HRH The Duke of Edinburgh cr 2023 FOR LIFE

[Richard R]

BBC breaking news:

King Charles grants Prince Edward Duke of Edinburgh title

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-64913224

Prince Edward has been named as the new Duke of Edinburgh, Buckingham Palace has announced.

The title, granted by King Charles III on the prince's 59th birthday, will be held for his lifetime.

The former Duke of Edinburgh was Prince Philip, who died on 9 April 2021, and who was given the title on the morning of his wedding to Princess Elizabeth, who later became Queen Elizabeth II.

The new Duke and Duchess of Edinburgh, Sophie, will be in Edinburgh later.

Buckingham Palace said in a statement: "His Majesty The King has been pleased to confer the Dukedom of Edinburgh upon the Prince Edward, Earl of Wessex and Forfar, on the occasion of His Royal Highness's 59th birthday.

"The title will be held by Prince Edward for His Royal Highness's lifetime.

"The Dukedom was last created for Prince Philip in 1947, upon his marriage to Princess Elizabeth, who held the title of Duchess of Edinburgh before acceding to the throne in 1952.

"The new Duke and Duchess of Edinburgh are proud to continue Prince Philip's legacy of promoting opportunities for young people of all backgrounds to reach their full potential."

[Richard R]

The King confers The Dukedom of Edinburgh upon The Prince Edward

https://www.royal.uk/dukedom-edinburgh

His Majesty The King has been pleased to confer the Dukedom of Edinburgh upon The Prince Edward, Earl of Wessex and Forfar, on the occasion of His Royal Highness’s 59th birthday.  

The title will be held by Prince Edward for His Royal Highness’s lifetime. 

The Dukedom was last created for Prince Philip in 1947, upon his marriage to Princess Elizabeth, who held the title of Duchess of Edinburgh before acceding to the throne in 1952.

The new Duke and Duchess of Edinburgh are proud to continue Prince Philip’s legacy of promoting opportunities for young people of all backgrounds to reach their full potential.

Background

His Royal Highness was created Earl of Wessex in 1999, on the occasion of his marriage to Miss Sophie Rhys-Jones.

In 2019, Queen Elizabeth II granted The Earl of Wessex the additional title of Earl of Forfar, on the occasion of His Royal Highness’s 55th birthday.

The Dukedom of Edinburgh

The Dukedom has previously been created four times for Members of the Royal Family:

1726 - Prince Frederick, eldest son of King George II

1764 – Prince William, brother of King George III, as part of the joint title , The Duke of Gloucester and Edinburgh

1866 – Prince Alfred, second son of Queen Victoria

1947 – Prince Philip, husband of Queen Elizabeth II

[Ivan Prekajski]

So will Viscount Severn succeed as Earl of Essex and Forfar?

[https:/www.maltagenealogy.com/LeighRayment/]

As Earl of Wessex. Not too sure about Forfar. Strange though he will style as Earl then when his father dies, succeeds as an Earl not as a Duke.

[Richard R]

Charles sees himself as a 'modern man' and I believe this is intended to set a precedent for the future, so as not creat ducal cadet lines of the Royal Family (ie keep the family small, focused on the job, and not just featuring in the pap mags). Viscount Severn will succeed to both earldoms.

[marquess]

Pity, this sets a very poor precedent, better had it not been created at all.

[John Mason]

The new Dukedom of Edinburgh will be a hereditary peerage. The Life Peerages Act 1958 s1((2) empowers the Crown to create Life Peerages only in the degree of a Baron.

(2)A peerage conferred under this section shall, during the life of the person on whom it is conferred, entitle him—

(a)to rank as a baron under such style as may be appointed by the letters patent; 

John Mason

[John Mason]

Viscount Severn will only succeed to his father's peerages on his father's death. He may however, once Letters Patent are issued creating the new Dukedom, use one or both of his father's earldoms as a courtesy title in the same way that he has the courtesy title of Viscount Severn.

[Richard R]

I think we will have to wait for the London Gazette on the wording of the Letters Patent as to the meaning of for life in this case. We're entering a new era when peers are not taking up membership in the House of Lords, and it will be interesting to see how the law will pan out as far as future creations above the degree of baron are concerned.

