Talk:Duke of Edinburgh/Archive 1

Archive 1

Cited as an authority

Cited as an authority in The Guardian! -- WikiEN-L 2003 Sep 2

Renounce his right?

Surely Prince Charles can renounce his right to the Dukedom of Edinburgh?

Nope. Peerages pass according to the terms laid down in their letters patent, and only an Act of Parliament can amend those. Proteus (Talk) 22:14, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

If he does inherit the dukedom, Charles can "disclaim" it under the Peerage Act 1963, but that would not change or accelerate the succession: the title merely goes dormant during his lifetime. —Tamfang (talk) 02:50, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

There is no right to renounce. The Duke of Edinburgh is a life peerage which automatically ceases to exist upon the death of the current holder of the title. The prince of Wales does not automatically get it. The queen has the right to create another member of the royal family a Duke of Edinburgh. The palace has announced that when the current Duke dies, the Earl of Wessex will be CREATED Duke of Edinburgh after a suitable period of morning has taken place. The only things that would prevent this is if either the queen passes away before the creation can take place and the new monarch, the current Prince Charles decides NOT to create his brother the Duke of Edinburgh which seems unlikely or if the Earl dies before it can happen. Again this is life peerage and life peerages cannot be inherited. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.191.251.196 (talk) 06:54, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Wrong. "The KING has been pleased by Letters Patent under the Great Seal of the Realm, bearing date the 20th instant, to confer the dignity of a Duke of the United Kingdom upon Lieutenant His Royal Highness Sir Philip Mountbatten, K.G., R.N., and the heirs male of his body lawfully begotten, by the name, style and title of BARON GREENWICH, of Greenwich in the County of London, EARL OF MERIONETH, and DUKE OF EDINBURGH." "No. 38128". The London Gazette. 21 November 1947. pp. 5495–5496. Opera hat (talk) 12:29, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

It is true that life peerages cannot be inherited, but as Opera hat has just pointed out, this is not a life peerage.

You have the eventuality backwards. The death of the queen would not frustrate the plan; rather, the plan can only be carried out after (in the palace's words) "both the death of the current Duke of Edinburgh and the Prince of Wales' succession as King." This is because Charles will become Duke of Edinburgh upon Prince Philip's death. Only when the Duke of Edinburgh is also the King will the dukedom become available to be conferred upon Prince Edward. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 21:10, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

@BlueMoonlet. Exactly right! Gerard von Hebel (talk) 16:28, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

So Debretts says (after Philip’s death): The title of Duke of Edinburgh will not go to Prince Charles, who will remain the Prince of Wales, but is expected to go to Edward, Earl of Wessex, in time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Markgpearse (talk • contribs) 03:17, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

Which is incorrect, because the title is currently with Charles. SSSB (talk) 07:34, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

Section deletion

I have deleted:

"However, there is another possibility: were the monarch to alter the remainder provision of the current grant of the dukedom before the death of duke Philip, the peerage will be inherited accordingly. Thus far, there has been no formal, official alteration of the provision. Were the alteration be in favor of the youngest son of the present duke, then Edward, Earl of Wessex, would become the 2nd Duke of Edinburgh of its current, 4th creation, at the death of his father."

The monarch has no such power to alter the grant. Only an act of parliament can alter the decent of a title once created and the last time this happened was the Earldom of Mar Restitution Act in 1885. The monarch could create a new dukedom of Edinburgh with remainder to Edward not his elder brothers but that is not what the above states at all. Frankly we all know what the likely situation is and I'm not sure the value of re-including the removed paragraph even if corrected as per my comments.Alci12 13:57, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

~ Nonsense. The Monarch is the fount of honour, and especially with royal peerages, has the first and last word as to how they are accorded and inherited. The Royal website says: 'Upon his marriage to Miss Sophie Rhys-Jones in 1999, he was created The Earl of Wessex and Viscount Severn. At the same time it was announced that His Royal Highness will be given the title Duke of Edinburgh in due course, when the present title now held by Prince Philip eventually reverts to the Crown', so the point is moot since the dukedom is planned to be specifically regranted. 216.52.75.7 15:57, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

You have no idea what you are talking about nor did you read the comments. You can't alter an existing grant - which was the specific contention of the removed section - once granted nothing but an act of parliament can alter the remainder.

There could be a new creation once that title merges but that assumes that it will merge which is not an absolute only the most likely circumstance. Any new creation will be at the pleasure of the monarch at that time which will not be the present monarch nor perhaps the heir. Alci12 19:10, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Indeed. Although what the queen could do is create a new dukedom of Edinburgh for her husband that would be inherited by his youngest son. Then, if he predeceased his wife, his first dukedom would go to the Prince of Wales, who would never be called by it, and the second dukedom would go to the Earl of Wessex, while if the Queen dies first, on the Duke of Edinburgh's death the first dukedom merges with the crown, and the second dukedom is inherited by the Earl of Wessex. But this does not seem likely to happen. Also, how likely is it that the dukedom will not merge? For that to happen, the Prince of Wales would have to die, and Prince William would have to have a daughter and then die, all before both the Queen and the Duke of Edinburgh die. In such a circumstance, the crown would be inherited by Prince William's daughter, and the Dukedom of Edinburgh by Prince Harry. But such an eventuality seems unlikely. john k 21:25, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

I'd not really gone into that aspect to save confusing the matter further and because grants of the same title in the same peerage are so rare that we can assume this unlikely. A second dukedom with a special remainder would I agree be neater. As to the present dukedom I did say it was most likely to merge but not certain. William is about to serve in the military and could soon be married and have a child so were he to be killed we're part way to it being possible. Alci12 14:31, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Is it possible that the letters patent for this particular creation of the title do not follow the standard protocol for dukedoms? Afterall, it was created for the groom of the future Queen Regnant, so the first son and heir to the title under normal circumstances would also be the heir apparent to the throne and thus would be gaining several titles already (e.g. Duke of Cornwall) for that reason. Might the letters patent have stipulated that the title reverts back to the crown following the death of its titleholder, like the Princess Royale title does? Assuming Elizabeth survives Philip, this would thus allow Edward to receive the title Duke of Edinburgh as his mother would then be able to grant it to him. Or, maybe the letters make the third son the heir to the title as the first son would be the heir to other titles and the typical second son title, Duke of York, was available after its merger with the crown.

