Talk:Duke of Edinburgh

Dates of additional titles

In the list of Dukes, the dates that follow the additional titles are a mix of

1. the date the title was created,

2. the date the holder inherited the title,

3. when the holder was known by that title.

From similar lists elsewhere it looks like the first option is the one most generally used on Wikipedia so I propose to change all dates to match that. --Mgp28 (talk) 16:54, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

I've made the dates consistent as those when each title was created but I'm not sure that's the most helpful.

It might be more useful to list the subsidiary titles that were part of the same creation at the top of each section as they will be common to all members of the table, then for individuals just list the highest titles they hold from different creations with both the date they gained the title and when it was created.

I've put an example of how this might work here [1]. It might also be useful to get a wider discussion to see if these tables should be made more consistent across Wikipedia. --Mgp28 (talk) 18:32, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

User:Tamfang, I've just seen in the Talk archive that you made a similar comment last year. Do you think the current version[2] is a suitable solution? --Mgp28 (talk) 18:44, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

fine with me —Tamfang (talk) 19:16, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

Edward

Now that the title has merged in the Crown, if Prince Edward is granted the title (in accordance with speculation) will that be the fourth creation of the tile? 104.153.40.58 (talk) 22:52, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

Yes, I think so. Dhtwiki (talk) 01:26, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

If the title merged with the crown.Can be the sovereign become the Duke of Edinburgh?

There are sources saying that the dukedom of Edinburgh lies with the king,can we just cross out the extinction date as it was not extinct. Him9 (talk) 09:44, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

It has ceased to exist, it is no longer a dukedom, it is no more. That's what merger in the Crown means. DeCausa (talk) 16:36, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

That's merging with the ground. A more relevant link might be Hereditary_peer#Merging_in_the_Crown. Dhtwiki (talk) 06:34, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

The holder of a peerage is a vassal of the monarch, and the monarch cannot be his own vassal. That is the theory in Britain and France, though it seems not in some other states such as Spain and the Netherlands, whose monarchs have numerous lesser titles older than the kingdom. —Tamfang (talk) 03:30, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

Inheritability

There's nothing in the cited source (royal.uk) that says that the title will not be inherited by Edward's heirs, so I have deleted that line from the article. Rojomoke (talk) 10:39, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

I've added a BBC source for it. But it's unclear to me how this is legally possible, as the Life Peerages Act 1958 does not allow for non-hereditary Dukedoms, only Baronies.2A01:599:218:9AD7:247F:50ED:BBEF:B7FB (talk) 12:10, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

@2A01:599:218:9AD7:247F:50ED:BBEF:B7FB Presumably they can do it by adding a special remainder to that effect in the letters patent. It's unprecedented, but presumably not impossible HIGHFIELDS (TALK) 12:58, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

There have been several life dukedoms in the past. In Scotland it was once usual, when a peeress in her own right married someone of lower rank, to give him a title matching hers for life. At least one royal mistress was made a duchess for life. —Tamfang (talk) 06:16, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

Make that at least two. —Tamfang (talk) 07:09, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

royal.uk doesn't directly say it is a life peerage, and under current rules it can not be done without a act of parliament and still gazette is not issued. Chamika1990 (talk) 12:16, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

It's true that a peerage, once created, cannot be modified but by act of Parliament; but in creating it the Crown can constrain or expand the succession nearly whatever way it likes, by replacing the usual formula "the heirs of his body lawfully begotten" in the document creating the title. —Tamfang (talk) 06:24, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

I'm sure all our questions will be answered in time. But regarding the legality, if the letters patent omit the phrase "and the heirs male of his body lawfully begotten" then it simply won't be inherited? The creation of the Earl of Burma shows that the King can deviate from the usual formula without an Act of Parliament. --Mgp28 (talk) 13:00, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

In 1726 George I has not used the phrase "heirs male of his body lawfully betton" to create his grandson Frederick, Duke of Edinburgh. But we can see from other sources that later that Frederick's son inherited the title as of default remainder. The King can deviate remainder at the time of creation. But can not be changed once created. Chamika1990 (talk) 02:32, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