[S. S.]

I am a bit confused as to why this Dukedom of Edinburgh was for life. I think it has already been established by precedent and convention that peerages for life can only be at the degree of a Baron as per previous peerage cases and the Life Peerages Act 1958. We will have to indeed wait for The London Gazette entry to come out to see what the exact remainder is, since this is a very anomalous case. 

S.S.

[Peter FitzGerald]

The LPA establishes the power to create life peerages (of the rank of baron only) which confer seats in the House of Lords. There is no restriction on the common law power to create life peerages (of any rank) in general, it is just that (pursuant to the Wensleydale case) any life peerages created other than under the LPA will not confer seats in the House of Lords.

[Jonathan]

A agree with Richard R that we need to wait for the Gazette. Does "The title will be held by Prince Edward for His Royal Highness’s lifetime" mean that it is a life peerage, or that it's held for his lifetime then inherited by his son? I know the announcement on the Royal website also has this wording, but I woudln't believe anything on the BBC News site, given that it says, "The title of Earl of Wessex has now been given to Edward and Sophie's son, the 15-year-old Viscount Severn."

[colinp]

It seems Viscount Severn will now be known as Earl of Wessex - the Line of Succession on the Royal Family's website has been updated

Succession | The Royal Family

[Richard R]

Here's an online taste of what the Times may be saying in print tomorrow:

E X T R A C T

Prince Edward to be new Duke of Edinburgh

The King has conferred the title on the occasion of his brother’s 59th birthday

Prince Edward has been granted the title of the Duke of Edinburgh on his 59th birthday, Buckingham Palace has announced.

The decision means that Edward will have the title conferred upon him that was promised before the death of his father, Prince Philip.

Sophie, the former Countess of Wessex, is now the Duchess of Edinburgh.

Buckingham Palace said in a statement: “His Majesty The King has been pleased to confer the Dukedom of Edinburgh upon the Prince Edward, Earl of Wessex and Forfar, on the occasion of His Royal Highness’s 59th birthday. The title will be held by Prince Edward for His Royal Highness’s lifetime.

“The dukedom was last created for Prince Philip in 1947, upon his marriage to Princess Elizabeth, who held the title of Duchess of Edinburgh before acceding to the throne in 1952.

“The new Duke and Duchess of Edinburgh are proud to continue Prince Philip’s legacy of promoting opportunities for young people of all backgrounds to reach their full potential.”

Edward’s son, James, Viscount Severn, 15, becomes the Earl of Wessex after the change. However, Edward will retain the Earldom of Forfar, which he already uses while in Scotland. The title was created in 2019 and references the lineage of Edward’s grandmother, who grew up in the area.

The dukedom of Edinburgh has been hereditary in the past, but it will not pass to Viscount Severn when Edward dies. James will become the Earl of Wessex and Forfar when the title of the Duke of Edinburgh reverts to the Crown, the Palace said.

In 1999, on the wedding day of Edward and Sophie, Buckingham Palace announced “that Prince Edward should be given the Dukedom of Edinburgh in due course, when the present title held now by Prince Philip eventually reverts to the Crown”.

However, there were subsequent reports that Charles was reassessing this decision.

The Times understands that Charles believed that the title should revert to the monarch on the death of the holder — in this case, Prince Philip — in accordance with the normal protocol for royal titles. It should then be up to the sovereign what happens to it….

[bx...@yahoo.com]

From doing my research on dukedoms and the Royal Family, I can recall 5 previous dukedoms that were created for life:

IRELAND (E) in 1386 for Robert de Vere, 9th Earl of Oxford (title forfeited 1388)

HAMILTON (S) in 1660 for William Douglas, 1st Earl of Selkirk (his wife being the 3rd Duchess of Hamilton)

PORTSMOUTH ((E) in 1673 for Louise de Penancoet de Keroualle, mistress of Charles II

MUNSTER (I) in 1716 for Ermengarde, Baroness von der Schulenberg, mistress of George I

KENDAL (GB) in 1719 also for Ermengarde, Baroness von der Schulenberg

Brooke

[bx...@yahoo.com]

Interestingly, while Debrett's online database now reflects Prince Edward's new title, in his biography, his son is still referred to as "Viscount Severn."

