Prince Edward & Sophie are irritated that their son won’t inherit the DoE title

Prince Edward, the Earl of Wessex, became Duke of Edinburgh on his 59th birthday. King Charles finally did it, after much consternation. Edward and Sophie really campaigned for the titles and for a while, I was convinced that Charles would never give them the ducal title. But he did, with one catch: Edward only gets to be the DoE for his lifetime and the title will not be inherited by Edward’s son James, formerly Viscount Severn. Apparently, Edward and Sophie are quite irritated that James won’t get to be DoE at some point.

Prince Edward and the Duchess of Edinburgh ‘always assumed’ his new title would be passed down to their son James, the Mail on Sunday’s Kate Mansey has told PALACE CONFIDENTIAL.

Earlier this month, King Charles announced that he has conferred the title of the Duke of Edinburgh on his younger brother Prince Edward to mark his 59th birthday. As such, Prince Edward’s son James is now known as Earl of Wessex – his father’s previous title.

Discussing the move on the latest episode of the Palace Confidential series, the Mail on Sunday’s Assistant Editor Kate Mansey said the newly-appointed Duke and Duchess of Edinburgh were surprised to learn that James would not inherit his father’s new title.

She explained: ‘My sources say that they had assumed that they would get the Duke and Duchess title and it would go to James. Because why would you get a Dukedom and it not pass to your son?’

However, Kate said this is an example of King Charles ‘looking ahead’ to the future of his ‘slimmed down’ monarchy. She continued: ‘As James gets older has his children, they have children, you’re [left with] a Duke of Edinburgh title that is so far removed from the Crown. And it’s a really important title. You can’t have a situation where the Duke of Edinburgh is in several generations’ time so far removed so as not to be considered royal.’

However, Kate then went on to point out how James has been given the title of the Earl of Wessex as a type of ‘compensation’ from his uncle King Charles.

[From The Daily Mail]

Charles didn’t “give” James the Wessex title, that’s just what happened automatically when Edward became DoE. James became the Earl of Wessex because that’s his father’s lesser title. Same with the Viscount Severn title. Anyway, I suppose Edward and Sophie have to complain about *something* so this is what’s bothering them now. Honestly, I was sort of surprised by Charles’s solution – it was a smart compromise, to give Ed and Sophie the titles but ensure that DoE reverts back to the crown after Edward’s death.

Photos courtesy of Avalon Red, Instar, Cover Images, Backgrid.

You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.

104 Responses to “Prince Edward & Sophie are irritated that their son won’t inherit the DoE title”

Comments are Closed

We close comments on older posts to fight comment spam.

  1. PaperclipExtraordinaire says:

    He hasn’t looked well lately. Has anyone else noticed that? I wonder.

    • swaz says:

      I have, he’s lost about 50 lbs rapidly, so he looks a bit run down. I hope he’s okay, but my question is what happens to Sophie if the Duke passes, does she remain the Duchess of Edinburgh ??

      • Feeshalori says:

        Under the usual circumstances, she would then become the dowager DOE but because the title is reverting back to the crown, maybe she would revert to her former title and become the dowager Countess of Wessex. However, that would be a downgrade for her. But you know one of William’s kids, I think Louis, would get that title.

      • Krista says:

        I believe she would be the Dowager Duchess of Edinburgh, but I could be wrong.

      • Lizzie says:

        I asked the same question on a previous post, and the answer posted (I don’t remember who answered) was dowager Countess of Wessex. I guess she would have to go back to curtseying to Meghan, Duchess of Sussex.

      • Scout says:

        I think she may become Sophie, Countess of Wessex….which leaves room for James’ wife who would be The Countess of Wessex, the current countess.

        It’s a weird situation. Like how Obama is still President Obama but he isn’t the sitting president.

      • aftershocks says:

        ^^ No. This has been answered in a previous thread. Sophie will retain the Duchess of Edinburgh title for her lifetime. The usual practice in the past was to term a Duchess whose husband had died, Dowager Duchess of…, so as not to be confused with the new younger holder of the title, normally a daughter-in-law. In this instance, son James will not hold the title anyway, thus he won’t share it with a future wife. Should Edward pass first, Sophie may likely be referred to as Sophie, Duchess of Edinburgh, rather than ‘The Duchess of Edinburgh,’ and in lieu of using ‘Dowager,’ which is old-fashioned and somewhat misogynist.

        If Chuck and Willy desire to keep the DoE title in the direct royal line, then it might eventually be given to George or to a direct heir of George. Giving it to Louis would result in it passing out of the direct royal line if Louis’ progeny inherited the title. That’s the same as it would be if Edward’s son, James, inherited.

    • Chaine says:

      Yes, I’ve commented it several times. I think he is seriously ill and that is part of why Charles relented on the title; he knows it won’t be long before it reverts.

