Royal Dukes, Royal Duchies and Royal Ducal Titles 1: Ending 2022

[Warren]

surely the princesses can not be both "highness and royal highness" its not logical...

You make it out to be more complex than it is.
Lady Alexandra and Lady Maud Duff were made Princesses with the style of Highness in 1905.
HH Princess Alexandra married HRH Prince Arthur of Connaught in 1913 thereby assuming the style of Royal Highness.
Their son Alastair was an HH Prince from his birth in 1914 until 1917 when he was styled Earl of Macduff.

 

[MAfan]

I guess this mean that in the order of precedence, the two princesses came soon after the Royal Highnesses, or the children and male line grandchildren of the Sovereign.
They were not both Highnesses and Royal Hignesses:

Maud:
from 5 nov 1905 to 12 nov 1923: Her Highness Princess Maud of Fife
from 12 nov 1923 to 10 nov 1941: Her Highness Princess Maud, Lady Carnegie
from 10 nov 1941 to her deathhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1945: Her Highness Princess Maud, Countess of Southesk

Alexandra:
from 5 nov 1905 to 22 jan 1912http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1912: Her Highness Princess Alexandra of Fife
from 22 jan 1912 to 15 oct 1913http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1913: Her Highness Princess Alexandra, Duchess of Fife
from 15 oct 1913 to ger deathhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1959: Her Royal Highness Princess Arthur of Connaught, Duchess of Fife
She became Royal Highness due to her marriage to a Royal Highness (Prince Arthur), and no longer was a Highness.

I hope to have been easily understandable.

 

[jonnydep]

king edward VII declared that his granddaughters
"should bear the title of princess with the qualification of highness and precedence immediately after the members of the royal family with the qualication of royal highness "

it would appear that i had missundertood the wording of the adove !.
now if it was worded as follows
"immediately after those members of the royal family, who bear the qualification of royal highness"
well things would had been differant...
what a plonker i have been !!!. well warren and mafan, with both of your help i now fully understand ! sorry about my gaffe..........

regarding the dukedom of fife.....
well it is as i had thought - not a royal dukedom !!
thanks for your input, am sorry that i had not back to you sooner, but as you can see i got side tracked with another matter of my own making
cheers anyway

 

[jonnydep]

news to me !!!

King Edward VIII or his brother King George VI: they were born great-grandchildren of the reigning Queen, and at the time of their birth they were only Highnesses; later, in 1898, they were elevated to Royal Highnesses.

most interesting, i did not know this. i will have to take a look into this. why 1898 and not at their births, as both were in the direct line of succession to the throne after the duke of york and the prince of wales. however i do know that both brothers were referred as prince edward and prince albert of york.
mafan, my friend, i hope you are not getting confused with the guidelines set down by king george V, as who should be entitled to be royal highnesses, as that came much later !!.
but i am sure, you will be correct as always, i have no reason to think otherwise...... it does seem logical considering that another of the queens great grandsons via the male line was a highness (prince alastair, the future 2nd duke of connaught) and he was born in 1914, still before king george's guidelines !!! .

ps
BTW the dukedom of connaught was yet another royal dukedom, thus linking the post to the tread as a whole !!

 

[MAfan]

Since the reign of George I, all the male line descendants of the Sovereign were Princes; only the children and grandchildren of the Soverign were Royal Highnesses, and the other descendants were Highnesses.
In 1898 Queen Victoria released Letters Patent, that stated that the children of the first son of the Prince of Wales were Royal Highnesses instead of Highnesses.

 

[branchg]

Victoria was in her final decline by 1898 and wheelchair bound. Her York great-grandchildren were the only surviving male-line descendants of her son, Edward VII, so she elevated them to HRH knowing they would soon be next-in-line as spares.

Alexandra and Maud were both unmarried when their grandfather elevated them to Princesses in 1905. At the time, great-grandchildren in the male-line of The Sovereign enjoyed the style and attribute of HH Prince/Princess of Great Britain and Ireland. The King essentially granted his Fife granddaughters the rank they would have been entitled to automatically at the time of their birth if they had been in the male-line of Victoria.