Brooke

[colinp]

I can't quite believe the Times is referring to the King as "Charles".  They would never have referred to the late Queen as "Elizabeth"

[bx...@yahoo.com]

After thinking about it for a bit, this was a very clever move by the King, killing two birds with one stone.

He fulfills the promise made to Prince Edward of getting the Edinburgh dukedom.  Yet, by making it only a life peerage, it means that after Edward's death and the title merging with the Crown, it will be once again available for Princess Charlotte or Prince Louis.

Brooke

[Peter FitzGerald]

This is a very odd change. I don't think there has ever been an example (I certainly can't think of one) of the heir to a peerage using the highest title they are the heir to as a courtesy title. How can the title of the heir apparent to the Earldom of Wessex be "Earl of Wessex"?

[bx...@yahoo.com]

Peter, you make a very good point.

Also, to me, it's odd that the Duke is retaining the Forfar earldom.  Wasn't the purpose of that creation to give him a title associated with Scotland?  I can't think of a more Scottish title than "Edinburgh."

Brooke

[John Mason]

Of course neither the proposed dukedom of Edinburgh nor the created Earldom of Forfar are Scottish peerages. They are/will be peerages of the UK which happen to relate to places in Scotland. Similarly if The King gave a peerage such as Duke of London, it would not be an English peerage but a UK one.

I also don't think that the media should be announcing that The King "has created" or "has conferred" the Dukedom of Edinburgh", H.M. has merely announced his intention of so doing.

Debrett's should not show The Earl of Wessex and Forfar as the Duke of Edinburgh  in their online data when that title does not (yet) exist.

John Mason

[Jonathan]

It's worth remembering that the title Earl of Wessex has not "passed to James" as some news outlets would have you believe, and which is implied by the Times, as it states, "Edward will retain the Earldom of Forfar" (implying that he no longer holds the Earldom of Wessex). Prince Edward is now Duke or Edinburgh, Earl of Wessex and Earl of Forfar. His eldest son and heir is styled Earl of Wessex by courtesy, it being his father's next highest title.

The heir apparent to the Earl of Wessex being styled Earl of Wessex is an interesting anomaly,  but one that comes about due to the unusual decision to make the dukedom a life peerage. Should he be styled by his father's senior earldom, as if he were heir to the dukedom? Or should he continue to be styled as the heir to an earldom?

On Friday, 10 March 2023 at 14:37:07 UTC bx...@yahoo.com wrote:

[John Mason]

There is no way* that Prince Edward could rid himself of the Forfar earldom".

The Peerage Act 1963 which enables hereditary peers to disclaim their peerages applies only to those peers who have succeeded to their peerages. 

 

*It occurs to me that there is one way:  he could ask Parliament to pass an Act depriving him of it. This though would be highly unlikely!

John Mason.

On Friday, 10 March 2023 at 14:37:07 UTC bx...@yahoo.com wrote:

[Peter FitzGerald]

The closest parallel I can think of (and it's not an exact one) is the 5th Marquess of Londonderry. His father, the 3rd Marquess, was created Earl Vane and Viscount Seaham with remainder to his sons by his second wife. From that point, the 3rd Marquess had, bizarrely, two heirs apparent: his eldest son (his only child by his first wife) remained Viscount Castlereagh as heir apparent to the marquessate (he subsequently succeeded as 4th Marquess but died without an heir), but the future 5th Marquess (the 3rd Marquess's second son, but his eldest son by his second wife) became Viscount Seaham as heir apparent to the new earldom. He was not styled Earl Vane, even though that title was subsumed by his father's marquessate. That's the only example I can think of where an heir apparent has not been the heir apparent to the most senior title held by his father, and if the same approach were to be followed here then James would remain Viscount Severn.

[S. S.]

There is at least one interesting thing from this whole business. If this trend of granting life peerages continues in the Royal Family, at least one does not have to always come up with new peerage titles rather than using old ones and reviving them ! (especially when you consider the fact the number of dukedoms revived, if indeed the previous tradition was followed with Elizabeth II and her ancestors, is already now very limited). 