      • Nat says:

        I kinda agree with Chaine. I wouldn’t be surprised if something actually is wrong with Ed. It wasn’t given on a milestone birthday if you know what I mean. As far as comments about who will be next to use the Edinburgh title, I don’t think that title will be granted to anyone else for years or decades to come. If the monarchy lasts that long, it will probably be awarded to the husband of the next hereditary Queen. So, this means if George makes it to the throne and his first born is a daughter or if Charlotte ends up being Queen. Re Sophie, she will be a dowager duchess if she outlives her husband.

      • aftershocks says:

        ^^ That’s possible @Nat, but also more likely that if Edward has passed by the time George marries, that George will receive the DoE title as a direct royal heir. They may ultimately stipulate that the DoE title never be passed out of the direct royal line, so that it will always revert back to the crown upon the holder of the title becoming monarch.

      • Whyforthelove ish says:

        I agree. He does not look well at all. I hope he is ok, but he looks not great.

  2. Jess says:

    Their son and daughter should go by their princely title. He’s entitled to it. They aren’t impressing anyone by not letting him use it.

    • Chloe says:

      They were when Elizabeth was still alive but are they now? I mean they aren’t the grandchildren of a sovereign anymore. Merely a niece and nephew

      • Talia says:

        Yes. There are multiple older Royals who didn’t lose their Prince / Princess titles when the Queen inherited. If someone was ever the grandchild of a sovereign, they get the title for life.

        Similarly, Archie and Lili keep the titles when William inherits.

      • BayTampaBay says:

        Louise and James are grandchildren of a sovereign (QEII) and always will be grandchildren of a sovereign (QEII).

        Archie & Lilibet are grandchildren of a sovereign (KCIII) and always will be grandchildren of a sovereign (KCIII).

      • Aud says:

        I don’t think they’re eligible now. I think they needed to start using them while QEII was alive. But I’m not an expert, that’s just my understanding of the situation.

      • Jan90067 says:

        Bea and Eugenie are no longer grandchildren of a reigning monarch. Yet they are *still* HRH Princesses. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ Perhaps they had to have taken that title at the time (prior to Liz’s death) for it to be theirs “legally” going forward?

      • Alice says:

        Princess Alexandra of Kent wasn’t even born yet when her grandfather, the king, died. Her uncle was in the throne. Same with her younger brother, Prince Michael. There’s nothing in the letters patent that says the grandchild of the regnant had to be alive and using the title during their reign.

      • Feeshalori says:

        The relationship doesn’t change just because a monarch is deceased so all those eligible for titles under the current LP would still have or receive them. And Bea and Eugenie wouldn’t have their titles revoked because the queen passed away. None of the late queen’s cousins had their princely titles removed when their grandfather George V died. And as Alice stated, several of them actually received their titles even after he passed away.

    • Mrs.Krabapple says:

      Unlike a peerage (earl, duke, etc.), HRH is a courtesy title given or taken away at the monarchs whim. Elizabeth said Ed’s kids will NOT be referred to as royal, so they are NOT entitled to use it. These courtesy titles rest at the whim of the current monarch, it doesn’t matter at all what a former monarch said. So Charles could easily give them back with a simple statement, but I doubt he will.

      Archie and Lili are different – Elizabeth never said they could not be referred to as royal, so the 1917 statement about grandchildren of a monarch still applies to them.

      • aftershocks says:

        ^^ @Mrs.Krabapple that’s not how it works. What @BTB and @Feeshalori have pointed out, is correct. Plus, fyi, the Queen never made an authoritative ruling that Edward’s children would never be called Prince/Princess. QE-II simply made an arrangement with Edward & Sophie upon their marriage, that their children would hold the titles (as per LP of George V), but that they wouldn’t use the titles formally. It’s my understanding that it was also agreed when E&S’s kids reached age 18, they could decide for themselves whether to use the titles. Since Louise turned 18 and she has not taken the Princess title, I guess she was either persuaded not to, or else she’s more comfortable with ‘Lady Louise,’ which she’s always been known by.

        I’m more interested in how James feels about not inheriting the DoE title, rather than hearing leaked claims of how his parents feel.

      • Christine says:

        Has this ever happened before? By that I mean, has a title ever been given only for the lifetime of the person getting the title? I am so curious if Chuck has just set something into motion that is going to backfire spectacularly, per his usual.

      • Mrs.Krabapple says:

        Again, people are getting peerage titles mixed up with royal courtesy titles. There are rules on how to take away a peerage, but a courtesy title is purely at the whim of the monarch. Why do most grandchildren of a monarch get to use “HRH”? Because a monarch said so in 1917. Anything that came before didn’t matter, and any monarch that comes after can do the same and change the courtesy at their own whim. Elizabeth did exactly that when Edward got married, specific to his own children. Her father did the same to his brother after he abdicated, gave him the “HRH” title but said the wife and any kids they may have could not be HRH themselves. Another example is Princess Alice — she was only “Princess Henry” (by courtesy) when her husband was alive and would have been know as the dowager duchess of Gloucester after his death. But when a court circular following the Duke’s death referred to her as “Princess Alice” that became her courtesy title, and she was known as “Princess Alice” from them on. Yes, courtesy titles really ARE that easy to give or take away — it just takes an expression of the monarch’s wishes.

