Friday, March 10, 2023

New title for Edward



Claire said...

May I retract my previous posts/question? I've since seen the clarification. Thank you!

Royal admirer said...

Congratulations to the Duke and Happiest of Birthdays. It was a little bit of a shock to see young James addressed at the Earl of Wessex. I know you are not a believer but I think the Lady Louise would be an excellent addition to the working royals. She has watched her parents the Duke and Duchess of Edinburgh serve. The queens' cousins will not be able to serve for too many more years. George and gang will not be able to serve for quite a few years. Happy for the Prince Edward and his family.

Janet said...

Good evening. I notice in the announcement that the dukedom is to be held by Edward for his lifetime. Does that mean that his son James will not inherit the title? Also, does James now become the Earl of Wessex or remain Viscount Severn? Thank you!

Marlene Eilers Koenig said...

James is now Earl of Wessex as a courtesy title. It reverts to a peerage when Edward dies.

Marlene Eilers Koenig said...

Lady Louise will have her own career. She has been raised out of the limelight ... what is a royal engagement is changing

Lisa said...

Hi Marlene,
If he inherited his father's titles shouldn't James be known as the Earl of Wessex AND Forfar. Why does the royal website only use Earl of Wessex? Or as the Queen personally granted Edward and Sophie the title are he and Sophie Duke and Duchess of Edinburgh, Earl and Countess of Forfar?

Marlene Eilers Koenig said...

Lisa, The Duke is Earl of Forfar as well - James will inherit that peerage when his father dies

Malcolm said...

If the creation is to be for life there is a potential problem-the House of Lords in the Wensleydale Peerage case held that the Crown had no power to create life peerages.That was in 1856 and Lord Wensleydale was to be a law lord.Parliament subsequently passed the Appellate Jurisdiction Act in 1876 which enabled law life peerages to be created, and in 1958 the Life Peerages Act was passed which enables life peerages to be granted,but only in the degree of Baron.
The problem may be able to be solved by a special remainder whereby the dukedom is nominated to descend next to the person holding the Crown.If such a remainder is valid(and it has never been tested),then when Prince Edward dies it will descend to Prince William who by then will presumably be King and the title will merge with the Crown and cease to exist.
So the point is in terms of peerage law,we are sailing into uncharted waters.

Marlene Eilers Koenig said...

"The [Life Peerages Act 1958] stipulates that only baronies can be created, but it is submitted that
the Crown could still create other classes of life Peers without the right to sit in the House of
Lords.16" edward has no rights to sit in the House of Lords

Malcolm said...

I don’t know where the quoted remarks come from,but the problem with them is that until Tony Blair’s reforms,any hereditary peer had the right to sit in the House of Lord(that right being considered an essential element of a peerage).The reforms limit that right to peers elected by their fellow heriditary peers
Prince Edward does not sit in the House of Lords due to his status as a member of the Royal Family,not because of his peerage(in due course his grandson in the male line who succeeds as Earl of Wessex will be entitled to be elected as an hereditary peer if he so chooses.
The present position is, that until the House of Lords decides otherwise, a life peerage may not be conferred unless it is done pursuant the Life Peerages Act or with the concurrence of the House of Lords.See Palmer Peerage Law in England 1907 at p88 where the margin note says “Life Peerages held illegal”.
Now,as it happens,I think the historical argument is wrong and there is in fact no restriction on creating life peerages in any degree.
The fact is however for that to become true,the decision in the Wensleydale Peerage case must be overturned.

Marlene Eilers Koenig said...

The quote is in the research-breaking link.

Malcolm said...

Thank you for quoting the source.
Unfortunately it is not the original source which is from Ron Gadd's book Peerage Law published in 1985.
The problem with Ron Gadd's view is that the right to sit in the House of Lords was traditionally one of the main elements in the grant of an hereditary peerage,other than the use of the title itself.Indeed there are a category of peerages known as peerages created by writ,whereby the issue of a writ of summons to a person followed by attendance in Parliament in answer to that summons, was deemed to create an hereditary peerage in the degree of baron with a limitation to heirs general(which means females are capable of inheriting those peerages subject to the rules of abeyance).It is a view that,whatever its merit,is unsupported by legal authority.It should also be noted that Gadd is of the view that the Crown cannot create peerages in the degrees above baronies limited to heirs general and thus Lady Arlington is not entitled to the Earldom of Arlington.The existence of that view is inconsistent with the Crown's power to create peerages without the de facto veto of the House of Lords as to the entitlement of peers to sit.
The essential point to make is this-in lawyer's speak(I am one if that were not already obvious) is that the ability to create a peerage for life is at best "not free from doubt"

Andrea said...

Congratulation to Edward and James.

My mom, who is not intersted in Royals says:"James is a Name for a Butler."😉😁

Greetings to your cats.