Is any of that possible?TheUnknown285 (talk) 21:46, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

"Princess Royal" is a style, not a title; the rules surrounding it are traditions and could be changed. "Duke of Edinburgh" is a peerage, not a title; the concept of a "life dukedom" wasn't around then. --NellieBlyMobile (talk) 19:44, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Dukedoms for life have been created before: Louise de Kérouaille, Duchess of Portsmouth, for one. I'm just sayin'. —Tamfang (talk) 21:59, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

I wonder if there is a source to support this. Despite the text in Kérouaille's article, the source simply says she received the dukedom, not that there was some special remainder stating that it could not be passed to her legitimate offspring. As she never married (spending most of her life as the mistress of Charles II), she never had any legitimate offspring, so the point is basically moot. Her son with Charles II received his own dukedom.

In any case, the point for this discussion seems to be whether a dukedom would be intentionally created with the same name as an existing dukedom, not whether a dukedom could be created only for life. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 00:03, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Boutell's Heraldry (1978 ed.) Plate XI fig.1: "The arms of Louise Renée de Penancoet de Keroualle ... who was created Duchess of Portsmouth for life in 1673." Admittedly an oblique source but it's what I've got.

Valentine Heywood British Titles says that, in former times in Scotland, the low-ranking husband of a peeress in her own right was often granted a duplicate of her title for life. The example mentioned is a dukedom, but I don't recall what (my copy is in a box). —Tamfang (talk) 00:17, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Must be Anne Hamilton, 3rd Duchess of Hamilton. —Tamfang (talk) 04:23, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Regarding the second, the offspring would still inherit the wife's title, so the "for life" aspect was only to prevent duplication in future generations. And there are no duplicate titles, as it makes sense that the Duke of X and the Duchess of X would be married to each other. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 01:47, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

More generally, I'd point out that there is a (admittedly very remote) possibility of this peerage not merging with the crown. Were Charles and William both to predecease the Queen *and* were William to leave a legitimate daughter as his sole survivor, that girl would succeed the Queen but the dukedom would descend to Prince Harry. I suppose, though, that in that case the RF would have greater concerns than who inherits a dukedom! --NellieBlyMobile (talk) 19:44, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

In contrast to when this thread began, the article now eschews all such speculation and sticks to what is actually in sources. The Royal Family's website has made the family's intentions clear, so that's what we report. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 00:03, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Marquess of the Isle of Ely

We (along with pretty much all the sources) say this was one of the subsidiary titles of the 1726 Dukedom of Edinburgh, but the announcement in the London Gazette says:

His Majesty has been pleased to create his Highness Prince Frederick, a Baron, Viscount, Earl, Marquess, and Duke of the Kingdom of Great Britain, by the Names Stiles and Titles of Baron of Snaudon in the County of Caernarvon, Viscount of Lanceston in the County of Cornwall, Earl of Eltham in the County of Kent, Marquess of the Isle of Wight, and Duke of Edinburgh. [my emphasis]

Was this a misprint? (If so, was it corrected later on?) Or is this actually the most incorrectly reported peerage in history? Proteus (Talk) 12:28, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Hmm can't find anything quickly. The supplementals are a pain to sort through. LG is proving a problematic source atm Alci12

On the Duke's appoinment as a Knight of the Garter in 1728 and on his creation as Prince of Wales in 1751 he is referred to as Marquess of the Isle of Ely. It appears that the earlier London Gazette announcement was a mistake. Tryde (talk) 19:32, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

References

Prince Charles Edward

Wasn't he also a Duke of Edinburgh?

Prince Charles Edward —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gwlubin (talk • contribs) 22:18, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

As one can read there, he was Duke of Albany. His uncle Alfred was Duke of Edinburgh. Charles Edward succeeded Alfred as duke of Saxe-Coburg, but Alfred's British dukedom died with him. —Tamfang (talk) 02:56, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Future Dukes Section

Unless a source can be provided for this analysis, it really must go. From WP:NOT#CBALL, "Articles that present extrapolation, speculation, and "future history" are original research and therefore inappropriate" The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 12:50, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

I have corrected the 'future dukes' section as requested, as the formal announcment from Buckingham Palace (and cited in Whitaker's Almanack 2010 page 46 'Peers of the Blood Royal') makes clear precisely the order of events:

"In June 1999 Buckingham Palace announced that the current Earl of Wessex will be granted the Dukedom of Edinburgh when the title reverts to the Crown. The title will only revert to the Crown on both the death of the current Duke of Edinburgh and the Prince of Wales' succession as King."

It should also be noted that it does not require an 'Act of Parliament' to change the succession of this particular title. When the Prince of Wales becomes King, all his titles automatically revert to the Crown. The only title that is automatically conferred on the new male Heir Apparent (in this case HRH The Duke of Cambridge) is Duke of Cornwall.