I agree with your view on this. The Sovereign is open to all sorts of variations in the way a peerage title may be inherited, either by the usual way you mention, or indeed opening the succession to females (such was the case with the Earldom of Mountbatten of Burma). Even more variations can be seen in the creation of the Dukedom of Marlborough, which makes this title unlikely to become extinct. Either way, it does not require an Act of Parliament to vary the way a peerage may be inherited or not.Ds1994 (talk) 13:12, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

For a wilder variation in succession, see Earl of Selkirk. —Tamfang (talk) 06:35, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

Life Peerages existed even before 1958, although they were usually granted to females, and as others have said, the key is what the remainder of the peerage is. The last time that this was done was in the mid-19th century to create Baron Wensleydale, although a dispute over his right to sit in the Lords meant that an entirely notional hereditary peerage was then conferred (he had no sons to inherit in any case). I see no reason that a creation for his lifetime only would be irregular, as the effect of the 1958 Act was NOT to allow for Life Peerages, but to allow life peers created under that Act to sit in the Lords (overturning the Wensleydale precedent). As such, it appears that this will be a life peerage that does NOT carry a right to sit in the Lords. 213.105.55.131 (talk) 13:34, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

Also agreed. I think I can also recall some instances in the later medieval period where peerages were awarded for life only. I can't recall the exact titles involved but the principle remains the same. So it seems that creating life peerages of any of the five ranks of nobility are entirely possible. On a more practical level it does solve the problem of any proliferation of royal dukedoms in the second generation, and subsequent non royal dukedoms in future generations.Ds1994 (talk) 13:42, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

Interesting. Would this be the first time a Royal Ducal title couldn't be inherited by a legitimate son? GoodDay (talk) 01:05, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

I think, in 1937 former King Edward VIII created Duke of Windsor in same manner even without subsidiary titles. There was no letters patent issued in normal manner with remainder. As he has no children it was not a case Chamika1990 (talk) 03:22, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

That's very interesting; if you can confirm, do add it to our article Duke of Windsor, which now says, "As the Duke died without issue, the title became extinct upon his death." —Tamfang (talk) 06:30, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

2023 creation

I think the fourth creation has already been officially created, so it should be unnecessary to use "was expected" because it has now been officially created.2401:E180:8871:8D1D:9E99:A860:99DB:E895 (talk) 02:41, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

You're right. I think the only reason it was reverted was because you didn't rewrite the sentence properly as it said "It that a new, fourth creation...". DDMS123 (talk) 02:50, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

I guess the sentence is saying that it was expected he would be made Duke of Edinburgh in 2022 (after the accession) not in 2023. DDMS123 (talk) 02:51, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

After King Charles iii came to the throne, another creation has already happened, still need to keep "was expected" ? 2401:E180:8871:8D1D:9E99:A860:99DB:E895 (talk) 02:59, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

I would say not. I often delete passages about announcements that something was going to happen in the past. —Tamfang (talk) 06:38, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

my english is not very good can you help rewrite the sentence 2401:E180:8871:8D1D:9E99:A860:99DB:E895 (talk) 02:55, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

I reorganised the paragraph and made it say "After the dukedom reverted to the Crown when King Charles III acceded to the throne in late 2022, it was expected that a new, fourth creation would be bestowed on Prince Edward in that same year." DDMS123 (talk) 02:58, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

comprehend Thx 2401:E180:8871:8D1D:9E99:A860:99DB:E895 (talk) 03:03, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

I checked the previous edit of this paragraph and it was saying that it was expected to be created again after Charles III came to the throne.