When George V succeeded to the throne, he made it clear he did not approve of his father's actions in elevating his cousins to Princesses. As such, Maud stopped using her style as a Princess when she married Lord Carnegie and Alexandra used her married title as "HRH Princess Arthur of Connaught". The Fife dukdeom was then inherited by her nephew after she died.

 

[Iluvbertie]

Members of the BRF are not allowed to vote in the British General Elections. My question was really at what stage are the members of the family considered not close enough to the throne and allowed to vote in the elections?

I remember when they lowered the voting age in Britain in 1969 having a discussion in class about the fact that Princess Anne would actually be able to vote in the next General Election but that Prince Charles, as a royal duke (Duke of Cornwall) wouldn't.

It was also reported, in our papers (and I still have the cutting somewhere I think) reporting that she had stated that she wouldn't be exercising that right. That was in 1970 when she came to Australia with her parents and Prince Charles. There was a lengthy piece on her in our local paper as she came to the small town where I was at school, with the Queen and Duke of Edinburgh but not Charles (he wasn't allowed to fly on the same plane as the Queen) and that paper included her saying that she wouldn't vote although fully entitled to do so.

One of the reasons for creating the sons Dukes was so that they couldn't vote in or stand for election to the House of Commons.

 

[lac2003]

Has anyone mentioned that George VI bestowed the title of Duke Of Edinburgh to Prince Philip before the royal wedding in 1947? Philip didn't have a British title, and he's not a British prince. The Edinburgh dukedom doesn't automatically go to Prince Charles because it wasn't given as a hereditary title. When Philip dies, regardless of who has predeceased him, the Edinburgh title will go to Prince Edward, unless he happens to have predeceased Philip.
As to the Duke of Albany, the last one was Leopold, Queen Victoria's youngest son. His son became Duke of Saxe-Coburg and a German citizen, so he was stripped of his British titles after WWI.
When the Earl of Wessex got married, there was some talk that he might be granted the title Duke of Albany, but he ended up with Wessex.
Also, don't forget that the monarch can pretty much decide who gets what title, and if someone doesn't appear to be worthy of a title, then you can bet that the title will disappear. Monarchs may not have political power, but they can have fun with their power over the social strata!

 

[Ella Kay]

I don't think that the British started creating life peer titles until the '60s, long after Philip was made Duke of Edinburgh. It is a hereditary title.

 

[Lumutqueen]

Has anyone mentioned that George VI bestowed the title of Duke Of Edinburgh to Prince Philip before the royal wedding in 1947? Philip didn't have a British title, and he's not a British prince. The Edinburgh dukedom doesn't automatically go to Prince Charles because it wasn't given as a hereditary title. When Philip dies, regardless of who has predeceased him, the Edinburgh title will go to Prince Edward, unless he happens to have predeceased Philip.

Phillip was granted the title DofE on the morning of his wedding.
There has been alot of debate over the DofE title. It does go to Charles when Phillip dies, if Charles is King he will merge it with the crown or choose to give it to his brother.

Duke of Edinburgh - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Iluvbertie]

Has anyone mentioned that George VI bestowed the title of Duke Of Edinburgh to Prince Philip before the royal wedding in 1947? Philip didn't have a British title, and he's not a British prince. The Edinburgh dukedom doesn't automatically go to Prince Charles because it wasn't given as a hereditary title. When Philip dies, regardless of who has predeceased him, the Edinburgh title will go to Prince Edward, unless he happens to have predeceased Philip.

Philip's Edinburgh title has the same inheritance rules as most other titles in that it will be inherited by 'heirs male of the body'.

Charles will inherit the title either before or after he becomes King in the normal course of events. After Charles becomes King the title will merge with the Crown and then be available for regrant to Edward.

Edward can only inherit the title if Charles, William, Harry and Andrew all predecease Philip and the Queen. In which case the title won't merge with the crown but pass directly to Edward (along with the rest of Philip's titles) and Beatrice would become Queen.

If William has a daughter and then both he and his father die before Philip and the Queen then that daughter would become Queen but the Edinburgh title would pass to Harry and not be available for Edward at all.