Consequent to this, I have explained in the article that:

1) On the death of the current 1st Duke of Edinburgh, the title will pass to the Prince of Wales, who will become the 2nd Duke of Edinburgh of the Third Creation.

2) On the accession of the Prince of Wales as King, all titles held by the Prince of Wales (including that of Edinburgh) will automatically revert to the Crown.

3) At no point would the Dukedom of Edinburgh pass automatically to the eldest son of the King. The only titles that automatically passes to the new Heir Apparent is Duke of Cornwall and Duke of Rothesay.

4) The new King would then be free to create HRH The Earl of Wessex as the 1st Duke of Edinburgh of the Fourth Creation.

Hope that helps. Ds1994 (talk) 19:32, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

The job was already done, and you went back to a model that blatantly violates WP:CBALL. I'm sure you're trying to help, and I'll post more later to discuss the best way to proceed. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 21:33, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi Ds1994. Let me give you some more detail about why I reverted your edit.

As you can see here, the state of the article in December 2007, when User:The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick made his original objection, was more similar to your version than it was to the current version. So I would argue that the question had been answered and did not need any further attention. Also, if you look through the recent page history, you'll see that the article contained several speculative scenarios, different from the one you added but equally possible (if not likely). I pruned these back recently, trying to stick to the facts and making a general statement that the suite of possibilities is complex. I hope that helps. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 03:12, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

By the way, your quote from Whitaker's Almanack would be a useful addition, as this article does need more sources. Is the quote available online? --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 03:17, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps I did not make my contribution very clear? The process by which HRH The Earl of Wessex is granted the Dukedom of of Edinburgh is not as tortuous or as indefinable as the article currently suggests. The points I have raised above are verifiable, inasmuch I have previously discussed the process with the College of Arms in London and this is the understood sequence of events whereby the title will fall upon Prince Edward. Since I have a MA and PhD in history and British Constitutional history from the Universities of Cambridge (England) and St Andrews (Scotland), I suppose I should also be in a position,as a professional English historian, to assert the sequence of events based on professional knowledge?

By all means, keep the section as it is, but the inferences inferred in the section as they now stand are not correct (i.e there is not an 'endless suite of possibilities' as to how the title will devolve). I didn't think the role and purpose of Wikipedia was to mislead?

Finally, if you are a foreigner, you need to realise that in the (unwritten) British constitution anything is possible, and at short notice. As far as succession of titles is concerned, it only takes an Order In Council of the Privy Council to alter the status quo. The Sovereign is the Fount of Honour. What He or She says goes. Full stop. Ds1994 (talk) 17:21, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

I appreciate your expertise. We need experts editing Wikipedia, and in that vein your contributions are most welcome. On the other hand, you should know that, per WP:V and WP:NOR, we cannot publish anything based solely on the word (however well informed) of an editor. I myself have a Ph.D. in science, but my contributions to scientific articles are always based firmly on reliable sources (as Wikipedia defines them).

Please be more specific about what you consider to be incorrect in the article's current state. I am anxious to be sure that we fix any such problems. On the other hand, while we can report WP:RS statements of what authoritative voices expect to happen (this is why I though your Almanack quote was useful, as it is a WP:RS that specifically mentions the death of both Edward's parents as necessary precursors to his receiving the dukedom), we cannot make assumptions about what actually will happen (please do read WP:CBALL if you have not). Here is an example of what is intended by the article's current statements multiple possible eventualities:

If the Queen dies before Prince Philip, then your timeline will be incorrect in that the dukedom will merge with the crown at Philip's death and Charles (who will already be king) will never hold it. It is also possible that William will inherit the crown directly from his grandmother, either because Charles is deceased by that time or because he is unable to assume the throne for some other reason. Going into less likely (but still possible) eventualities, if William has a daughter and then Charles and William die before the Queen and Prince Philip, then Prince Harry will inherit the dukedom while William's daughter becomes Queen. In this case, Edinburgh would be Harry's only dukedom, and it might be difficult to persuade him to yield it to his uncle.

I hope that gives you an idea of why the article currently says what it does, and I look forward to hearing your thoughts and ideas. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 17:58, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

I think you're missing the point entirely. The scenario I have provided would be,by and large, the normal course of events. I doesn't really matter though how the title will devolve, it is the principle that once the title merges with the crown (whether that be the current Prince of Wales or the current Duke of Cambridge) then Prince Edward will be granted the title. The two important time factors are simply when the current Duke of Edinburgh will die and when the title merges into the Crown. It has been planned this way because the time frame for these events is not tremendously long, and for good reason. This is because the Royal Family wish to keep the profile of the title 'alive' due to the process of Devolution currently underway in Scotland, thereby bolstering the profile of the Royal Family in Scotland.

As I've said, the current version of the section is misleading. Better to delete altogether imho.Ds1994 (talk) 18:17, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

The article already says "The simplest way for Edward to become Duke of Edinburgh is for Charles to inherit both the dukedom and the crown, at which point the dukedom would merge with the crown and would become available to be newly created for Edward." Does that not more or less agree with what you were saying? Would you be satisfied if we deleted the final sentence ("However, a number of other eventualities are possible.")? I do want to work with you, but I need to know in more detail what you are suggesting. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 18:18, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

What I'm suggesting is that the 'normal course of events' as outlined initially in the article is the approximate timeframe that has been regarded as 'acceptable' for Prince Edward to be elevated to a Dukedom. If, (and I accept that some of the other scenarios you suggest are possible), the timeframe were to become 'too long', the title would be diverted anyway to Prince Edward via an Order in Council of the Privy Council. It would not need an Act of Parliament to do this. You would need an Act of Parliament to abolish a title (it's been done before, the Titles Deprivation Act 1917), but not to 'divert' or 'accelerate' a title. There is already a 'Writ of Acceleration' in place for the latter - there'd be no problems providing a Writ for the former.