That's why I removed "was expected" because the expectation has officially happened 2401:E180:8871:8D1D:9E99:A860:99DB:E895 (talk) 03:19, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

Do you want me to just remove the whole sentence? DDMS123 (talk) 03:22, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

I just want to delete the meaning of "was expected" without deleting the whole sentence. 2401:E180:8871:8D1D:9E99:A860:99DB:E895 (talk) 03:29, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

How about combining the two paragraphs together? - "Approximately six months after the dukedom reverted to the Crown when Charles III acceded to the throne, on 10 March 2023, the title was created a fourth time and bestowed on Prince Edward. The title will be held by Prince Edward for his lifetime as a non-hereditary peerage title." DDMS123 (talk) 03:37, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

OK 2401:E180:8875:7E6:8F78:2336:707B:CD88 (talk) 03:44, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for helping to modify. Thx 2401:E180:8872:3152:6DAB:57DC:6BB2:7D5 (talk) 05:21, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

I found out that a lot of stuff has been added since yesterday's discussion. 2401:E180:8832:E09C:1F4A:38F:FF11:C4C0 (talk) 04:03, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

I wouldn't dwell too much on the speculations before Edward was created Duke of Edinburgh. Though I must admit the speculations that the title was gonna be saved for Prince William's daughter, was definitely far-fetched. GoodDay (talk) 19:51, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

I've noticed that this section has been augmented quite a bit in the last few hours 2401:E180:8832:E09C:1F4A:38F:FF11:C4C0 (talk) 04:07, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

it would be more likely given to her future husband rather than Charlotte herself. But to be honest Charlotte is a likely candidate for the next Princess Royal King4852 (talk) 11:51, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

Do we need to adjust the text of this paragraph? adjust the sentence. 2401:E180:8831:924:41D3:C124:22B2:9E49 (talk) 16:18, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

As noted, the text for the 2023 creation has expanded considerably. Most of the information is derived from the source article provided from the Daily Telegraph. Much of this is speculative with regard to the Dukedom being granted to Princess Charlotte, and surely inaccurate when it suggests the title should 'technically' be granted next to the Duke of York? The section for the 2023 creation needs to be trimmed down at least for the sake of brevity, and to remove those elements of speculation.Ds1994 (talk) 19:36, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

yes i think the same as you. 61.216.108.175 (talk) 02:10, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

I also agree that part of the guesswork needs to be removed. 2401:E180:8831:DECD:6352:9705:5BC7:79C (talk) 02:19, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

It is fine as it is. DDMS123 (talk) 03:55, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

I think some form of consensus should be reached on this. If the information is factual and relevant then fair enough, but much of the added content is, as mentioned before, derived from speculative article from a UK newspaper. I thought the purpose of Wikipedia is to provide factual information, and not speculation? There is no substantive proof that Princess Charlotte would be offered the Dukedom of Edinburgh. Neither is it correct in the article that the Duke of York should be granted another Dukedom simply because of his place in the succession to the Throne? However I agree no changes should be made until consensus is reached.Ds1994 (talk) 16:56, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

Agreed DDMS123 (talk) 18:17, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

I think it is fair to say there was uncertainty / speculation about whether the Dukedom would go to Edward, but I think we should be careful not to stray into adding to that speculation. I haven't been past the paywall, but the opening sentences of this article seems to refer to unnamed "insiders" and "according to reports", so might not necessarily be highly reliable. Until last week there was a sentence

Clarence House stated that "all stories of this nature are speculation, no final decisions have been taken" and declined to comment further.

I would suggest reinstating something like this so we would have

1. Some detail about what was said at the time of Prince Edward's wedding
2. That a lot of time had passed and people didn't know for sure what would happen
3. Actual details of the fourth creation --Mgp28 (talk) 19:48, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

Also, the text about it being non-hereditary so that William can confer it on one of his children seems very speculative, both in terms of the reason for Charles' decision and the possible future plans of a possible future king. --Mgp28 (talk) 19:56, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

Agree with your suggestions above. Perhaps posting the revised text here and if consensus is reached revise the article?Ds1994 (talk) 15:38, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

Ok, how about something like:

When Prince Edward was married in 1999, he was created Earl of Wessex rather than receiving a dukedom as is typically given to sons of the monarch. It was announced that he would eventually be granted the Dukedom of Edinburgh when that title reverted to the Crown. This plan had been suggested by his father Prince Philip, then holder of the title, who unexpectedly conveyed this wish to Edward and his then-fiancée, Sophie Rhys-Jones, only days before their wedding.