        I know that Sophie has said her kids get to “choose” when then turn 18, but what Sophie says doesn’t matter at all, only what the MONARCH says, and Elizabeth said “no” (with no further statement about turning 18). Charles can easily say “yes” to giving Ed’s kids the “HRH” whenever he wants, so it’s not out of the question for them to get it one day, I just think it’s very unlikely.

        @Christine – yes, life peerages are very common, although they are usually lower in rank than a Duke. The majority of the members of the House of Lords are there under a life peerage, not hereditary ones.

        I discovered that people don’t want to believe Elizabeth removed the “HRH” from Ed’s kids because somehow that jeopardizes Harry;s kids, but that doesn’t make sense — Elizabeth said NOTHING about Harry’s kids, so they still fall under the 1917 monarch’s wishes. That’s not to say Charles can’t remove it any time he wants to, because he can, that’s how courtesy titles work. But Elizabeth did not do so, and so far Charles has not done so either. It is totally different from Ed’s kids.

      • Nic919 says:

        Here we go again. It is not about believing but the fact that the letters patent would have needed to be issued to withdraw or revise the 1917 letters patent granting Louise and James the HRH. Which they acquired from birth. And letters patent are published in the gazette. The same gazette that officially conferred the prince of wales title on William. Charles simply announcing it the day after the queens death did not make it official.

        There is nothing in the gazette stating that Louise and James aren’t HRH. Letters patent are instruments of law and cannot be revised by words alone or by a press release. They must be published in the gazette. And nothing was done.

        I seem to recall many trying to say Archie and Lili weren’t HRH because Charles hadn’t announced it. But yet somehow they are HRH. Because of the application of the 1917 letter patent.

        The Duke of Edinburgh title was an entirely different situation because the queen could not change male primogeniture inheritance of a ducal title to go directly from Philip to Edward. She would have had to get parliament to revise the original patent, but she assumed Charles would abide by her wishes.

        And we saw how she amended the letters patent of 1917 to issue a new letters patent and add the HRH for all of William’s kids. Had she wanted to remove the HRH from Louise and James she would have done so. She did not.

      • Plantagenet says:

        We should remember that HRH is a style, not a title. Styles and titles are independent of one another. Harry holds the title “The Duke of Sussex,” and he holds the style of “HRH.” There are other people, like the Duke of Devonshire, who hold the title of “Duke,” but do not have the HRH style.

  3. ThatsNotOkay says:

    Why? Because then he’s a lesser royal than Harry and his kids?

    • Chloe says:

      Because despite pretending otherwise, sophie is just as much obsessed with her kids growing up royal as kate is

      • aftershocks says:

        ^^ Sophie’s and Ed’s two children, James and Louise, have already grown up as royal and they are still within the royal bubble. Per the George V LP, they are both HRH Prince/ Princess, even though they have never formally used those titles. As William and then George take over, should the monarchy continue, James and Louise will likely recede more into the background of royal life. Their progeny will be part of the nobility, and royal adjacent.

        I’m not sure what Sophie’s obsessed with, but as for her children, James and Louise, ultimately it only matters what they want and decide for themselves. Honestly, A&L will always equally be royal too, as grandchildren of a monarch. Their main connection to Louise & James is as royal relatives/ kissin’ cousins. 😉

      • Snap Happy says:

        Chloe – Why shouldn’t Sophie and Kate expect their children to grow up royal? They both married Princes, of course they expect to be royal. Meghan and Harry want their children to be Royal too as evidenced by them using the children’s Prince/Princess titles. Obsessing about the trappings of Royalty is something different. Sophie and Kate may be more interested in the largesse or the life but their kids are Royal.

    • Mrs.Krabapple says:

      Ed’s kids were ALWAYS ranked below Harry’s kids, in two ways. The order of precedence among royals put Charles’ bloodline above Ed’s (and Andrew’s), so Ed’s kids are below Charles’ kids and grandkids, and also below Andrew’s kids (but not grandkids since Andrew only had daughters). This precedence is among the family and is not controlled by the legal line of succession, only the monarch’s pleasure.

      The second way is the peerage. Harry was awarded his dukedom before Ed, so his is higher in status than Ed’s because it’s older. So even IF James could inherit, his dukedom would continue to be below Archie.

      And Ed’s kids are not royal until Charles says they are. They cannot use “HRH” until Charles says they can. That’s how courtesy titles like “HRH Prince/Princess” works. Elizabeth overruled the 1917 monarch when Ed got married, which she was entitled to do. Now Charles can overrule deceased Elizabeth (or any other monarch who came before him) with respect to any courtesy title.

      • aftershocks says:

        @Mrs.Krabapple: “Harry was awarded his dukedom before Ed, so his is higher in status than Ed’s because it’s older. So even IF James could inherit, his dukedom would continue to be below Archie.”