On balance, deleting the final sentence as you suggest may be better than making it even more complicated by adding further legal and constitutional possibilities that may not even occur anyway. Ds1994 (talk) 18:34, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

I think it might also help if we spend less time describing why Edward cannot inherit the title directly. I think that text is left over from the early days after the announcement, when such things were not so clear to everyone.

This is not the first time you have said that no "Act of Parliament" is needed. I don't see the word "Parliament" anywhere in the article, so I wonder what it is that you are reacting against.

Your suggestion of a diversion or acceleration of the title, in the not-unlikely case that the Queen outlives Prince Philip by a large interval, is very interesting. Is there any source that could be cited to substantiate this? Thanks, --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 18:39, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

I've had a go at clearing some of the unnecessary detail. Is this better? --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 19:47, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

On balance I think that looks fine.Ds1994 (talk) 08:38, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

While the present section is fine lest other readers are confused you cannot divert a title via an order in council. An act of parliament is needed to alter the remainder of the title (not simply to extinguish a title) the most famous example being the Dukedom of Marlborough Act. That was passed precisely because you cannot just alter a remainder. The writ of acceleration doesn't alter the remainder it only accelerates the title to the heir apparent - which Prince Edward isn't. Garlicplanting (talk) 14:51, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Since Perth agreement changed succession rights for the Crown but not for the Duke title there appeared an unlikely possibility for the title not to revert to the Crown (which was impossible in 1999 when the statement was made) as Princess Charlotte might inherit the crown directly from current monarch but not the title of the Duke of Edinburgh (to be inherited by Prince Louis in that case). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.67.29.133 (talk) 11:58, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

Yes, but the opening comment in this section still applies: 'Articles that present extrapolation, speculation, and "future history" are original research and therefore inappropriate'. Celia Homeford (talk) 12:26, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

The problem is that statement "eventually returns to the crown" was absolutely true and certain according to the succession rules at that moment but new succession rules do not provide that certainty. Although in any "normal" and likely succession the title will revert to the crown. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.46.217.161 (talk) 12:38, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

Prince William of Wales as Baron Greenwich?

The parents of Viscount Severn wanted that their son is styled with one of his father's subsidiary titles, as is possible for a peer's son. This instead of that the Viscount is also a prince. Could Prince William therefore be also styled with one of his grandfather's subsidiary titles, thus Baron Greenwich, if he wanted this? Thus as "HRH Lord Greenwich", and after marriage Kate Middleton as "HRH Lady Greenwich"? Mr. D. E. Mophon (talk) 14:59, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

No, he already holds a courtesy title much higher than that of Baron Greenwich: Prince of the United Kingdom. Therefore, there is no need for him to use another courtesy title. Surtsicna (talk) 15:14, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

I know, but this is also the case with James, Viscount Severn, but instead named by his higher Princely title, he is styled as a viscount. The "rules" (?) do not forbid this. So, is this (theoretically) also possible for Prince William? P.S.: "Prince" is not a courtesy title. Mr. D. E. Mophon (talk) 15:19, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

It was decided that James' and Louise's rights to princely title would be ignored and that they would be styled as children of a mere earl. That is clearly not the case with William. Styling him as Lord Greenwich would be degrading and I doubt that the Palace wants to degrade the future monarch. Anyway, the title of Prince of the United Kingdom is clearly not a substantive title. Surtsicna (talk) 16:19, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Duke of Edinburgh. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20101203012826/http://www.royal.gov.uk/ThecurrentRoyalFamily/TheEarlofWessex/The%20Earl%20of%20Wessex.aspx to http://www.royal.gov.uk/ThecurrentRoyalFamily/TheEarlofWessex/The%20Earl%20of%20Wessex.aspx

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 23:51, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Link is useful. Dhtwiki (talk) 21:49, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

numbering for Dukes of Gloucester and Edinburgh

Why are the Dukes of Gloucester and Edinburgh not listed as 1st and 2nd dukes, either here or on their bio pages, as is the usual practice for peers on Wikipedia? --Jfruh (talk) 23:48, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

This is simple. The Dukes of Gloucester and Edinburgh are royal dukes, i.e. members of the royal family, therefore they need not be referred to by the number of their dukedom, as they're known for being British princes 1st, British dukes 2nd — Preceding unsigned comment added by CanadianPrince (talk • contribs) 16:02, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Duke of Edinburgh. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://archive.is/20130420032158/http://www.cracroftspeerage.co.uk/online/content/index1251.htm to http://www.cracroftspeerage.co.uk/online/content/index1251.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080319043748/http://www.ukdukes.co.uk/the_dukes/the_duke_of_edinburgh/ to http://www.ukdukes.co.uk/the_dukes/the_duke_of_edinburgh/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:20, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Duke of Edinburgh 33 Allan Warren.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 15:11, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 April 2021

it would be six people in front of edward, not 7. He is 7th in line.... 213.18.172.119 (talk) 18:00, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

The article has been changed more than once to answer this concern. Dhtwiki (talk) 02:12, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 April 2021 (2)

Duke of Edinburgh title is not prince Charles, eventually it will be the Earl of Wessex 86.149.255.219 (talk) 18:08, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Eventually it will be Edward, yes. Right now, it's Charles. Marnanel (talk) 04:06, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Marking as answered. Uses x (talk • contribs) 10:42, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

the Wessex succession (OR)

It was announced in 1999, at the time of the wedding of Prince Edward, Earl of Wessex, that he would follow his father as Duke of Edinburgh. This is unlikely to happen by inheritance, as this would require Prince Edward to be predeceased by all seven people ahead of him in the line of succession.

