New Titles for the Wessexes

[Curryong]

I've already scheduled a manicure for today @Curryong.   :happy:   Working to update these threads is taking a toll on my fingers!

I can appreciate that. Thank goodness (hopefully) there are no more BRF titles to bestow in the next few weeks or your fingers will be worn down to the knuckles!

[TLLK]

@Curryong-I need to contact BP ASAP!!!   :D

[TLLK]

Here's the official press release from BP.

Read Buckingham Palace?s statement in full regarding the Duke of Edinburgh ? Royal Central

A little history on the former Duchesses of Edinburgh which includes the late Queen Elizabeth II and the  Queen Camilla on the list.

All of Edinburgh?s duchesses ? from a forgotten princess to a truly historic Monarch ? Royal Central

[Amabel2]

@Curryong-I need to contact BP ASAP!!!   :D

Hard work foryou.  At least there's an end now to the silly stories about Charlotte getting the title.

[sara8150]

Prince Edward is granted Duke of Edinburgh title on 59th birthday | Daily Mail Online

The Duchess of Edinburgh! Prince Edward's wife Sophie earns new title | Daily Mail Online

History of the Duke of Edinburgh title as Prince Edward follows in father Philip's footsteps | Daily Mail Online
Not back to Prince Alfred who is son of Queen Victoria 1866 for 157 years

How Lady Louise, 19, is missing out on title - which passes to her younger brother James, 15, | Daily Mail Online

King Charles Gives Prince Edward Royal Title That Was Prince Philip's

Why Prince Edward's New Royal Title Won't Pass to Son James

King Charles FINALLY gives Prince Edward new royal title on his birthday | HELLO!

Why Lady Louise Windsor has missed out on new royal title - unlike brother James | HELLO!

Royal fans hope for new royal title for Prince Edward on his birthday | HELLO!

King Charles gives Prince Edward ?Duke of Edinburgh? title | Monarchy | The Guardian

Lady Louise expected to work for a living as expert says it's 'not possible' for new title | Royal | News | Express.co.uk

James Viscount Severn steps up as King Charles makes him the new Earl of Wessex | Royal | News | Express.co.uk

Lady Louise misses out on new title as she's only Wessex family member not to get top role | Royal | News | Express.co.uk

Sophie Wessex receives special new title as Prince Edward becomes Duke of Edinburgh | Royal | News | Express.co.uk

Prince Edward confirmed as new Duke of Edinburgh as King Charles marks brother's birthday | Royal | News | Express.co.uk

https://www.itv.com/news/2023-03-10/king-gives-duke-of-edinburgh-title-to-edward-to-honour-philips-wish

King Charles finally fulfils Queen's pledge by handing Edward and Sophie top royal titles - Mirror Online

Prince Edward is made Duke of Edinburgh by King Charles on his 59th birthday with new titles for other royals | The Sun

[Nightowl]

^Best news in a long time from King Charles, Edward and Sophie are well deserving of this as they are loyal and honest and gracious.  Some need to learn from them!

[sara8150]

Here?s why James will never become Duke of Edinburgh ? Royal Central

The history of the Dukedom of Edinburgh ? Royal Central

The King confers the Dukedom of Edinburgh on Prince Edward ? Royal Central

Introducing the new 15-year-old Earl of Wessex ? Royal Central

The one member of Prince Edward?s family who doesn?t get a new title ? his daughter, Lady Louise ? Royal Central

[Curryong]

What ARE the tabloids nattering on about? Louise is in exactly the same position as she was three days ago. She?s the daughter of a peer. Everybody in Britain knows (or should do) that the eldest or only sons of Peers inherit their father?s titles and their daughters don?t. It?s been that way for centuries. Is it unfair in many ways? Yes of course it is, but that?s the way it is with peerages, and I am absolutely sure Louise and James know it and accept it.

And ?missing out on a top role? What top role is her mother Sophie getting in this new scenario? She, and Edward are performing exactly the same duties as they were a week ago, except that Edward has a life peerage and is now a Duke. It?s a title and term of address, not a profession!

Edward and Sophie are still the youngest son of the late Queen and his wife, and their place in the succession hasn?t changed. And James will still be Earl of Wessex and Forfar in substantive not honorary terms one day, just as he would be last week. And he and Louise will almost certainly be getting jobs after their tertiary education as well.

