Royal Visit to the USA

[MacMillan of Rathdown]

When, in the fullness of time, HRH Prince Philip is laid to rest, Prince Edward will become the next Duke of Edinburgh, at which time he will undoubtedly take a more active interest in all things Scottish. Including, no doubt, trout fishing.

[O'Callaghan]

Not sure how I missed this thread. I'm almost tempted to make the trek from Maryland to the Carolinas. Almost, but perhaps not quite.

The Duke of Edinburgh's Awards are not only available through the Scouts. I did mine through the Air Training Corps, which is a youth organisation that is part of the RAF. I think the Civil Air Patrol that you have here in the US may be somewhat similar, although I have no personal experience of the CAP.

We did our 'expedition' for the Gold Award in the Derbyshire Peaks, and got caught in a blizzard, even though it was Easter. We weren't carrying the required number of tents. Our CO cheated by carrying most of our tents in his car, when they were supposed to be carried by us. If your highnesses happen to be reading this, it wasn't our idea to put most of the tents in the car!

So, when the blizzard came down, we couldn't shelter as we were supposed to have done, as we only had a single 2-man tent between a dozen of us, and had to keep walking, using a compass for dead reckoning, as we couldn't see where we were going atall. Mind you, when actually faced with the prospect of erecting a tent in a blizzard, the idea seems hopeless anyway.

ETA: Not only that, but it's all bogs every few feet, which tend to suck you down, and when you can't see for the snow it's easy to step in one, which some did, so we had to pull them out.

We cut across to a road (eventually) and got a ride in the back of an open lorry (truck). I reckon I had hypothermia, and I certainly wasn't the only one, but the two eldest lads didn't seem to be as badly affected as the rest of us, and it was them who did the compass readings and the map reading. I don't think my mind stayed clear enough in that cold to do much but follow them out of there, so I'm not sure where I would have been without them.

ETA: It occurred to me that some will ask why we weren't dressed warmly enough, but it was a sunny spring day until it started snowing and the wind came up.

I received my Gold Award from Prince Phillip himself at Buckingham Palace. However, I think nowadays they are presented in local ceremonies by the Lord Lieutenant of the particular county (someone whose entire job appears to be performing ceremonies, and who dresses something like a police chief!).

I have told the following story in another thread, and probably other places too, but I can't resist it. When you go to Buckingham Palace as a guest you can bring a camera, but you can only take pictures when you are in the inner courtyard, where you are still out of doors, but you can't be seen by the public who are outside the gates. As a teenager, oh so long ago, I took my mother with me to the palace as my '***', i.e. the invitation allowed be to bring one other person. We had to enter by a side entrance, but we had to exit through the main gates in the front.

So, I walked out first, while mum dawdled behind on purpose, and then I was able to snap a picture of her standing on the parade ground in front of the palace through the open main gates, with no railings in between. A moment later, a coach ('tour bus' in American) full of Japanese tourists rolled up at the kerb, and they all jumped out and took pictures of my mum standing in front of Buckingham Palace! We still jest that they thought she was the Queen, LOL!

I would be half inclined to go to the games, as I doubt that there would be many other attendees at any US event who could wear the Duke of Edinburgh's Gold Award. OTOH, the likelihood of finding some way to meet Prince Edward would seem to be pretty slim.

As for the anti-royalty comments, I can understand, but as Jock says, there are different ways to express things. I can see the sense in abolishing the monarchy, even, but the present royals mean well, and do a lot of actual good, such as the Duke of Edinburgh's Award scheme itself.

Although I'm a Londoner originally, I'm Irish on my mother's side, and I do mean Irish of the Southern, Catholic, Gaelic variety (otherwise I'd hardly be posting under this user name), so I can even genuinely sympathise with some anti-British comments, provided they come from groups that were actually oppressed by the British, such as the Irish, and unless they are directed at me personally!

[Bing]

When, in the fullness of time, HRH Prince Philip is laid to rest, Prince Edward will become the next Duke of Edinburgh, at which time he will undoubtedly take a more active interest in all things Scottish. Including, no doubt, trout fishing.

Although that is currently the announced plan, it is not by any means a given.