When Prince Philip died in April 2021 his dukedom was inherited by his eldest son, Prince Charles. By this time Edward had moved to 14th in the line of succession to the British throne (from 7th at the time of his wedding). He described the prospect of becoming Duke of Edinburgh as "a pipe dream of my father's," and in July 2021 The Times reported that Charles had decided he would not give the title to his brother. Clarence House responded, "All stories of this nature are speculation, no final decisions have been taken," and declined to comment further.

In September 2022 Charles became king and the title merged in the crown. There was further speculation regarding whether the title would go to Edward, with suggestions that it might be saved for someone higher in the line of succession, such as Princess Charlotte of Wales.

On 10 March 2023, Prince Edward's 59th birthday, he was granted the Dukedom of Edinburgh as a non-hereditary title. Edward will therefore be the only duke of this fourth creation.

I am very inclined to stop here. We already know Charles plans to scale back the size of the monarchy and that the Edinburghs have chosen to raise their children without royal titles. Either of these could just as easily be the reason for the non-hereditary title as a planned fifth creation. Until we have a source that tells us which is the case, I believe we should leave it alone. --Mgp28 (talk) 17:01, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

That looks good to me. The information is concise with just a brief mention of some of the speculation alluded to. I hope others concur especially those who contributed to the section.Ds1994 (talk) 20:23, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

I agree 2401:E180:8822:869D:5766:BEB4:1D83:BC9A (talk) 04:14, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

I agree with you that this matter is full of uncertainty and there is no reliable information to prove it. The whole thing is still in the speculation stage.

Whether this event will happen in the future is full of high uncertainties. 2401:E180:8820:9C44:5F2D:1467:A958:740E (talk) 09:59, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

@GoodDay:

@Surtsicna:

DDMS123 (talk) 04:28, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for pinging me! First I want to point out that that The Daily Telegraph is not The Daily Mail. The former is one of the most reputable publications in the United Kingdom and finest media sources on British royal family; the latter is a deprecated tabloid.

Secondly, we should put aside our own ideas of what should be accurate. That Andrew might be granted the Dukedom of Edinburgh was something Edward himself said he had expected in an interview with the author of the source article. The interview is not mentioned in our article, but it is in the cited source.

The Earl is almost apologetic as he admits that ‘theoretically’ the title should go to the Duke of York. ‘It’s a very bittersweet role to take on because the only way the title can come to me is after both my parents have actually passed away,’ he explains. ‘It has to go back to the Crown first. ‘My father was very keen that the title should continue, but he didn’t quite move quickly enough with Andrew, so it was us who he eventually had the conversation with. It was a lovely idea; a lovely thought.’

Though the bit about Charlotte (or a sibling of hers) being candidates for the title is far less clear-cut than a proper interview with Edward himself, it still comes from a reliable source. The author, Camilla Tominey, was nominated at The Press Awards for her reports on the British royal family.[3]

As it stands now, the last paragraph of the section does not state that the reason Edward's title is not hereditary is to allow it to be eventually granted to a child of William's; it merely states that it not being hereditary makes the regrant possible, which is no speculation at all. I propose that, if the November reports about the dukedom being saved for Charlotte should be axed, this bit be saved as a compromise. This article is about the title after all, so indisputable information about its future seems relevant to me. Surtsicna (talk) 06:28, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

Thanks also for the information provided, particularly the background to the idea of the Dukedom of Edinburgh being awarded to Prince Andrew. I must say that is a really surprising suggestion, and I'm not sure if this has been done before? Either way as you say there is a reliable source for it so it should be included.Ds1994 (talk) 11:50, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply.

Regarding Andrew becoming Duke of Edinburgh, our text currently seems to imply that Edward had expected in 1999 that the title would go to his brother. Re-reading the interview above, I now think he meant that if they had had this idea of recreating the title for one of Prince Philip's sons sooner, they would have planned it for Andrew rather than for Edward. "He didn’t quite move quickly enough with Andrew" meaning that he wouldn't be created Duke of Edinburgh once he was already Duke of York. Is this your interpretation?