S.S.

[bx...@yahoo.com]

John, if you go to Debrett's section on "Royal Family" and then "Royal Biographies", there is the picture of Prince Edward with the title of "Duke of Edinburgh".

As far as Forfar and Edinburgh being Scottish titles, you are right.  They are all, obviously, UK titles at this point. What I meant was  Scottish just in terms of location, rather than actual title designation.  Thank you for the correction.

Brooke

[malcolm davies]

Peter,

          Whilst the report of the Committee of Privileges found that the Wensleydale letters patent did not entitle the grantee to sit and vote in the House of Lords,a majority of the law lords considered the creation itself illegal.That has been accepted.The Life Perages Act is specifically restricted to baronies.

  Now a possible way round this is for the grant to contain a special remainder by which the next heir is the Sovereign,thus achieving the result by merger on Prince Edward’s death.

[malcolm davies]

The official announcement is rather cryptic-it avoids the words “for his life” and instead says during his lifetime.That indicates to me,at least, that there is some doubt about the matter and advice is being sought about how to create a dukedom for life.

Brooke,as to previous creations for life you have missed those of Margaret,Duchess of Norfolk,mother of the first Mowbray duke and the  Duchess of Inverness who was married to the Duke of Sussex of the first creation,but in contravention of the Royal Marriages Act.

[bx...@yahoo.com]

Hi malcolm.

The five that I had posted were the ones that came to mind.   I thought I might have missed one or two.  Thank you for posting the omissions.

Brooke

[Chuck Wolfram]

Unless I am sadly mistaken Cecilia Underwood, when she was created Duchess of Inverness, was an hereditary duchess. It was to be inherited by her heirs male of her body.  Of course she never had any children, and if she had any by the Duke of Sussex after her creation they would have been out of luck. That marriage was illegal and any son would be incapable of inheriting either dukedom. But it was hereditary.

> malcolm davies <mda...@blackstonewaterhouse.com.au>: Mar 10 05:26PM -0800

[marquess]

This is a ridiculous sitiuation giving the brother of a reigning monarch a mere life dukedom, it goes against the hereditary princple that is monarchy. Prince James of Wessex's children will be entitled to be Lord xx Windsor, when their father is a mere earl. Monarchies do best when they remain conservative. I fear that this creation spells the end for the hereditary peerage.

[DANIEL WILLIAM Sullivan]

I just wonder what The King was thinking?? All the creation methods are in place.  He was thinking too hard.  He should have just followed His parents' wishes.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Peerage News" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to peerage-news...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/peerage-news/fb6be07d-c7c6-4c4c-9e98-a9b68624a97cn%40googlegroups.com.

[bx...@yahoo.com]

If the King isn't creating a hereditary dukedom for Prince Edward, shouldn't HM  create a similar life dukedom for the Princess Royal?  She is certainly one of the hardest, if not the hardest, working royal of all.

Brooke

[sven_me...@web.de]

or should he just cease to appoint hereditary peerages at all

[Henry W]

I am pleased to see that Prince Edward and his wife will attend the Coronation as a Duke and Duchess.  There is also a tidiness here as Prince Edward has done significant work with the Duke of Edinburgh Award Scheme.  It is likely that his son, James, will not take up significant Royal duties, and that another son/daughter of a future Sovereign will take up the mantle of these Awards alongside the title.

As already commented, there is now a clear desire to prevent creation of cadet Ducal lines of the Royal Family.  This does not foreclose the possibility that in the future these lines will be allowed to continue at the rank of an Earl as will be the case here as James will in time succeed as Earl of Wessex & Forfar.  This does mean that Dukedoms that traditionally have been held by senior members of the Royal Family can be kept to children of the Sovereign (or former Sovereigns) - it is important to realise that as things stand Sussex, Kent & Gloucester will probably not be available for many years - Sussex & Gloucester have one young heir, and Kent has several.