 

[Count langley]

This is not quite accurate. The Title Duke of Edinburgh will revert back to the Crown upon the passing of Prince Philip. H.M. the Queen has stated that at such time, she would bestow the Royal Ducal title on her youngest son, current the Earl of Wessex.

 

[Warren]

Iluvbertie has correctly stated where and how the Edinburgh title will pass.
We cover this same issue every few months or so.

 

[lac2003]

On the day that Prince Edward married Sophie, the Queen stated that he would be granted the title of Duke of Edinburgh on the death of the current holder, Philip. The British press mentioned that this was a sign that the Queen liked Sophie as the last Duchess of Edinburgh was the Queen herself (after she married Philip, she was Duchess of Edinburgh until she became queen). She's hardly an idiot when it comes to titles, so if Charles was automatically going to get the title on the death of his father, she wouldn't have made a statement directly to the contrary.
The monarch can bestow whatever title he or she wants on whoever he or she wants. Who gets what is traditional, not legally binding.
For example, there's no law stating that the eldest son of the monarch is automatically Prince of Wales. Charles wasn't invested with the title until he was 20. The title Edward currently has, Earl of Wessex, hadn't been used since pre-Conquest times! If the monarch said that the Edinburgh title goes to Edward when Philip dies, then that's what will happen, regardless of who else is still around.
There's no "Minister of Titles" in the British government, and the College of Heralds doesn't dictate who gets what title. Rules about title inheritance can be very flexible when the monarch wants them to be!
Henry VIII made Anne Boleyn the Marquess of Pembroke because he felt like it. Anne made John Churchill Duke of Marlborough. You've got to figure that if the current heir (Marquess of Blandford) keeps on the way he's going, whoever's on the throne when the current duke dies is going to think long and hard about letting the title pass to the Marquess (who spends more time in prison than at Blenheim)!
I'm just hoping that William or Harry get the Duke of Albany title. Albany, NY, needs something to raise itself up a little!!

 

[Marsel]

As Warren said, the question of Duke of Edinburgh title has been discussed many times. If you want detailed information, I suggest you to read earlier posts in this thread.
If you want basic information, here are answers to some of your questions/statements.

On the day that Prince Edward married Sophie, the Queen stated that he would be granted the title of Duke of Edinburgh on the death of the current holder, Philip. The British press mentioned that this was a sign that the Queen liked Sophie as the last Duchess of Edinburgh was the Queen herself (after she married Philip, she was Duchess of Edinburgh until she became queen). She's hardly an idiot when it comes to titles, so if Charles was automatically going to get the title on the death of his father, she wouldn't have made a statement directly to the contrary.

An intention that Prince Edward will eventually succeed to the Dukedom of Edinburgh was announced, not a fact. There are many circumstances under which Edward will not be able or eligible to succeed to the title, although I would assume that Her Majesty has foreseen all of them and arrangements have been made between her and the immediate successors of the Dukedom.
Prince Edward can succeed to the Dukedom only in the following case: if all those who are in line of the succession to the title ahead of him (Prince Charles, Prince William, Prince Harry and Prince Andrew) die before him without legitimate male Heirs.
Since that's unlikely to happen, the most likely scenario under which Edward will eventually become Duke of Edinburgh is the following:
After Prince Philip's death Prince Charles succeeds to the title, which then merges with the Crown upon his accession to the Throne. His Majesty King Charles will then be able to re-create the title for his brother, according to his own wishes and/or the wishes of their mother. In that case, it will technically be a new title (new creation) and Edward will be the first Duke of Edinburgh of the new creation.

The monarch can bestow whatever title he or she wants on whoever he or she wants. Who gets what is traditional, not legally binding.
For example, there's no law stating that the eldest son of the monarch is automatically Prince of Wales. Charles wasn't invested with the title until he was 20. The title Edward currently has, Earl of Wessex, hadn't been used since pre-Conquest times! If the monarch said that the Edinburgh title goes to Edward when Philip dies, then that's what will happen, regardless of who else is still around.
There's no "Minister of Titles" in the British government, and the College of Heralds doesn't dictate who gets what title. Rules about title inheritance can be very flexible when the monarch wants them to be!

