Yes, I agree there can still be an option for the monarch to create a royal dukedom for one of his sons in future, the obvious example being Prince Louis of Wales who could receive on such when his own father succeeds as king. Not sure what remains in the monarch's choice of "available royal dukedoms" to give out however? "Clarence"? That has some dark historic associations - but there must be others I'm forgetting about..
I think royal dukedoms will still be created when the sons of the sovereign or heir-apparent marries. It just might pass out of being "royal" quicker than in time past.
AS for Edinburgh, it would be a shame to deprive Edward of that after all this time of expecting it.
As for downsizing in general. I do hope King Charles limits any restriction on royal titles to his descendants. There is no reason to deprive people (ie - the York, Gloucester, and Kent Princes/sses) of titles they have had all their lives. Those will all disappear quite naturally with the current holders.
I now believe there will be no more royal dukedoms created.
After the demise of the current Dukes of York, Gloucester and Kent the only royal dukedoms would be Lancaster (held by the King) and Cornwall and others now held by the Prince of Wales.
And Sussex? We have read that Archie is not to get HRH so that dukedom would cease to be a royal one on him succeediing.
As for Edinburgh, it's quite possible that all parties to the "Wessex agreement" had reached another and different agreement. After all it would be more in line with the character of Prince Philip if he is remembered well into the future on his own merits and achievements through the Duke of Edinburgh's Award.
459
Message Thread | This response ↓
« Back to index