Prince Charles, as Prince Philip's eldest son, will inherit the title. When Charles becomes King the title Edinburgh will merge in the Crown. It will be up to Charles or his heir William to issue Letters Patent to create a second Duke of Edinburgh for Edward. The alternative is that Charles refuses and Edinburgh becomes one of the subsidiary titles of the Heir Apparent.

[McClef]

Yes, as like all Duchies, the title goes to the eldest male heir and Edward is lower in line of succession to the title than Charles and also Andrew and also of their male descendants.

It would not be a second creation of the title if it merged into the Crown when Charles becomes King but at least a fourth creation of the title if it were then to be bestowed upon Edward.

There are other, available, currently extinct Royal Duchies which could also be revived such as the Duchy of Clarence.

However given the fame and respect that the Duke of Edinburgh awards have achieved it is likely that this title would be the one that would be preserved before any other.

[MacMillan of Rathdown]

Although that is currently the announced plan, it is not by any means a given.

Prince Charles, as Prince Philip's eldest son, will inherit the title.

Possibly, but that is by no means a given. All royal titles revert to the sovereign, who then determines what, if any, destination of that title will be allowed.

When Charles becomes King the title Edinburgh will merge in the Crown. It will be up to Charles or his heir William to issue Letters Patent to create a second Duke of Edinburgh for Edward. The alternative is that Charles refuses and Edinburgh becomes one of the subsidiary titles of the Heir Apparent.

This line of argument presupposes that (1) the present Duke of Edinburgh outlives Her Majesty, and (2) that the letters patent creating HRH Prince Edward Duke of Edinburgh have not already received Royal Assent. As it was announced at the time when HRH Prince Edward received the title of Earl of Wessex that he would succeed his father as Duke of Edinburgh; I suspect, as they say in Ireland, that "the fix is in".

[McClef]

Possibly, but that is by no means a given. All royal titles revert to the sovereign, who then determines what, if any, destination of that title will be allowed.

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.

This line of argument presupposes that (1) the present Duke of Edinburgh outlives Her Majesty, and (2) that the letters patent creating HRH Duke of Edinburgh have not already received Royal Assent. As it was announced at the time when HRH Prince Edward received the title of Earl of Wessex that he would succeed his father as Duke of Edinburgh I suspect, as they say in Ireland, that "the fix is in".

There may be another "fix" but this one would be rather off topic

[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.

[McClef]

I expect that the concepts of male preference primogeniture can be difficult to grasp in societies where ranks and titles are unknown.

The mechanics can indeed be confusing at first but so often they have had an effect upon history. It is rare that this practice is overruled unless it is by act or parliament under circumstances which are considered justified.

The Monarch creates a royal dukedom by letters patent and confers it upon a male member of the royal family (this is called a Creation). If that person then has male heirs the elder inherits the title unless he predeceases the next eldest brother and has died without male issue. If there are no entitled male descendants then that dukedom reverts to the Crown. Where a royal duke actually succeeds to the throne the title they held reverts to the Crown because even though they may have male heirs, the eldest Son would then qualify for the higher title of Prince of Wales. This title is not hereditary in the automatic sense and must be conferred by letters patent each time. Prince Charles, for example, was known only as Duke of Cornwall from his mother's accession in 1952 until when he was created Prince of Wales in 1958.

So as Bing says, Prince Edward is only fourth in line to the Duchy of Edinburgh. But because the first heir (Charles) would become the Monarch both the Dukedoms of Cornwall and Edinburgh would then revert. It would be more or less automatic that William would then be given both the titles of Prince of Wales and Duke of Cornwall but Edinburgh would then be up for a new creation by letters patent.

The "third son" argument put forward by MOR is different to previous practice. The last King that had so many male children was George III and his third son was created Duke of Clarence (a rare example of a third son becoming a Monarch - King William IV). It was Queen Victoria who created her second son Alfred as Duke of Edinburgh rather than Duke of York which was a break with previous tradition. Nor is the "second son as Duke of York" anything new nor anything to do with "pleasing the Queen Mother." Second sons of the Monarch have been Dukes of York for centuries with this one exception that I can think of.