        This is not true. How old a dukedom is has nothing to do with who first received their specific dukedom within the current royal family. You would have to do historic research to determine which current British dukedoms are the oldest, which means, what year they were each first created.

        The dukedom of Clarence, e.g., was initially created in 1362. The York dukedom is also very old, first created in 1385. The Cambridge dukedom was first created in 1664, the Edinburgh dukedom was first created in 1726, and the dukedom of Sussex was first created in 1801. Thus, among these five, Clarence is the oldest, and Sussex is the youngest.

        Since James is not going to inherit the DoE title, your last comment is moot. And it’s also inaccurate since the dukedom of Edinburgh was first created before the dukedom of Sussex was first created. In any case, no one aside from tabloid stirrers of trouble and those obsessed with royalty for negative reasons are going to get hung up on trying to figure out whose dukedom is ‘below’ or ‘above’ someone else’s. 🙄

    • aftershocks says:

      @Mrs.Krabapple, I know I’m not a royal expert, and from what you are saying, it seems clear that you are not an expert on British royal styles and title either. I am aware of certain facts, and much of this can be researched and checked for accuracy. As @Plantagenet said, ‘HRH’ is a style, not a title. It stands for ‘His’ or ‘Her Royal Highness.’ The main reason the Duke of Devonshire would not have the HRH style @Pantagenet, is because he’s not royal.

      @Mrs.Krabapple it is simply not true to say Edward and Louise don’t have HRH styles and Prince/ Princess titles. They still have these designations because they are grandchildren of a monarch. That’s not going to change. The issue is that they don’t use these styles/ titles due to the agreement between their parents and QE-II, which took place before they were born.

      When James turns 18, he can decide to use his style/ title, however his sister hasn’t, so there may be pressure against them doing so. Still, that doesn’t mean they don’t hold these styles/ titles. And by this point, Chuck is NOT going to officially make selective changes to the current LP that’s been in effect since 1917! It’s also inaccurate to reference HRH Prince/ Princess as ‘courtesy’ styles/ titles. These styles/ titles are normally inherited by virtue of being born royal, or being a married-in female spouse.

      Your reference to ranking is more a matter of the line of succession. I would refer you to what Gloria Steinem told Meghan regarding her motto: “We are linked, not ranked.” So, any considerations around ‘ranking’ of A&L over their older royal cousins, is not something H&M would be thinking about, obsessing over, or teaching their young children to worry about. As well, James &Louise are grandchildren of QE-II, while A&L are much younger great-grandchildren. They are not in the same generation and there’s no need to compare them.

  4. HeyKay says:

    Oh give it up!
    As long as they have wealth, the titles are just nonsense.

    Those kids should be getting educations and be prepared to live private lives, in 20 years or less the BRF will be closed for business.

    • Couch potato says:

      That’s their big problem. Unless Philip and the queen left them huge sums, they don’t have much personal wealth (compared to their circle, not us plebs). The only thing they’ll have going for them in thr furure is the titles and connections to the RF. It’s been clear for years they’ll never be working royals, so they’ll need to make their own living. Sophie has probably seen how their cousins, the Phillipses, have made big bucks on their royal connections and thought, my children has titles, they can do even better.

    • Andie says:

      This is the comment I came looking for! They’re squabbling over insignificant shit that will only be more insignificant, nay, obsolete, in fifty years time.

      Not surprising from this family, given Charles’ stunning lack of ability to read the room— insisting on a gold carriage coronation for a seventy-something year old man when most people are struggling to keep heat on and put food in their mouths. It’s embarrassing. They’re embarrassing.

  5. Amy Bee says:

    I think they should be more worried about Charles possibly reducing their funding and kicking them out of their huge mansion. If I’m Sophie I’d put a hold on the purchase of any new designer outfits and start saving her money.

  6. Trix says:

    Appropos of nothing, that boy is super-cute and doesn’t look like other one of them.

    • AA says:

      Agreed, I think he’s going to be a handsome man, and he looks nothing like either of them, for sure.

    • Kingston says:

      Come on now. Have you seen pix of Edward when he was a young 20-Something? He was (almost) beautiful. And his son looks like he’s gonna be even better looking than his father in his 20s.

      • Becks1 says:

        Edward WAS really good looking. Like we joke about Diana snatching William’s looks back, but someone really snatched Edward’s back.

      • Feeshalori says:

        Agreed, Edward gave William a run for his money in the looks department when he was around his age.

      • Cait C says:

        Yes Edward looked like the very best of Elizabeth and Prince Philip when he was young. Too bad he is a known jerk

    • notasugarhere says:

      Also apropos of nothing, that cream dress is one of Louise’s best looks. Ugly hairband and messy hair, but the dress is lovely and suits her. And in the awful pink dress in the second photo? She looks exactly like a young QEII.

      • Queenmumanne says:

        I honestly believe Sophie makes Louise wear her hand me downs so that Sophie has more money to buy new clothes. Louise is so lovely but it always looks like she is wearing Sophie’s old clothes.