There are actually very clear laws concerning titles and succession to them.
The Prince of Wales is a title that is usually bestowed upon the Heir Apparent to the British Throne. Traditionally, that's the eldest son of the Monarch; however there have been cases when the eldest son of the Heir Apparent was made The Prince of Wales (following the father's death).
Even Her Majesty wouldn't have been able to bestow the title of The Prince of Wales to someone other than Heir Apparent.
Moreover, there are titles the Heir to the Throne is born with (like the Duke of Cornwall) and those titles cannot be stripped away, even upon the Sovereign's wish.

Henry VIII made Anne Boleyn the Marquess of Pembroke because he felt like it. Anne made John Churchill Duke of Marlborough. You've got to figure that if the current heir (Marquess of Blandford) keeps on the way he's going, whoever's on the throne when the current duke dies is going to think long and hard about letting the title pass to the Marquess (who spends more time in prison than at Blenheim)!

Her Majesty also cannot bypass the succession laws in case of holders of other titles: she wouldn't for example, be able to disinherit the eldest son of the Duke of Marlborough of his title, however unacceptable his behaviour might be. Circumstances under which titles can be even suspended have to extraordinary. Last time it happened in 1917, during the World War I, with the Titles Deprivation Act of 1917 (which empowered the Privy Council to investigate "any persons enjoying any dignity or title as a peer or British prince who have, during the present war, borne arms against His Majesty or His Allies, or who have adhered to His Majesty's enemies").
Henry VIII was free to give Anne Boleyn any title he felt like, provided it was the first creation and there was no holder of the title.

I'm just hoping that William or Harry get the Duke of Albany title. Albany, NY, needs something to raise itself up a little!!

Neither William or Harry, nor anyone else can be created Duke of Albany: the title already exists.
It was suspended in 1917 under Title Depravation Act mentioned above, however it still exists. The last holder of the title was Prince Charles Edward, 2nd Duke of Albany. If his descendants ever apply for restoration of the title, the new holder will be Hubertus Richard, Prinz von Sachsen-Coburg und Gotha (who is the son of late Ernst-Leopold, Prinz von Sachsen-Coburg und Gotha, himself the son of Hereditary Prince John Leopold, himself the son of Prince Charles Edward, 2nd Duke of Albany).

 

[lac2003]

Prince Charles Edward wasn't the 2nd Duke of Albany, because Prince Leopold wasn't the first Duke of Albany.
There have been Dukes of Albany since at least Elizabeth I's reign. Lord Darnley, husband of Mary Stewart (Queen of Scots), was an early Duke of Albany, if not the first one. If all of this was strictly hereditary, then his Duke of Albany title would have gone to the English crown when James I/VI came to the throne in 1603.
Anyway, Charles Edward was stripped of the Albany dukedom by George V in the title overhaul after WWI. The title reverted back to the monarch's control. That's why when Prince Edward married Sophie, one of the titles under consideration was the Albany one.
Of course there are rules for inheritance of titles, but rules can be amended. Show me the British law that states the title "Prince of Wales" can only be given to the heir to the throne.
For heaven's sake, in the past, countries have gone "shopping" around the royal houses of Europe for kings, so who gets which title is flexible at the very least. That's the interesting aspect of all of this!

 

[Marsel]

Prince Charles Edward wasn't the 2nd Duke of Albany, because Prince Leopold wasn't the first Duke of Albany.
There have been Dukes of Albany since at least Elizabeth I's reign. Lord Darnley, husband of Mary Stewart (Queen of Scots), was an early Duke of Albany, if not the first one. If all of this was strictly hereditary, then his Duke of Albany title would have gone to the English crown when James I/VI came to the throne in 1603.
Anyway, Charles Edward was stripped of the Albany dukedom by George V in the title overhaul after WWI. The title reverted back to the monarch's control. That's why when Prince Edward married Sophie, one of the titles under consideration was the Albany one.

