Correct Use, published by A. & C. Black Ltd., so most duchesses dowager apparently used the style Mary, Duchess of X, by 1932.


Note that there was no formal announcement that the monarch had given permission for Marina's or Alice's new styling. See these posts for details on how their new titles were announced:

Princess Marina, Duchess of Kent:
https://www.theroyalforums.com/foru...sh-styles-and-titles-258-250.html#post2324071

Princess Alice, Duchess of Gloucester:
https://www.theroyalforums.com/foru...ish-styles-and-titles-258-92.html#post1517035


For the time being, the only precedents are Princess Marina, Duchess of Kent and Princess Alice, Duchess of Gloucester. If that remains the case I would expect Sophie to follow the precedent.

The posts you linked prove what you are arguing against. The one about Alice says that she received permission from the queen to use her name because she was not entitled to do so not being a princess in her own right. And Marina was born a princess and did not need permission to use her name. Neither situation sets any precedent. They are both different and Sophie's case(if such an issue should arise) will be a different matter. She could very well get permission to use her name as Alice did but she certainly cannot do so automatically because she is not a princess in her own right.

 

[XeniaCasaraghi]

Finally! These 2 have worked hard for 2 decades and they have done well to erase the difficulty of their first few years. I still prefer "countess" over "Duchess" and Wessex over Edinburgh...but I know it's a step up for them. The statement stated their son is Earl of Wessex, does Louise get a change?

 

[Tatiana Maria]

The posts you linked prove what you are arguing against. The one about Alice says that she received permission from the queen to use her name because she was not entitled to do so not being a princess in her own right.

I think there has been a miscommunication, as I never argued that Alice did not receive permission (I don't know for sure if she did or not, though I would assume she did). What I stated is that there was no formal announcement that Marina or Alice had obtained the monarch's permission to modify their titles. (My point was that "permission" was not treated as a formal procedure in the same way as, for example, the issuing of letters patent.)

However, I do not see the information that "she received permission from the queen to use her name because she was not entitled to do so not being a princess in her own right" in the post about Alice's title that I linked to. Could you please point it out?

(ETA: Perhaps you were referring to his statement about the Queen wanting to honour her aunt? I've now added that quote to this post.)

As far as I can see, the information in the post, which is credited to Debrett's contributor Robert Horley, is that there was never any official notification of the title change in Alice's case. I don't think the obtaining of permission could have been officially notified if the title change itself was never officially notified.

(From Robert Horley) I've often pondered this and frequently searched for an 'official' notification for the change in Alice's style after she became a widow and I've concluded there is no such official notification in the public domain.
The first Court Circular reference to her as Princess Alice Duchess of Gloucester is on the 13 July 1974, when she and her son and daughter-in-law attended a memorial service for her husband at Peterborough Cathedral. She is similarly described in the Court Circular of 23 July, when she attended a memorial service for her husband at Westminster Abbey. So it's clear The Queen made her decision between the death of The Prince Henry on 9 June and this first reference on 13 July.

[...]

My understanding is The Queen wanted to honour her aunt in this way: for the long service she had given (and, as it turned out, the decades of service she was to give) - although your explanation makes equal sense!
Nor does she have to publish her decision anywhere. Not issuing Letters Patent or a Warrant, does not make the decision any less valid. The Queen does of course sometimes allow an explanation to be published, as in the case of the Earl of Wessex and his children.
I hope this helps but do come back to me if you want to discuss further.​

And Marina was born a princess and did not need permission to use her name. Neither situation sets any precedent. They are both different and Sophie's case(if such an issue should arise) will be a different matter. She could very well get permission to use her name as Alice did but she certainly cannot do so automatically because she is not a princess in her own right.

I understand your point of view that Marina's situation was different because she was born a princess (although I am not sure it mattered, because foreign titles held by British subjects such as Marina were no longer legally recognized in Britain by that time), but what difference do you perceive between Alice's situation and Sophie's hypothetical situation?

I agree "Princess Sophie" would not be automatic. As there are multiple options in that situation (including Dowager, as old-fashioned as it is), none of the options could be automatic.

 

[Meee]

Exactly what Charles had to do. This way the promise is kept, the prestigious Edinburgh title associated with the award scheme stays close to the throne and there is a role for each of William’s children - no what do we do with the spare. King, Princess Royal and DoE. Balances all of the considerations for Charles. Although the fact that a 15 year old is styled as an Earl when his parents had declined the (lower? Edward was usually referred as the Earl of Wessex, rather than as Prince Edward) style of HRH Prince seems jarring.

