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.

[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.

[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.

[McClef]

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.

I used "property" as meaning inimical to or residing with the Crown.

The Monarch is the "fount of honour" but confers honours for the most part upon the recommendation of the Prime Minister, only a very few such as the Garter or the Thistle are within their own personal gift.

Nowadays new honours are conferred upon an individual for their lifetime only and have no inheritance value. The only two exceptions to this that I know of in the last quarter century were the bestowal of a Viscountcy upon George Thomas (who had no heirs anyway) and a Baronetcy upon Dennis Thatcher which was then inherited by his son Mark,

Removal of an honour, once given, is extremely rare and can take a long time and even then the Monarch does not do this on their own initiative but upon the recommendation of a committee.

In the case of all those titles that were conferred at some point in the past that did have an inheritance value (and there are indeed many as the thickness of the volumes of Burke's Peerage shows) the Monarch would indeed be extremely rarely involved after Creation. The title was given as a gift and any deprivation (such as for treason) would not be of the title but of the individual holding it and the title would then go to the next in line. That might not happen in the lifetime of the person who had held the title, however.

There were changes made regarding those who were MPs who then inherited a hereditary peerage but this was not at the instigation of the Monarch but by Parliament. The fact that Tony Benn disclaimed his hereditary Peerage did not in itself end the Viscountcy of Stansgate. It is in abeyance during his lifetime but upon his demise his son Hilary would then inherit that title and then have to decide what to do with it. However as peers of the realm are no longer automatically entitled to sit in the Lords they no longer have to disclaim a title to remain in the Commons. There are at least three Peers who are MPs currently.

Non royal titles may become extinct but they do not revert to the Crown in the same way that royal titles do.

[MacMillan of Rathdown]

Non royal titles may become extinct but they do not revert to the Crown in the same way that royal titles do.

This has gotten waaaay off topic, but... Actually all titles do revert to the sovereign, because the only way that they can be "revived" (or if one wishes to be "green" recycled) is by the issuance of new letters patent signed by the sovereign.

But MORE TO THE POINT: Trefor, will you be wearing a kilt when HRH attends the Greenville, SC, Scottish Games?

You are coming, aren't you?