That is not entirely correct. The creations may be confusing, but here is a brief history:
The title Duke of Albany was first created in 1398 for Robert Stewart, 1st Duke of Albany. Its second creation was in 1458 (for Alexander Stewart, 1st Duke of Albany). The third creation happened in 1541 (for Arthur Stewart, 1st Duke of Albany). The fourth creation was in 1565 (for Henry Stuart, King-Consort of Scotland). The title was re-created for the fifth time in 1604 (for Charles Stuart, and merged with the Crown upon his accession to the Throne). The sixth creation happened in 1660 (for James Stuart – again, merged with the Crown upon his accession to the Throne).
<....> From this point on, the title of Duke of Albany was usually accompanied with the title Duke of York and York were: Ernest August, 1st Duke of York and Albany (created in 1716), Edward Augustus, 1st Duke of York and Albany (created in 1760) and Frederick Augustus, 1st Duke of York and Albany (created in 1784). <...>
In 1881, the title Duke of Albany was re-created separately for the seventh time: the new bearer of the title was Prince Leopold, 1st Duke of Albany, who was succeeded by his son (born after his death) – Prince Charles Edward, 2nd Duke of Albany.
The title was suspended under Title Depravation Act in 1919. Nevertheless, it still does technically exist and should Prince Charles Edward’s descendants apply for restoration of the title, the next Duke of Albany will be Hubertus Richard, Prinz von Sachsen-Coburg und Gotha (the great-grandson of Prince Charles Edward).

I know it may be confusing to understand why there were so many 1st Dukes of Albany if the title had existed since 1398.
Think of it this way: whenever a title was merged with the Crown or whenever there were no legitimate successors of a title, it is upon Sovereign’s discretion to recreate the title: technically, it is a new title with an old name.

Similarly, the easiest way for Prince Edward to become a Duke of Edinburgh is the following: they will wait till Charles succeeds to the title as the eldest son and Heir of the Duke of Edinburgh and upon Charles’s accession to the throne, it will be available for re-creation (as it will be merged with the Crown). If this scenario comes true, Edward will be 1st Duke of Edinburgh (of the new creation), despite the fact his father and elder brother were holders of the title as well.

I haven't been aware that "Duke of Albany" was ever considered for Prince Edward, and I can't see how it could have been: as I mentioned, the title was suspended, but nevertheless, it still exists. .

Of course there are rules for inheritance of titles, but rules can be amended. Show me the British law that states the title "Prince of Wales" can only be given to the heir to the throne.
For heaven's sake, in the past, countries have gone "shopping" around the royal houses of Europe for kings, so who gets which title is flexible at the very least. That's the interesting aspect of all of this!

I don't think England/Britain has ever 'shopped' for a new King. Of course, titles can be flexible: during the War of Roses, they had a new Prince of Wales, King and Queen about once every year, if not month. However, the flexibility was still within traditions and laws: whoever ‘won’ the Crown at the given point, was the King and his Heir Apparent was The Prince of Wales.

The title "Prince of Wales" is always given to the Heir Apparent of the Monarch. There has never been an exception, and I doubt there ever will be.

 

[branchg]

It was generally expected Edward would be created Duke of Cambridge on his wedding day by The Queen. Instead, she created him Earl of Wessex with the expectation Charles (or William) would re-create the Dukedom of Edinburgh for Edward after the death of their parents.

The Dukedom passes to the male heirs of body like any royal dukedom. This means only Charles, William or Harry could directly inherit it, at which it merges with the Crown in due course (when Charles, William or Harry became King) or (Charles, William and Harry all died with no male issue, with The Duke of York & Edinburgh succeeding to the throne).

 

[Marsel]

Apart from Cambridge, another Dukedom that was seriously considered for Edward was, I believe, of Sussex.

Just a theoretical question: could the “Dukedom” and “Marquisate” of Cambridge exist simultaneously? Both titles are extinct. Or are they essentially the same?
I know they never 'existed' together: the last Duke of Cambridge (Prince George, the son of Prince Adolphus, himself the son of George III) died more than 10 years before the first Marquise of Cambridge (Adolphus, Duke of Teck – Queen Mary of Teck’s brother, who was created Marquise of Cambridge in 1917, after relinquishing his German titles).