Not only that, the crown must pass to a daughter of one of these (Charlotte, Beatrice or Eugenie) before passing to any male! (Otherwise the dukedom is submerged in the crown.) That means Elizabeth would have to outlive Charles, William and George, and either Elizabeth or Charlotte must outlive Louis, Harry, Archie and Andrew. —Tamfang (talk) 21:41, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Tamfang When a titles merges with the crown it can be re-issued. At present the Crown's only dukedom is Lancaster. Queen Elizabeth II is also the Duke of Lancaster. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.245.92.25 (talk) 16:50, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

That is technically not true as the Queen does hold the properities of the Duchy of Lancaster, but not the Dukedom of Lancaster, as the reigning monarch cannot hold a peerage, but can hold lands associated therein. User: CanadianPrince — Preceding undated comment added 16:04, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

And in that case it does not pass to Edward by inheritance, as the quoted passage observes. —Tamfang (talk) 04:55, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

about that hatnote

This article is about the title. For the current holder, see Charles, Prince of Wales. For other uses, see Duke of Edinburgh (disambiguation).

Would anyone come here looking for Charles, rather than Philip? Charles will rarely if ever be referred to as the Duke of Edinburgh. —Tamfang (talk) 21:59, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

I've added a link to Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh, as the first holder, to the hatnote, thinking that might be your concern here. Dhtwiki (talk) 08:00, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Amend hatnote?

In the hatnote, consider changing "the first holder" to the "the previous holder" - as the first holder was Prince Frederick, back in 1726 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 51.9.7.102 (talk • contribs)

I've fixed it. -- Calidum 19:30, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

TMI

I question the relevance/appropriateness here of the matter added today by Rupertslander. —Tamfang (talk) 05:29, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Yes, especially the unsourced detailing of some opposition to Charles's becoming king, but also the apparently unsourced detailing of improbably succession scenarios. It's excessive detail, even if sourced Dhtwiki (talk) 06:01, 12 April 2021 (UTC) (slightly edited 06:03, 12 April 2021 (UTC))

And the bit about what Camilla's title will be when the dukedom vanishes! —Tamfang (talk) 19:35, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Heir apparent

It would be good to get a reference one way or the other as to whether Prince William is to be currently considered, as of 9 April 2021, as the heir apparent to this title. This has been added and deleted to the article a couple of times. The Wikipedia article for heir apparent defines an heir apparent as follows: An heir apparent is a person who is first in an order of succession and cannot be displaced from inheriting by the birth of another person. If this definition is taken literally, William appears to meet the definition. William can be--and indeed is expected to be--displaced by Charles inheriting the throne, the title merging with the Crown, and then the title being recreated for Edward, not William. But William cannot be displaced by the birth of another person. I'm looking for a good reference for this outside of Wikipedia, but won't add "heir apparent" back in unless I find such a reference. Dash77 (talk) 19:25, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

A reason given for William's name being removed as heir apparent was that it is unsourced. If you can find a source for this, that would help. As it is likely that Charles will accede to the throne, this title merge and be re-granted to Edward, per announced plans, having William named as heir is more problematic than for other articles on noble titles. Dhtwiki (talk) 22:01, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

By definition he is hier apparent, this is indisputable. If Charles dies before becoming king then William would inheriet the title, and William can't be displaced by the birth of another person.
SSSB (talk) 08:55, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

I think that's indisputable, but there are no sources, that I've encountered, that say this. Edward is regarded as the likely next holder, via a re-grant; that's what the news sources say about who will succeed to the title, without mentioning William's status as current heir apparent. It's a confusing situation, and in the past there were several attempts to list Edward as heir when Philip was alive. Dhtwiki (talk) 15:56, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

I would argue that we don't need a source. Combining the definition of hier and the section within the article on succession with the common knowledge that Charles' oldest son is William, WP:COMMONSENSE dictates that William is heir apparant. If people put Edward as heir apparent we revert with what Dash77 said above or simply point them to the sucession section of the article, which explains the situation clearly. If they keep doing it we can ask for page protection on the grounds of consistent disruptive editing.
SSSB (talk) 16:21, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

I agree. If a title descends to heirs male (which this does), then the current holder's most senior living male-line descendant is the heir apparent. That is obvious and doesn't need a specific source in each case. Proteus (Talk) 17:30, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

@User: Beatrix TBS Please see the above discussion before making further changes. Additionally, there have been reports from reliable sources that Edward may not receive it. Regardless, at it currently stands, legally, William is the heir apparent. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bettydaisies (talk • contribs) 21:45, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

other dated titles

In the boxes for each holder, the titles listed after "also:" are inconsistently tagged with the date of creation or the date of succession (which are sometimes but not always the same). Can we pick one? —Tamfang (talk) 05:22, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Dates of additional titles

In the list of Dukes, the dates that follow the additional titles are a mix of

1. the date the title was created,

2. the date the holder inherited the title,

3. when the holder was known by that title.

From similar lists elsewhere it looks like the first option is the one most generally used on Wikipedia so I propose to change all dates to match that. --Mgp28 (talk) 16:54, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

I've made the dates consistent as those when each title was created but I'm not sure that's the most helpful.

It might be more useful to list the subsidiary titles that were part of the same creation at the top of each section as they will be common to all members of the table, then for individuals just list the highest titles they hold from different creations with both the date they gained the title and when it was created.