A part of me wishes he’d also created something else for Edward that would be passed on via absolute primogeniture. Other than Charlotte not being displaced by Louis, there’s been very little modernisation.

Shame he didn’t do it in November on the 75th anniversary - Edward has recently been named as a lifetime CoS and referred to by a title he no longer uses.

 

[Alison H]

Louise remains Lady Louise Mountbatten-Windsor, unless she chooses to be known as Princess Louise of Edinburgh.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

For anyone who did not keep pace with all the previous developments, Camilla Tominey of The Telegraph includes a recap in her report on the dukedom creation (which is far better than most of the others, including the BBC story, which last I checked had major factual errors or omissions).

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/royal-f...ward-new-duke-edinburgh-title-palace-process/

Camilla Tominey's story is also the first press report I've seen to say that Scottish politics were discussed behind the scenes in relation to the dukedom. I was skeptical because previous reports did not mention the issue, but it seems Denville and other posters here were right to raise the concern.

Behind the scenes, royal aides were grappling with a dilemma. When Philip offered his title to Edward 24 years ago, his son was seventh-in-line to the throne. But a great deal had happened since then.

Following the births of William and Kate’s children Prince George, Princess Charlotte and Prince Louis; Harry and Meghan’s children Prince Archie and Princess Lilibet; Princess Beatrice’s daughter Sienna; and Princess Eugenie’s son August, Edward had been nudged to 14th in the pecking order – arguably too far down the line of succession to hold a title of such constitutional (and political) significance.

Another thing had also happened in the intervening period: the rise of the Scottish National Party.

With the Union hanging in the balance, was it really the right decision to give the Edinburgh dukedom to someone descending fast down the royal ranking? Why not confer the title on the Princess Royal, a trusted royal trouper whose love of Scotland is well known?

[...]

It should not go unnoticed that this announcement came just weeks after Nicola Sturgeon, Scotland’s First Minister, announced her resignation.

I still do not understand the king's (aides') argument that "When Philip offered his title to Edward 24 years ago, his son was seventh-in-line to the throne [...] Edward had been nudged to 14th in the pecking order – arguably too far down". Even in 1999, I assume people were capable of foreseeing that William, Harry, Beatrice and Eugenie would probably marry at some point and have children who would push Prince Edward further away from the throne.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

It still confuses me why not make it hereditary, but I guess a life dukedom is better than no dukedom?!

Neither the press release nor the palace's formal briefing today answered that question. But leaks have suggested that King Charles sees the Dukedom of Edinburgh as too important not to return to the Crown.

(But why not give him then a different one then?

Because Edinburgh is the dukedom which then-Prince Charles promised in 1999 to bestow on his brother Edward.

https://web.archive.org/web/2014020...ews/title_of_hrh_the_prince_edward/40309.html

Now everyone has their new title.

There is probably still to be an announcement at some point about dropping the "Consort" from the queen consort's title.

Although the fact that a 15 year old is styled as an Earl when his parents had declined the (lower? Edward was usually referred as the Earl of Wessex, rather than as Prince Edward) style of HRH Prince seems jarring.

The British royal convention is that a peerage takes precedence over a Prince title when the prince is the actual holder of the peerage, but princes do not use their father's peerages as courtesy titles. Accordingly, after Prince Edward was made a peer, he was formally known as HRH The Earl of Wessex and is now formally known as HRH The Duke of Edinburgh.

If James were to claim the title of prince, he would be known as HRH Prince James of Edinburgh and would not use a courtesy peerage, in the same way that the current Duke of Gloucester was known as HRH Prince Richard of Gloucester when he was the eldest son of HRH The Duke of Gloucester.

However, because James has not claimed the title of prince, he is in the same position as any other nonroyal heir apparent of a duke, and uses one of his father's subsidiary peerages (Earl of Wessex) as a courtesy title.

I'm wondering about this. Are both the Earldoms of Wessex and Fofar only subsidiary titles of the Dukedom of Edinburgh or can James inherit them in due course in his own right?

Beth

Others have answered your question, but I would just like to note that "subsidiary title" simply describes a title which is not the title of the most importance. The Earldoms of Wessex and Forfar are now subsidiary titles because they are of a lower degree than the Dukedom of Edinburgh, and so the new Duke of Edinburgh will rarely use those titles. A title being subsidiary or not is unrelated to it being hereditary or non-hereditary.

Blessing? What does that mean

To ask someone for their blessing for something means to ask them to give their approval for it.

 

[samitude]

Louise remains Lady Louise Mountbatten-Windsor, unless she chooses to be known as Princess Louise of Edinburgh.