 

[lac2003]

England may not have shopped around for monarchs, but they didn't exactly follow the direct lines when Henry VII almost literally picked up the throne and when William III was invited to hop on over from Holland.
Aren't there something like 60 or 70 people who actually have a more direct claim to the British throne than Elizabeth II? (and this is from the Plantaganet claimants, not the branch from James II/VII)
Things will certainly be interesting if the Duke of Edinburgh dies before the Queen and Charles claims the title over the wishes of his mother. Queen Elizabeth doesn't strike me as the type who takes kindly to dissent in the ranks!

 

[branchg]

Apart from Cambridge, another Dukedom that was seriously considered for Edward was, I believe, of Sussex.

Just a theoretical question: could the “Dukedom” and “Marquisate” of Cambridge exist simultaneously? Both titles are extinct. Or are they essentially the same?
I know they never 'existed' together: the last Duke of Cambridge (Prince George, the son of Prince Adolphus, himself the son of George III) died more than 10 years before the first Marquise of Cambridge (Adolphus, Duke of Teck – Queen Mary of Teck’s brother, who was created Marquise of Cambridge in 1917, after relinquishing his German titles).

Yes, it can happen. Clarence was created as an Earldom for HRH The Prince Leopold in 1881, together with The Dukedom of Albany, and then Queen Victoria created it as a Dukedom, together with Avondale, for Prince Eddy in 1890.

 

[Marsel]

Thank you, branchg!

If William and Harry marry within the next few years, the Cambridge and Sussex Dukedoms will probably be among the most likely titles to be created for them.
It is quite a pity that so many other historical and important titles are now suspended though: neither used, nor available for re-creation!

 

[branchg]

I think it's very possible William and Harry will not be created Dukes if they marry while their grandmother is alive. In keeping with a more "modern" and downsized monarchy, she may choose to create them Earls, knowing Charles could elevate Harry to a dukedom once he is King (William will automatically become Duke of Cornwall).

If she does, I agree Cambridge or Sussex are strong possibilities, but they could also be created something entirely new as well.

 

[wbenson]

Things will certainly be interesting if the Duke of Edinburgh dies before the Queen and Charles claims the title over the wishes of his mother. Queen Elizabeth doesn't strike me as the type who takes kindly to dissent in the ranks!

In that circumstance, Charles will get the title regardless of his wishes or the wishes of the Queen. (I suppose he could disclaim it, but I don't see why he would do that. It wouldn't be available to be re-granted.)

 

[Iluvbertie]

England may not have shopped around for monarchs, but they didn't exactly follow the direct lines when Henry VII almost literally picked up the throne and when William III was invited to hop on over from Holland.
Aren't there something like 60 or 70 people who actually have a more direct claim to the British throne than Elizabeth II? (and this is from the Plantaganet claimants, not the branch from James II/VII)
Things will certainly be interesting if the Duke of Edinburgh dies before the Queen and Charles claims the title over the wishes of his mother. Queen Elizabeth doesn't strike me as the type who takes kindly to dissent in the ranks!

The Queen is fully aware of the Letters Patent that were used by her father to create her husband Duke of Edinburgh.

Namely that it would be inherited by the 'heirs male of his body'.

She hasn't changed the LPs (and would need an Act of Parliament to do so). She isn't about to deprive her eldest son of one of his rights - the right to inherit his own father's title.

The announcement at the time of Edward's marriage was very clear as seen in this report from the BBC at the time BBC NEWS | Special Report | 1999 | 06/99 | royal wedding | Wessex titles for Edward and Sophie

It has also been agreed that Edward will also become Duke of Edinburgh after the death of his mother, the Queen, and his father, Prince Philip, who currently holds the dukedom.

Note that this states that both Edward's parents have to die before he gets the Edinburgh title meaning that Charles will inherit it from his father and then regrant it to Edward. It will merge with the crown when Charles becomes King and both his parents are dead and until then it won't be available to Edward.