I've put an example of how this might work here [1]. It might also be useful to get a wider discussion to see if these tables should be made more consistent across Wikipedia. --Mgp28 (talk) 18:32, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

User:Tamfang, I've just seen in the Talk archive that you made a similar comment last year. Do you think the current version[2] is a suitable solution? --Mgp28 (talk) 18:44, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

fine with me —Tamfang (talk) 19:16, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

Edward

Now that the title has merged in the Crown, if Prince Edward is granted the title (in accordance with speculation) will that be the fourth creation of the tile? 104.153.40.58 (talk) 22:52, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

Yes, I think so. Dhtwiki (talk) 01:26, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

If the title merged with the crown.Can be the sovereign become the Duke of Edinburgh?

There are sources saying that the dukedom of Edinburgh lies with the king,can we just cross out the extinction date as it was not extinct. Him9 (talk) 09:44, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

It has ceased to exist, it is no longer a dukedom, it is no more. That's what merger in the Crown means. DeCausa (talk) 16:36, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

That's merging with the ground. A more relevant link might be Hereditary_peer#Merging_in_the_Crown. Dhtwiki (talk) 06:34, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

The holder of a peerage is a vassal of the monarch, and the monarch cannot be his own vassal. That is the theory in Britain and France, though it seems not in some other states such as Spain and the Netherlands, whose monarchs have numerous lesser titles older than the kingdom. —Tamfang (talk) 03:30, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

Subsidiary titles

Should the titles, Earl of Wessex, Earl of Forfar and Viscount Severn be included as subsidiary titles of the dukedom of Edinburgh? Usually upon the granting of a more senior title, existing lower titles become subsidiary titles. An example is Arthur Wellesley, 1st Duke of Wellington. He was originally styled as Earl of Wellington, then Marquess of Wellington. When he became a duke, that earldom became a subsidiary title of Duke of Wellington. DDMS123 (talk) 04:59, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

I looked at the pages Duke of York & Duke of Albany (for examples) & they have the subsidiary titles within the infoboxes of each title holder. GoodDay (talk) 05:07, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, almost every dukedom contains subsidiary titles in the infobox. I only started this discussion because some people keep removing it, so I am trying to gain a talk page consensus. DDMS123 (talk) 05:13, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

If the rest have'em, then consistency is best. GoodDay (talk) 05:25, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

Agreed DDMS123 (talk) 05:27, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

Usually after granted a senior title others become subsidiary titles, it is correct.

But just mention them under "Fourth Creation" as "Also : Earl of Wessex, Earl of Forfar, Viscount Servern" is not accurate and could be incorrectly understood by some one not familiar. Those titles are earlier created and can be inherited by Duke's heirs male.

So it is better to indicate them under "Duke" column as also [title] [year of creation]. And alter bottom line as "The dukedom will be held for Prince Edward’s lifetime, and other titles will be passed to his heirs male upon his death" Chamika1990 (talk) 05:49, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

So are you proposing something like this? DDMS123 (talk) 05:59, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

Duke	Portrait	Birth	Marriage(s)	Death
Prince Edward 2023–present House of Windsor also: Earl of Wessex (1999), Earl of Forfar (2019), Viscount Severn (1999)		10 March 1964 Buckingham Palace, London Son of Queen Elizabeth II and Prince Philip	Sophie Rhys-Jones 19 June 1999 2 children	Living
The dukedom will be held for Prince Edward’s lifetime as a non-hereditary peerage title.

DDMS123 (talk) 05:59, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

Yes, bottom line should be like

"The dukedom will be reverted to crown on death of Prince Edward as created non-hereditary, other titles will be passed to his heirs (male) " Chamika1990 (talk) 06:11, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

I only changed the 'Duke' column because I'm not sure if your proposed changes to the bottom line are suitable for this article as it is the article for the dukedom. For example, when Charles was the duke, it didn't say in the bottom line that the duke of Cornwall title was going to be granted to the heir to the throne once he becomes king. DDMS123 (talk) 06:26, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

Extinction of a peerage is not usually described as "reversion to the crown". —Tamfang (talk) 23:39, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

You're right, a title reverting (or merging) to the Crown only occurs when the title holder succeeds to the position of monarch. If the title holder dies without issue, the peerage goes extinct. DDMS123 (talk) 08:17, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

2023 creation

I think the fourth creation has already been officially created, so it should be unnecessary to use "was expected" because it has now been officially created.2401:E180:8871:8D1D:9E99:A860:99DB:E895 (talk) 02:41, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

You're right. I think the only reason it was reverted was because you didn't rewrite the sentence properly as it said "It that a new, fourth creation...". DDMS123 (talk) 02:50, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

I guess the sentence is saying that it was expected he would be made Duke of Edinburgh in 2022 (after the accession) not in 2023. DDMS123 (talk) 02:51, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

After King Charles iii came to the throne, another creation has already happened, still need to keep "was expected" ? 2401:E180:8871:8D1D:9E99:A860:99DB:E895 (talk) 02:59, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

I would say not. I often delete passages about announcements that something was going to happen in the past. —Tamfang (talk) 06:38, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

my english is not very good can you help rewrite the sentence 2401:E180:8871:8D1D:9E99:A860:99DB:E895 (talk) 02:55, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

I reorganised the paragraph and made it say "After the dukedom reverted to the Crown when King Charles III acceded to the throne in late 2022, it was expected that a new, fourth creation would be bestowed on Prince Edward in that same year." DDMS123 (talk) 02:58, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

comprehend Thx 2401:E180:8871:8D1D:9E99:A860:99DB:E895 (talk) 03:03, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

I checked the previous edit of this paragraph and it was saying that it was expected to be created again after Charles III came to the throne.

