Royal Visit to the USA

[Bing]

But do they? All royal titles that have had a direct male heir have been inherited by that heir without a new creation in the Peerage. Only when there is none or the holder succeeds to the throne do they revert to the Sovereign.

For example the Dukes of Kent and of Gloucester inherited theirs (conferred upon them by their father George V) from their fathers. York did not because the previous holder became King (George VI) and he had no male heirs to begin with. Prince Andrew the current Duke of York has no male heirs either. Interestingly this title has never been passed on since 1474 as previous holders have either died without male issue of ended up succeeding to the throne.

I think McClef is on to something here. If one follows the traditional rules of male primogeniture as practiced by the British then there are clearly 4 individuals with a stronger claim than Edward to the title Edinburgh.

1) Charles
2) William
3) Harry
4) Andrew

In addition I also offer the situation with Edward VIII. He was already involved with Mrs. Simpson prior to George V's death, and Mrs. Simpson was clearly an impediment with 2 strikes against her (American and divorced). If his younger brother York was clearly preferable; married, father, by all accounts a decent man, then why was E-VIII allowed to become King? Why didn't G-V skip over the playboy with the unpleasant girlfriend for the more palatable younger brother?

I think the simple answer is that the British royal family doesn't behave like the Arabs and appoint heirs and crown princes willy-nilly. They follow the rules and traditions of male primogeniture and pass titles father to eldest son.

MoR, are there precedents for skipping legitimate male heirs in the succession to a title within the British nobility? I'm not trying to be pr*ck*sh in asking this question, it just seems that the current Edinburgh/Wessex situation seems to be far outside the normal parameters.