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.

[MacMillan of Rathdown]

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.

Actually this is really simple, although somewhat arcane. For the benefit of those readers who are more concerned about collecting their laundry than the destination of royal titles, let me explain.

While all British titles emanate from the Sovereign, those held by members of the royal family are treated differently than the others. This all dates from the reign of George V, who (during WWI) limited the use of the HRH prefix, and who also limited the use of the title "prince/princess", amongst other things.

Within the royal family there are some titles which attach themselves to the Sovereign and the sovereign's successors. These are, in effect, the subsidiary titles of the monarch. The children of a sovereign are, at birth, princes and princesses and the sovereign may-- or may not-- grant them a subsidiary title. The grandchildren of a sovereign are also princes and princesses and, if their parent has a subsidiary title (such as Duke of Kent or Duke of Gloucester) then that is the title they will inherit, along with the prefix of HRH. However, the great grandchildren of a sovereign are not considered "royal" and the HRH prefix is dropped, unless it is allowed by the reigning monarch. In the instance of titles specifically created for the children of a sovereign these transmit from one generation to the next in the same way "non-royal" titles are transmitted.

Which brings us to the Dukedom of Edinburgh. This was created anew especially for HRH Prince Philip as a form of "compensation" for his having had to resign all of his foreign titles when he married Princess Elizabeth, heir apparent to the the British crown. It was obvious that, should they have children, the eldest son would inherit the crown and all of the royal subsidiary titles (such as Duke of Normandy), and any other sons would have to be provided for by the creation of newly created royal dukedoms. It was decided, to favour the Queen Mother (whose husband, the king, had been Duke of York at the time of their marriage), that a second son would be given the Dukedom of York, and that a third son would be given... Edinburgh, which was then, as now, the property of HRH Prince Philip.

The not so recent "announcement" that HRH Prince Edward, Earl of Wessex, would accede to the Dukedom of Edinburgh at sometime in the future was merely a public confirmation of that fact.

Now, let me see... did by blue suit come back from the laundry yet?

[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.

[Jock Scot]

I really hope that I am wrong, but my shilling is on the "he won't be wearing the kilt" school of thought.

[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.

[McClef]

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.

William and Henry are in no hurry for additional titles - in fact William didn't even want to be addressed as "your royal highness" whilst he was studying at St Andrews. When and if they get married it is likely that then they would be given subsidiary titles like Andrew and Edward were when they tied the knot.

I'm not sure that "property" is the correct word in this respect. Nor am I sure what you mean by the "elder brother who was passed over as the nearest heir male." York reverted to the Crown because of the Duke of York succeeded his brother Edward VIII following the Abdication and he then created Edward as Duke of Windsor. It could not given to Henry of Gloucester nor George of Kent as they were not the sons of the holder to that point, but his brothers.

Having mentioned Victoria's unusual giving of a title other than York to her second son (Alfred Duke of Edinburgh) I remembered she then created her grandson George Duke of York later on - he was a second son but of the then Prince of Wales and had not been expected to succeed until his elder brother Albert Edward Victor, Duke of Clarence and Avondale died.

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.

It is extremely dubious that the king would have had the power to declare his eldest son to be out of succession upon his own authority no matter how much he preferred the Duke of York. Many kings had not got on well with their heirs and had other favourite sons (George II preferred William Duke of Cumberland to his son Frederick Prince of Wales for example). It would have required an act of parliament to change the succession.

A morganatic arrangement had in fact been suggested but rejected by Baldwin and his Cabinet as Constitutionally impossible.

And who is this "morganatic wife of William IV"? He was married to Adelaide of Saxe-Meiningen who became his Queen. Are you confusing her with his previous mistress Dorothea Jordan with whom he had had 10 illegitimate children?

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.

There is his famous quote "I pray God that he may never marry and that nothing will come between Bertie, Lilibet and the throne." He considered that Albert had made a very suitable choice of wife and was enchanted by her, tolerating things such as her lateness that he never would in anyone else.

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.

Yes indeed the Monarch can grant petitions of this nature but these titles are not connected with the immediate royal family and most likely when the only alternative would be extinction of the title. They are not ones which are the property of the Crown as the royal titles are.

[MacMillan of Rathdown]

Yes indeed the Monarch can grant petitions of this nature but these titles are not connected with the immediate royal family and most likely when the only alternative would be extinction of the title. They are not ones which are the property of the Crown as the royal titles are.

All titles are derived from the sovereign who may, if so moved, deprive a subject of their title. In that regard all titles are property of the crown.

[Jock Scot]

All titles are derived from the sovereign who may, if so moved, deprive a subject of their title. In that regard all titles are property of the crown.

Correct me if I am wrong, but I think that one of the Kings of Scotland decided to take back the "Lord of the Isles" title from one of the MacDonalds. I think the Duke of Rothesay has it now.

[thescot]

I was actually taught the basics of primogeniture by Mrs. Mobbs, my teacher in the 3rd grade. (That was back when they really tried to educate in publc schools in the US)

But all this detail about the passing and creating of titles is quite fascinating. Thank you, gentlemen, for a stimulating bit of repartee. Those of us who are not so familiar with the topic are finding a true education here.

BTW, I'll take Jock's bet. I'll bet the first dram of whisky when he comes over--or when I go over, which ever comes first--that HRH is kilted in Greenville. If the good Lord's willin' and the creek don't rise, I'll be there to take photos. It's only about a 2 hour drive from here.

I have no inside info, but I do love a good wager, and it'll add some anticipation. Besides, who wouldn't want to share a drink with another curmudgeon? I might get to see his bonnet up close and personal.