[Curryong]

@Curryong-I need to contact BP ASAP!!!   :D

Yes, you are going to have to tick them off and say this has to stop right now!

[TLLK]

Yes, you are going to have to tick them off and say this has to stop right now!

Well I'm hesitating because I better not tick them off and lose out on any discounted Coronation souvenirs!!  :windsor1:

[Curryong]

Well I'm hesitating because I better not tick them off and lose out on any discounted Coronation souvenirs!!  :windsor1:

Those coffee mugs with Charles and Camilla?s faces on them will be going for nothing after the Coronation anyway. Ring up the Lord Chamberlain. This can?t go on. Your nerves will be shattered!

[TLLK]

What ARE the tabloids nattering on about? Louise is in exactly the same position as she was three days ago. She?s the daughter of a peer. Everybody in Britain knows (or should do) that the eldest or only sons of Peers inherit their father?s titles and their daughters don?t. It?s been that way for centuries. Is it unfair in many ways? Yes of course it is, but that?s the way it is with peerages, and I am absolutely sure Louise and James know it and accept it.

And ?missing out on a top role? What top role is her mother Sophie getting in this new scenario? She, and Edward are performing exactly the same duties as they were a week ago, except that Edward has a life peerage and is now a Duke. It?s a title and term of address, not a profession!

Edward and Sophie are still the youngest son of the late Queen and his wife, and their place in the succession hasn?t changed. And James will still be Earl of Wessex and Forfar in substantive not honorary terms one day, just as he would be last week. And he and Louise will almost certainly be getting jobs after their tertiary education as well.

They're nattering because it's Friday or it's raining or there's a new episode of Britain's Got Talent...in other words they just natter.

Don't get me wrong, I am absolutely delighted for the couple and their family. To now be the title holder for Edinburgh which Edward's father held for so very long, must bring them much happiness even though they miss the Queen and DoE. I am glad for them that the couple now are the "keepers" of this prestigious royal title.  Their children had a special relationship with their elderly grandparents as they were able to see them more frequently on the weekends at Windsor, than their older cousins would have had in the 80's and 90's when they were children.

However for now the Edinburgh family stays in the same positions in the line of succession which is currently 13th, 14th and 15th .And  they'll shift downward again when Eugenie's baby is born. There won't be a dramatic change in protocol as far as I can tell either.

[LouisFerdinand]

Congratulations to Prince Edward and Sophie on their new titles!  :yesss: :yesss: :yesss:

[Kristeh-H]

I'm so happy for Edward and Sophie!  They are loyal and hard-working, and very much deserve their new titles.     :yesss:

[HistoryGirl2]

I actually never realized that the (former) Wessexes had chosen not to style their children as a prince and princess. I like that they didn?t foist that on them. They?ve really found their way. They struggled at the beginning with Sophie having worked all her life, but she seems to have taken that work ethic and both have put their boots to the ground even though they don?t get as much publicity.

I think the Queen appreciated their hard work and support while she was alive. I do like that the title is not hereditary and will be reverted back to the Crown once Edward passes.

[Amabel2]

I dont think it is clear whose idea it was.  It mgith have been Ed and Sophie or it might have been due to the fact that the RF was quite unpopular at the time and it may have been felt that to give the children HRH was not goig to fly well and it might be better to style them as the children of an Earl.
As for Sophie, she goofed up more than once - so did Edward, in the early years... 

[HistoryGirl2]

Well they can and still don?t go by prince and princess. They?ve had a long time to do so, so clearly it isn?t top of their mind.

[Nightowl]

I dont think it is clear whose idea it was.  It mgith have been Ed and Sophie or it might have been due to the fact that the RF was quite unpopular at the time and it may have been felt that to give the children HRH was not goig to fly well and it might be better to style them as the children of an Earl.
As for Sophie, she goofed up more than once - so did Edward, in the early years...

Well yes Edward and Sophie did make mistakes in their early years like we make mistakes in our lives.  At least they are not writing books or doing interview complaining how horrible they are treated in the royal family, they learned from their mistakes and turned a new leaf to say and have become a very loyal and hard working members of the royal family. Decades now of them working and and doing the job required of them.