Well, now she's The Lady Louise. Wasn't she just Lady Louise before without The in front of it?

 

[Meee]

Camilla Tominey's story is also the first press report I've seen to say that Scottish politics were discussed behind the scenes in relation to the dukedom. I was skeptical because previous reports did not mention the issue, but it seems Denville and other posters here were right to raise the concern.



I still do not understand the king's (aides') argument that "When Philip offered his title to Edward 24 years ago, his son was seventh-in-line to the throne [...] Edward had been nudged to 14th in the pecking order – arguably too far down". Even in 1999, I assume people were capable of foreseeing that William, Harry, Beatrice and Eugenie would probably marry at some point and have children who would push Prince Edward further away from the throne.

Indeed. And the “Why not confer the title on the Princess Royal?” Err, because by their own argument, she’s even further from the throne than he is! For a non-hereditary title that’s a non-issue, and if non-hereditary titles and/or women being Duchesses in their own right did not occur to them around the time of the Perth Agreement, they must have been asleep. Edward is the child of a monarch, something that most people in the succession will never be.

Edward and Anne have proven that the public would prefer to see more of/have as working Royals those that are popular, not necessarily those closest to the crown.

 

[Curryong]

Are the Wessexes now Edinburghs that popular though? When YouGov chooses to include them in surveys of member of the RF they are generally bobbing about towards the bottom of the pack, along with Queen Camilla. And Anne is popular now but for years she wasn’t and was in fact known as ‘Princess Grumpy’.

 

[Prinsara]

Well, now she's The Lady Louise. Wasn't she just Lady Louise before without The in front of it?

No, she has always been The Lady Louise formally and listed that way on the RF site, supposedly because she is the unmarried daughter of an active titleholder, although the convention of when Ladies use "The" or not is really not clear.

It has nothing to do with her now being the daughter of a duke instead of an earl, though.

 

[Somebody]

Really glad to see the king came around and honoured the agreement that was made by conferring the title Duke of Edinburgh on his brother but still disappointed that it is only a lifetime peerage, unlike the next generation who was given hereditary ducal peerages.

 

[Mbruno]

Really glad to see the king came around and honoured the agreement that was made by conferring the title Duke of Edinburgh on his brother but still disappointed that it is only a lifetime peerage, unlike the next generation who was given hereditary ducal peerages.

I am surprised (as I didn't expect it), but not disappointed, as I have long held the view that life peerages are the way to go for titles held by British princes. In fact, I also think that life peerages will make it easier for daughters of future sovereigns to hold dukedoms too.

I hope that this is not a "one-time" thing, tied to the DoE title specifically, but becomes the norm in future reigns too, for example for William's children.

 

[Sunnystar]

I am surprised (as I didn't expect it), but not disappointed, as I have long held the view that life peerages are the way to go for titles held by British princes. In fact, I also think that life peerages will make it easier for daughters of future sovereigns to hold dukedoms too.

I hope that this is not a "one-time" thing, tied to the DoE title specifically, but becomes the norm in future reigns too, for example for William's children.

I suspect that had Charles been king when Harry got married, he might have only received a lifetime dukedom, while the earldom would have been hereditary. I could see a scenario where a hereditary earldom is given at the time of marriage to the children of the heir and they receive a lifetime dukedom once their parent ascends to the throne. That way, there's an acknowledgement of their familial descent from the monarch, but it's in the form of an earldom that is less historic and, therefore, okay to grow distant as the generations continue from the throne, while the historic dukedoms remain close to the throne.

I'm chuffed to pieces for Edward and Sophie and was so happy to see this news when I woke up and checked my IG feed this morning. Very deserving and I'm hoping Philip and Elizabeth are smiling down from heaven at the solution Charles found.

 

[Duke of Leaside]

I wonder why James is called "The Earl of Wessex" on the line of succession page when he should be only "Earl of Wessex" as appropriate for courtesy titles.
...

I wouldn't be surprised if the person who updated the page simply inserted The Duke of Edinburgh and removed Viscount Severn and didn't bother with editing the Earl of Wessex entry for Edward that now applies to James.

Well, now the line of succession page reads "James, Earl of Wessex". That's better but I agree it should be just "Earl of Wessex". Before today it read "Viscount Severn", NOT "James, Viscount Severn" or "The Viscount Severn"

 

[Duke of Leaside]

Hopefully the Letters Patent for this new creation of the Duke of Edinburgh title will pass the Great Seal of the Realm and be gazetted soon! (It would be nice if it takes less than the five and half months that the LP for The Prince of Wales and Earl of Chester took to be gazetted.)