      • Feeshalori says:

        Agreed, Nota. Louise is a dead ringer for the young Elizabeth. And it’s a shame how frumpily she’s dressed so many times. Sophie really needs to upgrade her clothing or maybe Louise can get some fashion tips other than from her mother. I thought she looked very well turned out when she wore her carriage driving clothes.

      • Jais says:

        I’ve always thought Louise is really lovely. She just needs the right clothes and style. She has youth on her side. Take advantage of it!

      • BayTampaBay says:

        Give me a Babybliss pro blow dryer, a three inch round ceramic brush, a three inch large barrel curling iron and Lady Louise for two hours; I’ll have Lady Louise looking “cover-of-Vogue” stunning and head turning.

      • Princessk says:

        Louise may have no interest in fashion, if she did by now we would have seen it, unless she is being so controlled by her parents.

      • liz says:

        We only see Louise when she is with her parents, at public events. We have no idea what her “everyday” look really is – how she dresses at school or while out with her friends. I suspect that she is OK with the frumpy look at the public events so she can go to the pub at university and not be recognized.

      • notasugarhere says:

        Sometimes we see her out at eventing things, so jeans, boots, old jacket. When she was caught ice skating with Sophie, Zara, Mike, Peter? She was in black leggings with cute/fashionable black jacket. It may be she chose to dress more conservatively when at events with her granny.

  7. notasugarhere says:

    It doesn’t matter if the DoE title goes ‘far from the Crown’, it isn’t like the Crown is going to survive. This is Charles 1) punishing Edward for being Philip’s fav 2) trying to save the DoE title for someone else in the near future.

    • Mary Pester says:

      @notsosugarhere,yep, he’s saving it for Louis, because George will become prince of Wales and then king (but he won’t because the crown is finished)

    • Jais says:

      This is where I’m at. So it assures that the title doesn’t go far from the crown and is all part of Charles’ slimmed down monarchy? But Charles’ slimmed down monarchy is a fucking farce. AFAIK this title doesn’t come with money so who cares. Let the title stay with Edward and his son. Until they get rid of all the titles and the monarchy, this is just petty musical titles and power plays. Slimming it all down so that the king and the heir have all the titles for themselves. These titles are silly to me but it’s more about watching Charles and William’s selfish power grabbing and trying to exclude everyone else in the family from having anything. Like there’s no money involved. Y’all already have all the money. It just looks punitive and petty and shines a light on the silliness of the titles. And the shallowness of this family. Primogeniture at its ugliest. Ooh, Charles is so smart bc he’s keeping the title close to the crown. Big freaking deal.

    • Becks1 says:

      The going far from the crown thing is a stupid justification. The Queen didn’t give Andrew DoY with the understanding that it would revert to the crown – it just happened he didn’t have sons to pass it to. Gloucester and Kent will be passed down to sons and will cease to be royal dukedoms and no one seems pressed about that.

      I think this is Charles compromising, knowing that William wants the title for Louis so he’s not having it go to James. But even that’s dumb bc Edward could live another 30, 35, 40 years (even if there is speculation he’s not well now, let’s just base it on general family longevity) so then the title is likely not available for Louis anyway.

      • Mary says:

        Yes, the only way this title is “important” is if William wants it. I checked on all of the extent and defunct, but revivable, dukedoms in Britain and the duchy of Edinburgh comes nowhere near being one of the oldest (which is usually how they are rated, importance-wise). I think maybe they figure that if they give this title to Louis he would have a built-in job with the Prizes scheme.

      • Jais says:

        Hmm. Okay, so the built in job idea makes more sense assuming that whoever is head of the Edinburgh prizes comes with a salary. And assuming the head is the duke. No idea if that’s how it works.

      • Mary says:

        @jais, even if the job of heading up the Prizes scheme does not come with a salary, I think William and Kate would ensure that Louis was financially set. It would be an easy way of making it look like one of the Spares was “working.”

  8. Beach Dreams says:

    They should be glad to even get DDOE in the first place, because if it weren’t for Harry and Meghan, they’d still be waiting on a title that would never come. I think I saw on Twitter that the Commonwealth service pamphlets apparently still had them listed as Earl and Countess of Wessex, so there definitely wasn’t a plan to give the title on his birthday, regardless of what BP claimed. They really should thank the Sussexes for the last-minute scrambling and saving face by Charles and his lackeys.

  9. Pumpkin (Was Sofia) says:

    He still has an Earldom. Yeah I know Dukedom is higher and that matters to these people but it’s not like James is titleless or whatever. At least he has something.

  10. Alexandria says:

    They should have been Prince and Princess when the Queen was alive. Anyway end of day their children should prepare for their own future instead of relying on the monarch. It’s better for their sanity.

    • notasugarhere says:

      Them preparing to earn their living AND Philip’s desire for Edward’s line to have the DoE title in perpetuity are not mutually exclusive. Edward should have been given the DoE title right after QEII passed, and it should have gone permanently to his line as QEII and Philip both wanted.