An interesting remainder that would allow this Edinburgh creation to still be a hereditary peerage:  Created with special remainder to the heirs general (without division) of Prince Edward's father.  As this is the same remainder as the Crown, it will certainly merge with the Crown on his death without that being explicitly stated.

I do find James' courtesy title a bit confusing due to the unique situation we find ourselves in!

[malcolm davies]

Henry,

          A remainder to heirs general would create further problems.First there would be an issue as to whether the creation was valid.Second, assuming it was valid,it would descend to the Earl of Wessex on the death of Prince Edward which seems not to the intention.It would only go into abeyance if there were 2 daughters as co heirs.

[Henry W]

I don't claim to be an expert in peerage law, but since Scots Law clearly allows remainders to heirs general without division, then surely its a legal remainder?

Prince Edward's father was of course Prince Philip (1921 - 2021), and his heir general at the current time is HM King Charles III. There being some probability that Prince Edward will outlive the King, by the time Prince Edward dies the heir general might be the current Prince of WALES, who would by then be King.  Regardless, heirs general without division is the same remainder as the Crown (until 2011), so it would make its way to Prince George of WALES if needed.  In the event that the Crown had fallen on Princess Charlotte (presumably a disaster will have befallen us), then Prince Louis of WALES succeeds as 2nd Duke if living, or it merges in the Crown if he has died.

[malcolm davies]

Henry,

           Scots law only covers Scottish peerages ie peerages created by the Kings of Scotland prior to the union.Since then peerages have only been created in the peerage of Great Britain and,after 1800, in the peerage of the United Kingdom.There are no peerages in the peerage of the United Kingdom,Cromartie, perhaps excepted where the limitation is to heirs general and there is considerable doubt as to whether the Crown can create peerages with that limitation.

No peerages can be created in the peerage of Scotland since the act of union.English law applies to the peerages of Great Britain and subsequently for the United Kingdom.That means,even if a limitation to heirs general were valid,the peerage would go into abeyance where there were no sons in line but only daughters.

[marquess]

Knowing that their eldest son would succeed to the throne and thus merging the dukedom with the crown, why wasn't there a special remainder to the second son, and each successsive son their after? Andrew would be the duke of Edinburgh.

[bx...@yahoo.com]

marquess, I'm not sure many people would be happy seeing Andrew as Duke of Edinburgh.

Brooke

[David Beamish]

I cannot see what benefit marquess thinks would come from a special remainder (in relation to the dukedom of Edinburgh) to the second and subsequent sons.

(1) It would have looked odd in 1947 when the new Duke had no children at all.

(2) Who is to say that the second son won't succeed to the throne? Both George V and George VI were second sons, and William IV was a third son.

(3) Customarily a monarch's sons/grandsons are given their own dukedoms (Albany, Cambridge, Clarence, Gloucester, Kent, Sussex, York etc.) and they hardly need another, so allowing a dukedom to merge in the Crown makes it possible to use the title again.

[john]

It is now gazetted: https://www.thegazette.co.uk/notice/4306002

Indeed a life peerage.

[bx...@yahoo.com]

I guess we can "officially" congratulate the new Duke.

Brooke

[Peter FitzGerald]

I disagree that that has been accepted. It certainly doesn't seem to have been at the time: when the recipient of the purported Barony of Wensleydale for life was subsequently created a hereditary peer with the same designation (as a way of resolving the issue), he was described as "the Right Honourable James, Baron Wensleydale" (as if he were already a peer). If it had been accepted that the first creation were invalid, he would surely have been described again as "the Right Honourable Sir James Parke, Knt".

I should also add that even disregarding the questionable status of the Principality of Wales (is "prince" the highest rank of the Peerage, above duke, or some other thing?), the Earldom of Chester is undoubtedly a peerage which has repeatedly been created for life.

[David Beamish]

Rather unhelpfully the Gazette notice says that HM the King "has been pleased to direct Letters Patent to be passed" without giving the date of creation. It seems possible (recalling how long it took recently for the letters patent of the Prince of Wales to be sealed) that the date may be some time in the future, i.e. only after the letters patent have been prepared.