To answer Bing's question from a royal title point of view I can think of one example. George III's fifth son Ernest Augustus was created Duke of Cumberland (last held by the one of Culloden). Upon the death of William IV he became King of Hanover because Victoria was disbarred by that kingdom's Salic law and he was then then eldest surviving legitimate male in the Hanoverian line.

The Duchy of Cumberland remained in his family even though it could be argued that it ceased to be a royal title after he (as the son of a British Monarch) and his son (as the grandson of one) had died. His grandson, the third Duke, was deprived of the title by act of parliament in 1917 for being, as a German, an enemy of Great Britain during World War I

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Titles_...ation_Act_1917

Edward could have been given various royal dukedoms that are currently in abeyance such as Clarence or Sussex or Cambridge rather than being made Earl of Wessex so it would appear fairly clear that Edinburgh is earmarked for him once it becomes available.

With that in mind it is even more appropriate for him to be kilted when he visits the USA on this occasion!

[MacMillan of Rathdown]

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

This is true only insofar as succession to the throne is concerned. Setting aside Princes William and Henry who have been given no subsidiary titles, Andrew has been given the dukedom of York, previously the property of his grandfather King George VI, Duke of York. This did not pass to his elder brother, who was passed over as the nearest heir male, but rather the title "Duke of York" was settled upon Prince Andrew at the time of his marriage.

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?

Edward VIII wasn't married to Mrs. Simpson at the time his father died, hence he automatically became king. Had he married Mrs. Simpson while still Prince of Wales then several possibilities existed, the two most likely being:
(1) The king could have declared the PoW out of the line of succession and the crown would have passed to the king's second son, the Duke of York;
(2) The marriage could have been declared morganatic, and Mrs. Edward Windsor (or, perhaps, Mrs. Edward Wales), much like the morganatic wife of William IV, would have had no role in the royal family.

Why didn't G-V skip over the playboy with the unpleasant girlfriend for the more palatable younger brother?

George V seems to have been a strong willed, rather domineering individual, who, by some accounts, was disappointed in all four of his sons: Edward, Prince of Wales, was seen as overly self-indulgent; Albert (the Duke of York and future George VI) was painfully shy, suffered from a very bad stammer, and wanted nothing more than to be more-or-less left alone; George, Duke of Kent, led a very louche existence which many would have found totally unsuited to a monarch, while Henry, Duke of Gloucester, was-- it is perhaps uncharitably said-- thick as two planks nailed together. Also, and this is important to remember, the issues surrounding Mrs. Simpson only came to be of cataclysmic importance after HRH the Prince of Wales became king.

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.

Solomonic succession, where by the reigning monarch chooses his successor from a qualified group of closely related males-- which is very similar to the ancient Scots-Irish system of tanistry-- may be different than the custom of primogeniture of Western Europe, but I don't think it can accurately be characterized as "willy-nilly".

MoR, are there precedents for skipping legitimate male heirs in the succession to a title within the British nobility?

Yes. Two immediately come to mind regarding the Stuart succession to the British crown, when the legitimate heir-male was passed over for reasons of religion. If that's not "willy-nilly" I don't know what is!

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.

Well, in one regard it is outside the norm, because royal titles are different than ordinary titles. That said, there are many examples of British titles passing from father to daughter (Mountbatten), passing to a junior cadet of a family through the female line (Antrim) and skipping generations (Kildare). Some of these may have involved some sort of jiggry-pokery, but most were accomplished by petition to the sovereign, who, as the font of all honours, can assign titles to whomsoever she pleases, by her own mere motion.

[Bing]

This is true only insofar as succession to the throne is concerned. Setting aside Princes William and Henry who have been given no subsidiary titles, Andrew has been given the dukedom of York, previously the property of his grandfather King George VI, Duke of York. This did not pass to his elder brother, who was passed over as the nearest heir male, but rather the title "Duke of York" was settled upon Prince Andrew at the time of his marriage.

But that isn't how it happened, is it? Upon E-VIII's abdication York became G-VI and the York title merged in the crown. Andrew did not inherit York but rather is a separate eighth creation.