      It was fulfilling Philip’s wish that in some way, his ‘name’ (not his real name but the name he embraced as his title) would get to carry on after him. That was why Anne put ‘Mountbatten-Windsor’ on her marriage certificate back when no one was considering ‘Mountbatten’ to be part of the Windsor household. She was giving a nod to her father.

      • aftershocks says:

        ^^ Anne did not just decide to use Mountbatten-Windsor on her marriage certificate as ‘a nod to her father.’

        In 1960, the Queen officially decided, via Privy Council declaration, that ‘Mountbatten-Windsor’ would be the personal surname male-line descendants could use. As a female non-direct heir, Anne probably began using it as her official personal surname even before her marriage.

        “Mountbatten-Windsor – Wikipedia”

        “The Royal Family name | The Royal Family”

      • BayTampaBay says:

        @afyershocks – All you say is true but Anne WAS giving a nod to her father. Also, Anne would have been happy to use her true surname which is Glücksburg. LOL!

      • aftershocks says:

        Tee hee @BTB. It’s actually worse than that. I doubt Anne would have wanted to ‘give a nod’ to her Dad’s real family name: Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Glücksburg. 😳🤪🤣

        Phil had adopted the anglicized version of ‘Battenberg,’ his mother’s family surname. Thus, the more efficient and easier to pronounce, ‘Mountbatten,’ is the winner. 👍 Especially so as Phil had been taken under the wing of his uncle, Lord Mountbatten, upon seeking his life fortunes in England, as a British naval officer.

  11. Whomever says:

    If anything they should be upset Louise isn’t inheriting the title. In a world that has an older daughter inheriting the crown over younger brothers, the argument should be for Louise not James.

    • Muggs says:

      Thank you! I say abolish the whole thing but they could at least pretend like they give a flying f about being “progressive”

  12. Chaine says:

    Ugh, they just need to give it up. The child is already an Earl, is that not enough? Poor thing always looks morose and put-upon when they trot him out into the public eye, leave it alone and let him live his non-working-royal life without the extra idiocy.

  13. tamsin says:

    The whole idea of having a younger son inherit a title was a daft and convoluted idea to start with. It would have gone against all rules for how titles are passed on. And what value will the Edinburgh title be if Scotland leaves and eventually becomes a republic?

  14. girl_ninja says:

    These two racist bores just FIND things to complain about.

  15. aquarius64 says:

    The Edinburghs are sore because Prince Archie and Princess Lili got their titles under the George V convention and Archie is still listed as heir apparent to the Dukedom of Sussex. A half American with African American lineage will become a royal Duke thanks to QEII.

  16. M says:

    DoE has never been a hereditary title. There’s no land that goes with it. It’s been created 4 times specifically to be given to someone who isn’t eligible for any other title. They just need to get over it.

    • Mary says:

      Wow, @M, you stated that with such certainty. It is completely untrue!!!

      P kkreviously, the Duchy of Edinburgh was NOT conveyed as a life peerage but rather as a title that could be inherited.

      It just so happens that with the few creations of this Duchy, it either merged with the Crown (George III & Charles III) or the holder didn’t have children to succeed (one had no children and in one instance his only son predeceased him).

      Indeed, the mere fact that the title has “merged with the crown” is evidence of the fact that the title was inherited! George III and Charles III each INHERITED the title Duke of Edinburgh. Otherwise, how the heck could it merge with the crown??!

    • JanetDR says:

      I think there are just a couple of actual duchies left (that come with property and responsibilities) Cornwall and Lancaster? All the rest are just for swanking around with, including our dear Duke and Dutchess of Sussex.
      It’s an odd thing in our time.

      • BayTampaBay says:

        “I think there are just a couple of actual duchies left (that come with property and responsibilities)”

        If you are referring the “Royal” duchies then you are correct.

  17. Penelope Pittstop says:

    The important thing is that the DofE titles were about the Queen and Philip’s feelings. They wanted Edward to automatically become DofE, they expected their grandson to be the DofE and carry on the name directly from Philip.

    • Mary says:

      That is exactly my issue with this whole fiasco. Whatever you think of Edward and Sophie, the Queen, Charles and Philip each agreed, and it was announced as such, that Edward would get the title as usual, I.e inheritable.

      This may not be the only promise that Charles has not kept as well. That little kerfuffle about how Andrew expected to get some of the Queen’s money? Was the Queen just trying to avoid taxes and instruct Charles to divvy up some of her money to his siblings and he didn’t?

      I think a lot of us had anticipated that Harry could not trust William to treat him fairly if he was still a working Royal when William succeeded to the crown. But Charles? While he seemed like a crappy person to me given the way he treated Diana and how he is treating Hrry, I did not expect him to totally contravene his mother’s wishes.