[malcolm davies]

We haven’t seen the wording of the letters patent but if they say that the creation is for life,they are,according to existing authority, invalid

[john]

You miss a point made by many Lords in the Wensleydale case: The peerage for life is conferred on an existing peer, not a commoner. This is a major difference. Moreover, this peerage is not supposed to entitle him to stand in elections to the House of Lords (but he is already entitled to do so through his Earldoms), so this is not affected by the Wensleydale case, which was deliberately limited to the question of whether Lord Wensleydale was entitled to a seat in Parliament.

Although some Lords in the case argued that the whole patent was invalid, one might ask whether the Lords are in a position to rule on the royal prerogative of the monarch as fount of honour when the composition of Parliament is not affected. It is not new for the Lords to unilaterally override royal prerogative, but in modern times this would probably be considered bad style.

However, if you feel like it, I would follow any legal challenge with interest, even though they are unlikly to be successful.

[malcolm davies]

Sorry John,I disagree strongly as to what you have said.

Before I give my reasons,let me say that I have no personal objection to life peers of a degree higher than that of baron.It would have been appropriate to offer life earldoms in the past to past prime ministers eg Home,Thatcher and Wilson.

But you cannot ignore authority when it doesn’t suit you.

Attempts to restrict the matter to the actual resolution of the Committee of Privileges takes one nowhere when the clear view of the House was that the peerage for Lord Wensleydale was invalid.Accordingly if the letters patent say for life,as they presumably do,then the creation can only be described as novel, and there may be a challenge in the future.

Let’s consider one scenario-James,Prince Edward’s son marries and has a son.He of course will not be Royal-but he wants to have the status and precedence of a duke and has the necessary funds to make a case.I do not believe,in such circumstances that his claim can lightly be dismissed,even if there is another Duke of Edinburgh of a later creation.

Much is made of the statement in Ron Gadd’s work Peerage Law 1985 that the King may be free to create life peerages if they do not involve seats in the House of Lords.Two things should be said about that-first it is only a view,and it is unsupported by authority.It is not to be treated as holy writ,nor would Ron expect it to be so treated.It will no doubt be given considerable weight when a committee considers the issue.

The second point to make is that peerages have always involved the right to sit in the House of Lords,whether or not the person was already a peer.And don’t forget that the issue of a writ of summons,followed by obedience to it has been deemed in the past to create a peerage to heirs general.

It would have been preferable for the King to have referrred the matter to a committee before issuing the letters patent so that doubt was eliminated.

[marquess]

On the point of peers always being able ot sit in the House, wasn't there a case of Dutchman who was created Baron Reade (an approximation, I can't remember the correct tilte) by Charles I with the proviso that he didn't sit in the House of Lords? I agree with you on the point of referral to the committee, though I strongly object to life peerages in general and more so when they are conferred on royalty, who own their postion to the hereditary principle. I fear we may well have seen the end of the hereditary peerage for members of the royal family. 

[john]

Malcolm, on the contrary: I don't understand the point of creating peerages granting nothing but a fancy title. I couldn't, in my personal opinion, care less, whether and how this title was created. My only interest is on the constitutional questions arising, which are quite fascinating and somehow unique.

I don't mean it in any way as offence but both of you misunderstand authority on the matter of Life Peerages. If you are more interested into the matter, I would recomend to study the proceedings on the Wensleydale case. They are quite lenghty but it collects many statements and arguments by Lords learned in the laws and constitutional experts.

It was emphazised that the question was not on the royal prerogative to create peerages howsoever and that any such creation is stricly legal, but that it's use to change the composition of parliament is unconstitutional. What is secured, by authority and the constitution, is not the body of the peerage, it is parliament. I can understand, that some are in fear on the future of the peerage and therefore mix this up. But as a matter of fact what was averted in the Wensleydale case, was put on a statuary footing with the Appellate Jurisdiction Act 1876, and as predicted back then, the state of the (hereditary) peerage eroded futher with subsequent reforms.