In the final paragraph I am most uncomfortable with "...making it possible for Charles's heir-apparent, Prince William, to confer it on one of his children". The ages of everyone involved makes it most likely that William would be king when the title becomes available again but that isn't certain. Also, the future re-creation could be for anyone, not just one of Prince William's children. And the phrasing almost seems to suggest that being able to create a Duke of Edinburgh is the important honour that's being saved. How about something like

This fourth creation of the title is not hereditary. This honours Prince Philip's wish and rewards the new Duke and Duchess, but allows for the title to be re-created for another core member of the royal family in the future.

? --Mgp28 (talk) 08:13, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

Concerning royal duekdoms. I didn't know those titles could be given to women. So, that's why I didn't take the Charlotte story seriously. GoodDay (talk) 10:26, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

References

Agreed. I've taken a look at the previous creations of Royal Dukedoms, and I don't think it's ever been awarded to a woman. As noted previously the expected title for Princess Charlotte will be Princess Royal, as and when it becomes available.Ds1994 (talk) 11:50, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

Subsidiary titles

Should the titles, Earl of Wessex, Earl of Forfar and Viscount Severn be included as subsidiary titles of the dukedom of Edinburgh? Usually upon the granting of a more senior title, existing lower titles become subsidiary titles. An example is Arthur Wellesley, 1st Duke of Wellington. He was originally styled as Earl of Wellington, then Marquess of Wellington. When he became a duke, that earldom became a subsidiary title of Duke of Wellington. DDMS123 (talk) 04:59, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

I looked at the pages Duke of York & Duke of Albany (for examples) & they have the subsidiary titles within the infoboxes of each title holder. GoodDay (talk) 05:07, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, almost every dukedom contains subsidiary titles in the infobox. I only started this discussion because some people keep removing it, so I am trying to gain a talk page consensus. DDMS123 (talk) 05:13, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

If the rest have'em, then consistency is best. GoodDay (talk) 05:25, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

Agreed DDMS123 (talk) 05:27, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

Usually after granted a senior title others become subsidiary titles, it is correct.

But just mention them under "Fourth Creation" as "Also : Earl of Wessex, Earl of Forfar, Viscount Servern" is not accurate and could be incorrectly understood by some one not familiar. Those titles are earlier created and can be inherited by Duke's heirs male.

So it is better to indicate them under "Duke" column as also [title] [year of creation]. And alter bottom line as "The dukedom will be held for Prince Edward’s lifetime, and other titles will be passed to his heirs male upon his death" Chamika1990 (talk) 05:49, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

So are you proposing something like this? DDMS123 (talk) 05:59, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

Duke	Portrait	Birth	Marriage(s)	Death
Prince Edward 2023–present House of Windsor also: Earl of Wessex (1999), Earl of Forfar (2019), Viscount Severn (1999)		10 March 1964 Buckingham Palace, London Son of Queen Elizabeth II and Prince Philip	Sophie Rhys-Jones 19 June 1999 2 children	Living
The dukedom will be held for Prince Edward’s lifetime as a non-hereditary peerage title.

DDMS123 (talk) 05:59, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

Yes, bottom line should be like

"The dukedom will be reverted to crown on death of Prince Edward as created non-hereditary, other titles will be passed to his heirs (male) " Chamika1990 (talk) 06:11, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

I only changed the 'Duke' column because I'm not sure if your proposed changes to the bottom line are suitable for this article as it is the article for the dukedom. For example, when Charles was the duke, it didn't say in the bottom line that the duke of Cornwall title was going to be granted to the heir to the throne once he becomes king. DDMS123 (talk) 06:26, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

Extinction of a peerage is not usually described as "reversion to the crown". —Tamfang (talk) 23:39, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

You're right, a title reverting (or merging) to the Crown only occurs when the title holder succeeds to the position of monarch. If the title holder dies without issue, the peerage goes extinct. DDMS123 (talk) 08:17, 15 March 2023 (UTC)