    • sid says:

      The whole thing comes across as Chuck throwing the middle finger up at the parents who apparently didn’t like him, and at the youngest brother who was one of dad’s favorites even though said youngest brother had many of the qualities that dad allegedly disliked in his eldest son. And I wouldn’t be surprised if Willileaks was hounding Chuck to keep the title close so that Louis could get it some day. A mess.

      • Mary says:

        💯 sid, I will also add the Charles was probably pissed that the Queen did not initially welcome Camilla with the open arms I am sure he expected.

    • Mrs.Krabapple says:

      The queen’s wishes only mattered when she was alive. If she wanted Ed to be a duke so badly, she should have made him one while she was still alive. Charles made no secret that he wanted a “slimmed down monarchy” (we can all argue about what that means), so Elizabeth was over-reaching when she expected her wishes to control from the grave. That’s not how monarchies work. Charles has just as much “right” to deny Ed’s son a dukedom as Elizabeth would have had to grant one if she chose to do it while alive. I know Liz was popular and Charles is not, but Charles is the monarch now and Elizabeth is dead. She should have gotten her house in order before she died

      • Mary says:

        “The queen’s wishes only mattered when she was alive.”. @mrscrabapple, I think you need to inform all those judges of this, you know, the ones that in cases of question try to discern the wishes and intent of a decedent. Maybe Edward should sue.😂

      • Lara (the other) says:

        Charles inherited the DoE Titel from his Father the moment Philipp die. It reverted back to the crown when he became King. QE2 could not gibt the title to Edward without Charles voluntarily giving up the title or involving Parlament.
        Im not 100% sure, if Charles would have passen the title on to his brother while QE2 was alive and he DoE, it would have been an inheritable title. Only by waiting until he was King and creating the Title again, it could be a lifetime title.
        It has the same name, but is not the same title handed down from Philipp it is a newly created one.

  18. Lizzie says:

    What is the saying? A bird in hand is worth two in the bush? Edward turned down a dukedom at the time of his wedding in order to have the Earl of Wessex title for a while (he was charmed by the Shakespearean connection) then later inherit the DOE. He could have been a duke all along and James would have inherited the title.

    • Feeshalori says:

      That’s got to sting. I wonder if Edward often thinks of that saying, if hindsight was only 20/20. He may well have revisited his decision.

      • Travelin123 says:

        I have always wondered that. Why did he originally turn down the dukedom? Was he really so blasé about titles as to treat his wedding gift as a game because of a literary reference? He valued the idea of a dukedom so lightly?

        They have lived with that mistake for decades. Thinking it would give them good press. And it did! How many times did we read that Edward and Sophie don’t care about titles? But as the years go by it has got to be annoying for them to be consistently downgraded in rank with each subsequent generation.

        After all the press about the Sussex’s and how they were “choosing” not to give Archie a title. I do question if Edward pissed someone off as well. Why have they continually been treated as lesser? Lower title, untitled kids, and now given only a lifetime title.

        Of course I don’t feel sorry for them in the least. They clearly don’t deserve any elevation. Not for their cleverness, their service or even just kindness! Just something I have wondered.

    • aftershocks says:

      @Lizzie said: “Edward turned down a dukedom at the time of his wedding in order to have the Earl of Wessex title for a while…”

      No. Betty & Phil wanted Ed to have the Edinburgh title, so that’s why Ed waited to receive that specific dukedom, in good faith his brother Charles would adhere to the 1999 agreement. Ed could have received the Wessex title as a dukedom, but he complied with his parents’ wishes. He was probably pleased that his parents wanted him to inherit such a prestigious title. The Queen could not give the title outright to Ed upon Phil’s death because it automatically gets inherited by the oldest son, per ancient British monarchical patriarchy.

      What amazes me is how anyone believed petty Chuck would follow through on the agreement. Maybe they wanted it so much, they hoped he would, or else they misjudged Chuck’s petty vindictiveness. This is modern-day Game of Thrones archaic nonsense anyway. 🙄 🤪

      BTW, like every other royal duke, Ed still retains his other titles, including The Earl of Wessex. James is known currently as James, Earl of Wessex, a courtesy title. He will become The Earl of Wessex when Ed passes, along with inheriting Ed’s other lesser titles.

      • Rackel says:

        That really is messed up. However, it’s another example of Liz not caring for her kids. She should’ve made Edward Duke of wessex and told Charles to graduate him to Duke of Edinburgh. Then the son could be a Duke. Instead Charles doesn’t want the kid to be Duke of anything. who can predict if his grandson Louis will be fit to be a Duke.

  19. P says:

    They seem to be worried about running out of titles for some reason. Wasn’t Wessex essentially exhumed and re-named as an earldom? I just can’t feel too much sympathy for people who can make up titles for themselves. I’m not articulating this very intelligently, but the RF’s reliance on prior titleholders’ reputations and perceived prestige is so off-putting. Same with the reliance on symbolism that doesn’t mean much in 2023. It’s all icky.