That's why I removed "was expected" because the expectation has officially happened 2401:E180:8871:8D1D:9E99:A860:99DB:E895 (talk) 03:19, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

Do you want me to just remove the whole sentence? DDMS123 (talk) 03:22, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

I just want to delete the meaning of "was expected" without deleting the whole sentence. 2401:E180:8871:8D1D:9E99:A860:99DB:E895 (talk) 03:29, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

How about combining the two paragraphs together? - "Approximately six months after the dukedom reverted to the Crown when Charles III acceded to the throne, on 10 March 2023, the title was created a fourth time and bestowed on Prince Edward. The title will be held by Prince Edward for his lifetime as a non-hereditary peerage title." DDMS123 (talk) 03:37, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

OK 2401:E180:8875:7E6:8F78:2336:707B:CD88 (talk) 03:44, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for helping to modify. Thx 2401:E180:8872:3152:6DAB:57DC:6BB2:7D5 (talk) 05:21, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

I found out that a lot of stuff has been added since yesterday's discussion. 2401:E180:8832:E09C:1F4A:38F:FF11:C4C0 (talk) 04:03, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

I wouldn't dwell too much on the speculations before Edward was created Duke of Edinburgh. Though I must admit the speculations that the title was gonna be saved for Prince William's daughter, was definitely far-fetched. GoodDay (talk) 19:51, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

I've noticed that this section has been augmented quite a bit in the last few hours 2401:E180:8832:E09C:1F4A:38F:FF11:C4C0 (talk) 04:07, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

it would be more likely given to her future husband rather than Charlotte herself. But to be honest Charlotte is a likely candidate for the next Princess Royal King4852 (talk) 11:51, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

Do we need to adjust the text of this paragraph? adjust the sentence. 2401:E180:8831:924:41D3:C124:22B2:9E49 (talk) 16:18, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

As noted, the text for the 2023 creation has expanded considerably. Most of the information is derived from the source article provided from the Daily Telegraph. Much of this is speculative with regard to the Dukedom being granted to Princess Charlotte, and surely inaccurate when it suggests the title should 'technically' be granted next to the Duke of York? The section for the 2023 creation needs to be trimmed down at least for the sake of brevity, and to remove those elements of speculation.Ds1994 (talk) 19:36, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

yes i think the same as you. 61.216.108.175 (talk) 02:10, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

I also agree that part of the guesswork needs to be removed. 2401:E180:8831:DECD:6352:9705:5BC7:79C (talk) 02:19, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

It is fine as it is. DDMS123 (talk) 03:55, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

I think some form of consensus should be reached on this. If the information is factual and relevant then fair enough, but much of the added content is, as mentioned before, derived from speculative article from a UK newspaper. I thought the purpose of Wikipedia is to provide factual information, and not speculation? There is no substantive proof that Princess Charlotte would be offered the Dukedom of Edinburgh. Neither is it correct in the article that the Duke of York should be granted another Dukedom simply because of his place in the succession to the Throne? However I agree no changes should be made until consensus is reached.Ds1994 (talk) 16:56, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

Agreed DDMS123 (talk) 18:17, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

I think it is fair to say there was uncertainty / speculation about whether the Dukedom would go to Edward, but I think we should be careful not to stray into adding to that speculation. I haven't been past the paywall, but the opening sentences of this article seems to refer to unnamed "insiders" and "according to reports", so might not necessarily be highly reliable. Until last week there was a sentence

Clarence House stated that "all stories of this nature are speculation, no final decisions have been taken" and declined to comment further.

I would suggest reinstating something like this so we would have

1. Some detail about what was said at the time of Prince Edward's wedding
2. That a lot of time had passed and people didn't know for sure what would happen
3. Actual details of the fourth creation --Mgp28 (talk) 19:48, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

Also, the text about it being non-hereditary so that William can confer it on one of his children seems very speculative, both in terms of the reason for Charles' decision and the possible future plans of a possible future king. --Mgp28 (talk) 19:56, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

Agree with your suggestions above. Perhaps posting the revised text here and if consensus is reached revise the article?Ds1994 (talk) 15:38, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

Ok, how about something like:

When Prince Edward was married in 1999, he was created Earl of Wessex rather than receiving a dukedom as is typically given to sons of the monarch. It was announced that he would eventually be granted the Dukedom of Edinburgh when that title reverted to the Crown. This plan had been suggested by his father Prince Philip, then holder of the title, who unexpectedly conveyed this wish to Edward and his then-fiancée, Sophie Rhys-Jones, only days before their wedding.

When Prince Philip died in April 2021 his dukedom was inherited by his eldest son, Prince Charles. By this time Edward had moved to 14th in the line of succession to the British throne (from 7th at the time of his wedding). He described the prospect of becoming Duke of Edinburgh as "a pipe dream of my father's," and in July 2021 The Times reported that Charles had decided he would not give the title to his brother. Clarence House responded, "All stories of this nature are speculation, no final decisions have been taken," and declined to comment further.

In September 2022 Charles became king and the title merged in the crown. There was further speculation regarding whether the title would go to Edward, with suggestions that it might be saved for someone higher in the line of succession, such as Princess Charlotte of Wales.

On 10 March 2023, Prince Edward's 59th birthday, he was granted the Dukedom of Edinburgh as a non-hereditary title. Edward will therefore be the only duke of this fourth creation.