The Wikipedia article says the following: Duke of Edinburgh - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It was announced in 1999, at the time of the wedding of Prince Edward, Earl of Wessex, the youngest son of Queen Elizabeth and Prince Philip, that he would eventually follow his father as Duke of Edinburgh.[1] However, the process by which this might happen is not simple, and will almost certainly not involve Edward directly inheriting the title from his father. Like any normal dukedom, the present Dukedom of Edinburgh passes to the heirs-male of the first duke, and Edward is currently fifth in this line of succession, following his two older brothers and his two nephews.
Rather, when the present duke dies, the dukedom will be inherited by his eldest son, Charles, Prince of Wales (or his heir, if he is deceased). If Charles is not yet king when this occurs, he would add "Duke of Edinburgh, Earl of Merioneth and Baron Greenwich" to his own list of titles. Only after Charles (or his heir) has both inherited the title of Duke of Edinburgh and ascended the throne would the present creation merge in the crown.
Presuming that there is no intention to call a new creation of the Dukedom into being while the current remains active, then, Edward will not be created Duke of Edinburgh until after the death of both his parents. At that point in time the monarch of the day (although in no way legally bound to do so) will presumably carry out the announced scheme.

 

[Ella Kay]

I think it's very possible William and Harry will not be created Dukes if they marry while their grandmother is alive. In keeping with a more "modern" and downsized monarchy, she may choose to create them Earls, knowing Charles could elevate Harry to a dukedom once he is King (William will automatically become Duke of Cornwall).

If she does, I agree Cambridge or Sussex are strong possibilities, but they could also be created something entirely new as well.

This is a definite possibility after Edward's earldom. But I tend to think that William would get a dukedom anyway, because of his proximity to the throne, while Harry might get an earldom.

I like Cambridge for William, myself.

 

[lac2003]

"heirs male of his body"
In what century do these people live?!! And people wonder why the public feel that the royal family is out of touch with real life!!
Luckily, the average British person on the street couldn't care less who gets which title, except for King and Queen, and even there, people are pretty relaxed about things these days.
Dukes and the like only seem to matter to those who have a title, or would really like to have one.
How about Duke of St. Andrew for William and Duke of Sandhurst for Harry? Making new ones would take away all the possibilities of who had the title in the past and who could claim it now!
Even with a current Earl of St. Andrew, there are titles out there in both forms. The Duke of Sutherland and the Earl of Sutherland have been held by different people at the same time, so the precedent is there.
Gloucester and Kent look like they won't be back in the market anytime soon, and as people seem to think that Albany might be contested by someone in Germany (who has a Nazi sympathiser for an ancestor, charming), then I say, make a bunch of new ones and have fun with it!

 

[wbenson]

It's not up to the Queen to change that, though, so anyone who used that to make a determination that the royal family is out of touch with real life would be quite uninformed. (I know for certain that she can't amend letters patent already issued. I don't know if new ones issued in the future can be written so that they go to the oldest child regardless. I believe it would require an order-in-council (i.e. the permission of the government) to change this order, which sets out the form letters patent creating peers shall take.)

Edit: There is a note for the letters patent creating Dukes, stating "This form may be varied as required for the insertion of special remainders or any special grants directed by Her Majesty's commands," so she could, I believe, grant future peerages that are inherited without regard for sex. I don't think she would do this unless the throne was inherited in a like manner, though.

 

[branchg]

It's entirely up to The Sovereign as to whether a Peerage is created with a remainder to the female line. If originally created to pass through "heirs of male body", it can be re-created to include the female line, as Queen Victoria did with the Dukedom of Fife.

For example, The Queen could re-create The Dukedom of York to pass to her granddaughters, Beatrice and Eugenie, since it's unlikely that Andrew will remarry and have a son. If not, the Dukedom is extinct with Andrew's death.

 

[lac2003]

Does anyone really think that the Queen would ever consider changing the rules so that the York title would pass to either of Andrew's daughters? There was talk of quietly removing their HRH's at some point in the future, so I think the York title will pass from Andrew to whoever is 2nd in line to the throne when Andrew dies.