    • Mary says:

      Yes, there are many older, more prestigious, titles that Louis and Charlotte could have. I think a good part of this is William just not wanting someone else to have something that he wants for one of his kids.

      It reminds me a bit of the bizarre “beard” argument that Harry and William had before Harry’s marriage. William just didn’t want Harry to have something that he had wanted and couldn’t have. It does seem ridiculous.

    • aftershocks says:

      No @P, Ed still retains The Earl of Wessex title. James uses it now as a courtesy title, and he will officially become The Earl of Wessex upon his father’s death. If Ed had been allowed to pass down the DoE title, James would hold that dukedom, along with The Earl of Wessex, The Earl of Forfar, and Viscount Severn. The Earl of Wessex title was newly created for Edward prior to his 1999 marriage. The title has never been ‘exhumed.’

      @PrincessK, I doubt that WanK would like either of their sons to hold the York title due to the stain Andrew has placed on it.

      • aftershocks says:

        After checking, I see that the Earl of Wessex title was first created in 1019, and later inherited by the first holder’s son. It didn’t get further passed down once that inheritor died. Thus, it was created for the second time in 1066, by William the Conqueror, for a relative who also served as his advisor. When that holder of the title died, it was not inherited by his son, so the title subsequently fell into extinction until 1999, when Edward took a fancy to it after seeing the film, Shakespeare in Love. You are right then @P, about the Earl of Wessex title having been exhumed! 👍

  20. PrincessOfWaffles says:

    Whatever Charles has on his mind about slimmed down monarchy, it’s just a waste of time. The dude is going to the heaven’s gates in not THAT long and most probably before edward, so why even mention that the title ia going back to him. This is mental torture, abuse. very cruel. Let willie deal with whatever willie will want at that time. sophie must be livid that the boy she probably wishes so hard to have wont be able to retain the DoE title.

  21. Claire says:

    I didn’t think that these fake non hereditary dukedoms ever got passed down to the oldest son? They’re all just given out at the discretion of the monarch and usually revert back to the monarch when the duke dies right? Find it kind of hard to believe that Sophie and Edward really would have thought that it would be passed down to James, maybe it was a slow news day and they’re just writing anything now?

    • Ohso says:

      No this is the first time that a royal dukedom has been created for the life of the recipient. So for instance the current Duke of Gloucester is the son of Prince Henry, the third son of George V – he is a royal Duke (HRH Prince Richard) because like Prince Archie he is a grandson of a monarch. He will pass the title onto his son Alexander (currently using the courtesy title of Earl of Ulster, one of his father’s subsidiary titles- his son uses another subsidiary title as a courtesy – Baron Culloden. When Prince Richard dies, his son Alexander will become the (non-royal) 3rd Duke of Gloucester- when he dies his son will be the 4th Duke of Gloucester and so on – until the line runs out of male heirs at which time it would revert to the crown and be able to be used in a different creation for a younger son.

    • Feeshalori says:

      The sons of the Dukes of Kent and Gloucester will inherit their fathers’ titles although they won’t be royal dukedoms in that generation. The titles only revert back to the crown if there are no sons to inherit, as is the case with the DOY title. What happened to Edward seems an exception to the case with a royal prince who has a son, because this is Charles we’re talking about. I very much doubt that the late queen and Prince Philip intended the DOE title to revert back to the crown upon Edward’s death, and not have his son inherit.

  22. HeyKay says:

    I read somewhere that QE upon her death had a personal fortune of $700 Billion.

    Royal Family wills are sealed from the public for 99 years after death.
    I read that after Phillip died.
    Someone should start working on changing that law ASAP!

    Exactly what amount does Charles have? William?
    If these 2 idiots are hoarding anything close to $2-5Billion each, which is a low guestimate on my part, stop all the tax payers funding at once.

    Charles, that idiot, should cancel the order for the gold coach.
    WTH gave him the go ahead? He wants it, let him pay for it himself.
    Best move he could do, in the spirit of “tradition” cancel the order and use Elizabeths coach.

    Is the British Govt really hoping that by May or June as the weather warms up, the people will forgive and forget being cold and hungry and worried all winter?
    Has Charles Dickens come back to life? Stiff upper lip, etc? Bull.

    • Rackel says:

      Charles Dickens. These last few years and the way the Tories talk are straight out of Charles Dickenson.

  23. Well Wisher says:

    Why should they be, they were aware of this scenario before the marriage?

  24. HamsterJam says:

    That argument does not hold water, this would happen if anyone got the title except William or George they would “gets older has his children, they have children, you’re [left with] a Duke of Edinburgh title that is so far removed from the Crown.

    The same thing would apply if Lois got it.

    Does this mean only William and George get “important titles?

    KFC is +10 for duke hoarding though!

  25. QuiteContrary says:

    I’m sorry, but this is all so stupid. These titles are made-up and the rules are so arcane and removed from the real world.
    It’s all a fiction, contrived to divide people into classes.

  26. Tessa says:

    In effect the eldest child Louise was the only one not to get a title upgrade. Not a good look.