 

[Toledo]

Very happy to see the Earl and his wife being promoted to Dukes and hope their children are upgraded to HRH Princes of Edinburgh as they deserved.

 

[Toledo]

Now I see King Charles saved the news for his brother's birthday, which makes this gesture even more special.

 

[Iluvbertie]

Very happy to see the Earl and his wife being promoted to Dukes and hope their children are upgraded to HRH Princes of Edinburgh as they deserved.

According to Sophie Louise is already able to ask for that but so far she has shown no inclination to do so.

I would prefer to respect the wishes of a) the parents and b) the young person. Louise seems perfectly happy as Lady and I suspect James would prefer to be Master James rather than Earl of Wessex but being the grandchild of his grandparents he accepts that title.

 

[HRHHermione]

According to Sophie Louise is already able to ask for that but so far she has shown no inclination to do so.



I would prefer to respect the wishes of a) the parents and b) the young person. Louise seems perfectly happy as Lady and I suspect James would prefer to be Master James rather than Earl of Wessex but being the grandchild of his grandparents he accepts that title.

I agree. Louise seems to have a good head on her shoulders and she has been able to enjoy far more privacy than her first cousins. Stuff like working undetected in a garden center over the summer is not something any of her cousins could have done. Her more low-key title means she gets a lot of the privileges but without nearly as much of the press intrusion.

 

[Iluvbertie]

I am wondering whether one of the reasons for the delay is that the former 'Great Seal' had to be destroyed and a new one made for Charles. I remember reading something about the seals etc having to be broken at the end of a reign and new ones made. If my fading memory is correct that may explain the delay.

 

[Lee-Z]

Well, now the line of succession page reads "James, Earl of Wessex". That's better but I agree it should be just "Earl of Wessex". Before today it read "Viscount Severn", NOT "James, Viscount Severn" or "The Viscount Severn"

Although that might not be how officially it should be, but i think many people are not as well versed (or as interested) in titles as some of the members here on these forums, and i think it might be very confusing at this point to have 'earl of Wessex' further down the succession line than a week ago (just because it's now James and not Edward anymore).

 

[Biri]

As I checked now, Prince Edward did receive the title of the Duke of Edinburgh, but not those of the Earl of Merioneth and Baron Greenwich.

 

[Denville]

Very happy to see the Earl and his wife being promoted to Dukes and hope their children are upgraded to HRH Princes of Edinburgh as they deserved.

They are HRHs if they choose ot use it.. and they have not shown any sign that they or their parents want them to. So I dotn really see that it would be a good idea to wish for them to use the style that they cleary dont want to use.

 

[Denville]

Neither the press release nor the palace's fo


To ask someone for their blessing for something means to ask them to give their approval for it.

Obviously, but why should any royal have to ask for approval from the daughter of a former holder of a title?

 

[Denville]

As I checked now, Prince Edward did receive the title of the Duke of Edinburgh, but not those of the Earl of Merioneth and Baron Greenwich.

of course not. Charles' promise related only to the Dukedom of Endiburgh. Edward already has 2 earldoms.

 

[Iluvbertie]

Obviously, but why should any royal have to ask for approval from the daughter of a former holder of a title?

Tradition and protocol.

It has always been the case that where the wife/daughter/grandchildren of a title holder whose title has gone extinct is still alive when the chance for a title to be recreated comes up that those people are asked if they have any objections.

It also isn't done to create a new form of a title if any of these people are still using the title e.g. the wife is still the 'dowager' or the daughters are still 'of xxxx'.

In 1986 it was reported that both The Queen Mum and Princess Margaret were asked if they objected to Andrew being made Duke of York as The Queen Mum had been The Duchess of York and Princess Margaret had been born a Princess of York. As both had risen higher to The Queen and The Princess Margaret neither did object but they were still formally asked.

I assume that Camilla - as a former Duchess of Edinburgh - didn't object to that title going to Edward (and I see no reason why she would as she never used that title although having it for about 17 months).

 

[Lilyflo]

I agree. Louise seems to have a good head on her shoulders and she has been able to enjoy far more privacy than her first cousins. Stuff like working undetected in a garden center over the summer is not something any of her cousins could have done. Her more low-key title means she gets a lot of the privileges but without nearly as much of the press intrusion.

I think that's true and I'd also add that Louise hasn't been spotted coming out of London restaurants and nightclubs in the same way her York cousins were (sometimes with their mother too). If she had a similar social life, I think she might have a higher profile in the tabloids.