Edward not to become the Duke of Edinburgh.

Do we know if Edward wants the title? He seems to be happy leading a low key life with his family.

Does it matter ? Sorry but all these titles seem wrong to me in 2021. Completely meaningless.

I agree lucca who cares, load of pretentious nonsense

I like the Royals but this was a made up title for Prince Philip so let it go now. Not sure the Scots want it.

He is already the Earl of Forfar, I doubt the Scots would want another English Duke of anywhere in Scotland.

I once had to explain to a very well educated and cosmopolitan Frenchman that the Duke of Edinburgh did not, in fact, have anything to do with the running of the city of Edinburgh. Or any other city, actually.

Alegrias1

I once had to explain to a very well educated and cosmopolitan Frenchman that the Duke of Edinburgh did not, in fact, have anything to do with the running of the city of Edinburgh. Or any other city, actually.

Just thinking, isn't the Duchy of Cornwall run under the stewardship of The Duke of Cornwall, Prince Charles?
The title has some relevance here.

That's true enough Ellianne. Doesn't make any difference about Edinburgh though. Or Sussex. Or Wessex. Or York. Or Cambridge. Or Rothesay. Or even Forfar

Googled the Duke of Cornwall thing: As part of his feudal dues there was a pair of white gloves, gilt spurs and greyhounds, a pound of pepper and cumin, a bow, one hundred silver shillings , wood for his fires, and a salmon spear.

This is no way for a modern country to behave, is it?

Lucca

Does it matter ? Sorry but all these titles seem wrong to me in 2021. Completely meaningless.

Completely agree. And now would be the perfect time to pare the Royal Family right down. If we must retain a monarchy, we should keep it to the very bare minimum and get rid of all the others with their meaningless titles who contribute little or nothing.

How would you get rid of them ? who would you want to get rid of ?

Wether you agree with Royal title or not they are a fact of life, some RF members are active and high profile some are not, the realitiy is that royal patronage is valued by a great many organizations. It’s their choice they could choose a celebrity as a figurehead, it’s all irrelevant because there are plenty of hereditary aristocrats who do little or no patronage.

After WW1 most of the European aristocracy lost their official status, 100 yrs on there are still Princes, Dukes and Duchesses, they are family titles with no official role. Even in places like India they retain many of the Maharajas as ceremonial figureheads, for cultural and historic reasons.

The RF will slim down due to ‘natural wastage’ I suppose.

Just think about it. We have another thread running about Princess Alexandra. She is in her 80’s. As is the Duke of Kent. The Gloucesters and the other Kents must be well in their 70’s.

Their adult children have minor titles, but although the eldest sons might assume the dukedoms in due course, they will no longer be ‘Royal’ dukes.

Princess Anne’s children and GC have no titles, carry out no royal duties. I don’t think Andrew’s and Edward’s will either.

So in time to come, maybe not in our lifetimes, the RF will look very different to how it is even now.

By the time William is on the throne, there won’t be huge numbers of family on the balcony at Trooping The Colour and such, probably not when Charles is King either.

The title died with him IMO.

Unfortunately "IMO" doesn't get a look in when it comes to Royalty. Its "What they say goes".

Charles is Duke of Edinburgh. That's it.

Some titles were conferred on members of the RF by the Queen when they married. Whilst I think the Queen has been a good Head of State, I think she is firmly planted in the past, and giving these titles as a ‘gift’ should never have happened. The RF needs to modernise and slim down in my opinion. That means no ‘gifted’ titles upon marriage, and only the immediate heirs to the crown being able to use the title ‘Prince’ or ‘Princess.’ Therefore only Prince Charles and Prince William would be able to call their children Prince/Princess. Not Andrew, Edward, Anne, Harry. That’s my opinion,others may disagree.

By the time William is on the throne, there will be at least 3 other Royal Dukes, George, Louis and Harry. George and Louis will no doubt have their own families and any of George's sons will eventually become Royal Dukes. Archie will be entitled to be a Royal Duke when Charles ascends, we'll have to wait and see what happens. Charlotte's male children will be entitled to be Royal Dukes when they become adults.

I don't think we're going to run out of people to have on the balcony any time soon.

I think there was only one D.O.E and that was Prince Phillip. I think we dont need another one.

Anniebach

How would you get rid of them ? who would you want to get rid of ?

I'm thinking along the lines of what maddyone said. If we have to have a royal family at all, there should be a king (or queen) plus their spouses and children, full stop. No need for any others. I appreciate that there are, at present, some hard-working members of the RF, but once they go, it should be pared right back to the bare minimum.

There have been other Dukes of Edinburgh, (and Sussex and Cambridge) conferred by monarchs usually on their children. Victoria's son was a Duke of Edinburgh.

Personally I would like to see an end to the monarchy after our present Queen for whom I have a great deal of respect.
The thought of Charles and his ex mistress lording over us turns my stomach.
The recent expose on how the royal family interfered with law making to ensure that the family would not be inconvenienced financially by laws that now apply to the rest of us was the last straw.

Seems an odd arrangement to have made in the first place, but it may now be thought difficult for anyone else to take on that title before many years have passed.
Maybe some other dukedom will be revived or maybe P Edward himself doesn't want any change.
It doesn't affect the world at large or cost anything so does it matter either way?

BigBertha1

I like the Royals but this was a made up title for Prince Philip so let it go now. Not sure the Scots want it.

Not true. This is from the Times article:

"The Edinburgh title was first created in 1726 by King George I, who bestowed it on his grandson, Prince Frederick."

Blondiescot

Anniebach

How would you get rid of them ? who would you want to get rid of ?

I'm thinking along the lines of what maddyone said. If we have to have a royal family at all, there should be a king (or queen) plus their spouses and children, full stop. No need for any others. I appreciate that there are, at present, some hard-working members of the RF, but once they go, it should be pared right back to the bare minimum.

But how would you "get rid of them" Blondiescot? You can't have them all sterilised at birth, that wouldn't be ethical. If they produce children, those children are part of the family, as much as your grandchildren, nephews and nieces are part of yours.

If you mean, you wouldn't have them supported by the state, very few of them get anything. If you mean, you wouldn't have them as patrons of charities, members of the boards of prestigious companies, and so on, that is up to the organisations to choose their officers, not up to the law to ban them. It is the same for opening new bridges, presenting awards etc. If a company wants to ask someone to cut the ribbon to open their new hospital or school, they don't have to ask government permission.

Recently, the Queen has cut back on her engagements - she is getting older after all - so younger members of the RF have been asked to do more things and be more visible. Under Charles, and then William, that need not be the case with younger heads of state.

The working royals are Charles,Camilla,Edward,Sophie, Anne,
William,Kate .