[Amabel2]

Well they can and still don?t go by prince and princess. They?ve had a long time to do so, so clearly it isn?t top of their mind.

Of course they dont go by Prince and Princess.  IT was agreed apparently that they would only do so when they were over 18, and if they temselves wanted it.  James is still under 18 and I think its clear that neither of them want to be HRH

[Amabel2]

Well yes Edward and Sophie did make mistakes in their early years like we make mistakes in our lives.  At least they are not writing books or doing interview complaining how horrible they are treated in the royal family, they learned from their mistakes and turned a new leaf to say and have become a very loyal and hard working members of the royal family. Decades now of them working and and doing the job required of them.

well there was room IMO for improvement.  They became working royals at first mainly because their businesses didnt do well and they had made mistakes like Sophie's interview.  So they were given a role as working royals to keep them busy, rather than earning thieir own money.

[HistoryGirl2]

Of course they dont go by Prince and Princess.  IT was agreed apparently that they would only do so when they were over 18, and if they temselves wanted it.  James is still under 18 and I think its clear that neither of them want to be HRH

Yeah, that was my point. They don?t want it. They could have done at any point from birth, but simply don?t. Nothing is stopping them, not Charles or the current popularity of the RF. It was a choice.

And @Nightowl, I agree. They floundered a bit and tried the whole one foot in, one foot out thing and it blew up in their faces. From there, they had a choice to either commit to royal life or leave royal life and continue with their commercial endeavors. The chose the former and since then, they?ve been committed to supporting the monarch by executing their royal duties. It requires having to come to terms with the fact that your job is now to support one person and make the Crown look good. That requires some sacrifice of your own ego. Some can do it, some can?t.

[Amabel2]

Not really a choice.  it was announced when they got married that their children would be titled as the children of an earl, so how could they then start calling themselves HRH?
In fact, one member of another forum got a letter from BP some eyars ago which stated that the children were NOT HRH and were simply the children of an earl.  THey have changed that in recnet years and stated that they CAN choose to be HRH if they want to, after the age of 18 but that's prety unlikely to happen.
and as regards their role, I've read that some courtiers thought that the queen took too long to tell them that as tehir commercial endeavours were not going well (Sophie's business was in debt, Ed's was not making a profit and both had been involved in things that made them look silly) the time had come to wind up their business life and commit to royal life. I dont think they were really NEEDED back then, but they had to do something and the best thing seemed to be to put them on the royal duty roster.  They've improved since then and done a fair job of work, but they were not much good at business and IMO showed how very difficult it is to combine another career esp a business one, with royal life.

[HistoryGirl2]

^Just like the Sussex children, both James and Louise were the grandchildren of a monarch and had the right to be styled as prince and princess since birth. They are a prince and princess now, they just decided not to style themselves as such. Just like Archie and Lilibet were always a prince and a princess as soon as Charles became king, they just hadn?t styled themselves as such.

Because their father was Earl of Wessex, they could also use the curtesy titles associated with the child of an earl, which is what their parents chose to do and the Queen supported that decision.

[Amabel2]

I think you are forgetting what I said about BP saying that the children were NOT HRH, and that they were only the children of an earl.
And its not at all clear whose idea it was. I think that the queen did not like the fact but the truth was that in 1999 when they married, the RF was far from popular and it looked like good PR to cut things down, so that Edward would only become an Earl and not a duke, for the present and that the children would not be styled HRH.
As you may remember it was a smaller less fancy wedding than the other children had had, and it was based at Windsor... because the public were muttering,  "They have big weddings in London and then get divorced"....
Probably since Ed and Sophie meant to be only part time royals right then, they could see the advantages of having their children grow up without royal titles.  Its only a few years ago that Sophie mentioned to a journalist that the children COULD be known as HRH when they reached 19.
Possibly several years of working as working royals made them a bit flexbile on the issue of the children being HRH.

[HistoryGirl2]

All I?ve seen is that they would not be styled as HRHs and would instead be styled as the children of an earl. I don?t see anywhere where BP has said that they are not actually a prince and a princess. Could you provide the link where it says that they?re not actually?