Additional, when Lord Lyndhurst in his opening statement in the Lords extensivly gone through any Life Peerage created from Richard II onwards to explain why none of them created a precedence for the Wensleydale peerage, he came across the following group, which clearly create precedence for this "Edinburgh case":

"There were cases in which Peers, already enjoying a seat in this House, received additional titles, as in the case of the Earl of Warwick, who was created Earl of Albemarle for life; but, according to the principle which I have already enunciated, the addition of these new titles conferred no new right to sit or vote in your Lordships' House, and therefore the new creations did not alter the composition of this House."

Therfore, again, by authority and precedence, this Life Peerage for an existing hereditary peer is constitutional. It might become interesting when it will be tried to give a Life Peerage to a Commoner or not enobled member of the royal family, but as far as this case is concerned, there can be no doubt, that the Letters Patent, at least on the "for Life" part are valid and constituional.

What I find quite interesting and I wasn't able to find the answer: Lord Lyndhurst stressed and it was recently affirmed by the prorogation case: not the royal prerogative is invalid, but it's exercise if it is excersied on unconstitutional advise. In the Wensleydale case and the prorogation case, the ill advice was made from ministers. If this present use of the prerogative should be somehow invalid, how can this be explained?

At least, I can agree that it would have been better to ask a committee before this life peerage was created. But the findings would have been very clear as I laid out above. And I can't see any peer or any constitutional expert in the whole kingdom raising the point, that this Letters Patent might be invalid. There seems to be nearly unanimous consensus that it all is constitutional.

[Windemere]

Thanks for the previous information.

I also do not care for life peerages. I think it would have been better to create some new sort of knighthood to honor these individuals, and maintained the hereditary aspect of peerages.

King Charles likely had some reason for creating this unique new lifetime ducal title, and there's all sorts of public speculation about why he chose to do this. There haven't been any heredity peerages created, except for male  members of the royal family, since the 1980s. This seems to be reasonable, as in this egalitarian day and age it wouldn't seem proper to be erecting new noble titles. It would not be in accordance with the zeitgeist of these modern times.  The members of the royal family are an exception, and they are awarded peerages due to ancient tradition, which is in accordance with national sentiment.  'Duke' is the senior title of these most recent creations. Perhaps the King feels that at some point in the future this will lead to a surfeit of hereditary royal dukedoms, and so any future royal dukedoms may be created for lifetime only. But I hope that this doesn't foreshadow the complete elimination of the hereditary peerage, and I hope that future royal sons, as their birthright,  will continue to receive a hereditary title at some rank.

At any rate,  it doesn't seem likely that any more peerages will be created until Princes George and Louis come of age. By that time, it will probably be their father who will decide what to do, in accordance with the spirit of the times.

[marquess]

Charles III may well be the only monarch in history who never created any hereditary peerages, the 9 days queen aside.

[S. S.]

Are successive creations of Earl of Chester construed as an hereditary peerage? Since it occupies a rather peculiar position as being created over and over though not strictly "for life" I guess? If someone could shed some light on this.

S.S.

[Peter FitzGerald]

It is for life, as it (like the Principality of Wales) is not inherited on the death (pre-accession) of the holder. For example, when Frederick, Prince of Wales, died in 1751 (during the lifetime of his father, King George II), his eldest son (the future King George III) inherited his Dukedom of Edinburgh (and subsidiary titles), which had been created for Frederick in 1726 (during the lifetime of his grandfather, King George I), but had to be specifically created Prince of Wales and Earl of Chester, as those titles were not hereditary.

(On a related note, King George III was never Duke of Cornwall, as that title does not pass to a grandson of the current Sovereign, even if that grandson is heir apparent.)

[colinp]

The following may be of interest in the debate on whether the Crown can still create a life peerage under the Royal Prerogative ie outside the terms of the Life Peerages Act - of course it already has but there seems to be a doubt as to whether it has done so lawfully.  Perhaps the reason for the delaying in creating the new life Dukedom of Edinburgh was to allow the Crown to take legal advice on whether this was lawful and still within the Royal Prerogative, presumably from the Law Officers of the Crown.

Report of the Lord Speaker's committee on the size of the House (parliament.uk) (2017).  From the Report (my bold):-

24. While this report considers only peerages which currently entail membership of the House of Lords under various statutes, we have thought about whether there would be merit in providing for peerages which would not entail membership of the House. Such peerages might for example be suitable for individuals of distinction who are thought to deserve an honour at that level but who cannot be accommodated within the cap on the size of the House, or who do not wish to become a legislator. 