I am very inclined to stop here. We already know Charles plans to scale back the size of the monarchy and that the Edinburghs have chosen to raise their children without royal titles. Either of these could just as easily be the reason for the non-hereditary title as a planned fifth creation. Until we have a source that tells us which is the case, I believe we should leave it alone. --Mgp28 (talk) 17:01, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

That looks good to me. The information is concise with just a brief mention of some of the speculation alluded to. I hope others concur especially those who contributed to the section.Ds1994 (talk) 20:23, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

I agree 2401:E180:8822:869D:5766:BEB4:1D83:BC9A (talk) 04:14, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

I agree with you that this matter is full of uncertainty and there is no reliable information to prove it. The whole thing is still in the speculation stage.

Whether this event will happen in the future is full of high uncertainties. 2401:E180:8820:9C44:5F2D:1467:A958:740E (talk) 09:59, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

@GoodDay:

@Surtsicna:

DDMS123 (talk) 04:28, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for pinging me! First I want to point out that that The Daily Telegraph is not The Daily Mail. The former is one of the most reputable publications in the United Kingdom and finest media sources on British royal family; the latter is a deprecated tabloid.

Secondly, we should put aside our own ideas of what should be accurate. That Andrew might be granted the Dukedom of Edinburgh was something Edward himself said he had expected in an interview with the author of the source article. The interview is not mentioned in our article, but it is in the cited source.

The Earl is almost apologetic as he admits that ‘theoretically’ the title should go to the Duke of York. ‘It’s a very bittersweet role to take on because the only way the title can come to me is after both my parents have actually passed away,’ he explains. ‘It has to go back to the Crown first. ‘My father was very keen that the title should continue, but he didn’t quite move quickly enough with Andrew, so it was us who he eventually had the conversation with. It was a lovely idea; a lovely thought.’

Though the bit about Charlotte (or a sibling of hers) being candidates for the title is far less clear-cut than a proper interview with Edward himself, it still comes from a reliable source. The author, Camilla Tominey, was nominated at The Press Awards for her reports on the British royal family.[3]

As it stands now, the last paragraph of the section does not state that the reason Edward's title is not hereditary is to allow it to be eventually granted to a child of William's; it merely states that it not being hereditary makes the regrant possible, which is no speculation at all. I propose that, if the November reports about the dukedom being saved for Charlotte should be axed, this bit be saved as a compromise. This article is about the title after all, so indisputable information about its future seems relevant to me. Surtsicna (talk) 06:28, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

Thanks also for the information provided, particularly the background to the idea of the Dukedom of Edinburgh being awarded to Prince Andrew. I must say that is a really surprising suggestion, and I'm not sure if this has been done before? Either way as you say there is a reliable source for it so it should be included.Ds1994 (talk) 11:50, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply.

Regarding Andrew becoming Duke of Edinburgh, our text currently seems to imply that Edward had expected in 1999 that the title would go to his brother. Re-reading the interview above, I now think he meant that if they had had this idea of recreating the title for one of Prince Philip's sons sooner, they would have planned it for Andrew rather than for Edward. "He didn’t quite move quickly enough with Andrew" meaning that he wouldn't be created Duke of Edinburgh once he was already Duke of York. Is this your interpretation?

In the final paragraph I am most uncomfortable with "...making it possible for Charles's heir-apparent, Prince William, to confer it on one of his children". The ages of everyone involved makes it most likely that William would be king when the title becomes available again but that isn't certain. Also, the future re-creation could be for anyone, not just one of Prince William's children. And the phrasing almost seems to suggest that being able to create a Duke of Edinburgh is the important honour that's being saved. How about something like

This fourth creation of the title is not hereditary. This honours Prince Philip's wish and rewards the new Duke and Duchess, but allows for the title to be re-created for another core member of the royal family in the future.

? --Mgp28 (talk) 08:13, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback, everyone. It seems that some things should be clarified in the text after all. Yes, that could be one interpretation (but we are not supposed to make it); on the other hand, Edward says in the interview (2021) that the title should still "theoretically" go to Edward. So Edward holding York did not, in Edward's view (and presumably the royal family's), preclude him from getting Edinburgh too. The main concern seems to be that the seniority of the prince (or princess, apparently) should correspond to the seniority of the title, which fits the reports of Charlotte being a contender and is the reason why Tominey specifies that Charles's decisions allows William to recreate it for one of his children. In that case, "allows for the title to be re-created for a more senior member of the royal family in the future" might be a more accurate rephrasing. Still, just saying what the source says would, I think, be most in line with Wikipedia policies. Surtsicna (talk) 23:45, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

"move quickly enough" is a puzzler. Neither Andrew nor anyone else could be made Duke of Edinburgh while Philip or Elizabeth was alive. —Tamfang (talk) 19:01, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

Yes. I've come to terms with my interpretation of what he meant for my own understanding but so much happens behind closed doors I don't have anything further to add that could be verifiable. --Mgp28 (talk) 19:19, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

Concerning royal duekdoms. I didn't know those titles could be given to women. So, that's why I didn't take the Charlotte story seriously. GoodDay (talk) 10:26, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

Agreed. I've taken a look at the previous creations of Royal Dukedoms, and I don't think it's ever been awarded to a woman. As noted previously the expected title for Princess Charlotte will be Princess Royal, as and when it becomes available.Ds1994 (talk) 11:50, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

One of the first ever dukedoms was granted for life to a king's granddaughter, Margaret, Duchess of Norfolk, in the 14th century. Otherwise dukedoms have been granted to royal mistresses. It is unusual but not impossible or unheard of. Surtsicna (talk) 23:45, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

References