25. While this report is not the place to set out how this might happen, we have been advised that the monarch is empowered to appoint life peers other than under the Life Peerages Act 1958. Peers appointed in this way would not be entitled to a seat in the House of Lords. We would encourage the Government to pursue this option in tandem with our main proposals.  

[malcolm davies]

The link to the London Gazette is here:

https://www.thegazette.co.uk/notice/4306002

Note that the letters patent are yet to be prepared.

Can those who monitor the Gazette let me know when the letters patent appear.

ColinP-the report of the Lord Speaker's committee in regard to paragraph 25 is interesting.Paragraph 25 almost certainly comes from this document:

https://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/LLN-2017-0100/LLN-2017-0100.pdf

In that document the following paragraph appears:

 "However, Gadd claims that, notwithstanding this power, the Crown may
still create life Peers without sitting and voting rights outside of this statute. He states:
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."

The reference to Gadd is to Ron Gadd,the author of Peerage Law 1985.

So it appears that the only authority relied on to assert that a life peerage can be conferred is Ron Gadd's opinion!

This is peculiar, since Gadd cites no authority for his view, and the previous text on peerage law, Palmer Peerage Law in England 1907, is clear on the subject:the margin note at p88 says "Life Peerages held illegal".

If I were preparing the letters patent I would not say that the peerage was created for life,but would instead insert a special remainder using the following words " and then to the Sovereign and his heirs in order of succession to the throne'.

This would effect a life peerage by merger on the death of Prince Edward.

[john]

Malcolm, you are stating, that Gadd's opinion has no authority and then simply rely on Palmer's opinion. If you would have read the paragraph, not only the margin note, Palmer further elaborate:

"This determination [the Wensleydale report, that this letters patent granted no right to sit in parliament] has ever since been recognized as sound law, and it would seem to establish the position that peerages for life never have been validly granted in England, except with the concurrence of Parliament." That is a very vague citation of authority.

I have no copy of Gadd's Peerage Law available, therfore I cannot tell on which authority Gadd's conclusion lays. But any interpretation of the peerage law today has to take into account the Life Peerage Act of 1958 and the House of Lords Act 1999 as parliament extensivly altered with both acts the peerage law.

The remainder you are proposing is more problematic than any peerage for life. Solely remainder know to law are available and I am not aware of any remainder equivalent to what you are proposing.

[malcolm davies]

John,

         Gadd’s Peerage Law recites at pp50-51 the Wensleydale case and the resolution of the House of Lords.He then says “This resolution meant in effect that,although the Crown could create a life peer,the House of Lords could decide whether or not such a creation allowed a seat and vote in the House of Lords.Gadd cites no authority for that proposition.It is simply his opinion ,based on the history of the peerage,not legal decisions on it.His historical opinion is probably correct.But whether it is the correct position at law is open to dispute,particularly since there is no decision of either the Judicial Committees of the House of Lords or the Privy Council to guide us.

Whilst academic opinion is always paid due respect,it is not in their power to change the law.That reposes in the Crown based on judicial advice.

[David Beamish]

Malcolm writes "Paragraph 25 [of the report of the Lord Speaker’s committee on the size of the House] almost certainly comes from this document", but the document in question was produced after the publication of the report, as briefing for the debate on it. When the Committee wrote "we have been advised" it seems likely that they sought advice from one of their legal advisers, identified on page 5 of the report as Peter Milledge and James Cooper, former and present Counsel to the Chairman of Committees.

I should record that I too was an adviser to the Committee, but not on this point!

[malcolm davies]

David,

           Thank you for the clarification.

            But it is clear that whatever advice is relied upon,it’s all traceable to the opinion of Ron Gadd in his book.It is being treated as fact,instead of opinion, where the facts are contentious.That is the problem.

            I think there is much to be said for Ron’s view(sadly he cannot enlighten us as he died in 2020),but there is authority to the contrary,which must be disposed of.