# 1999: Royal princes all declined life peerages. Why? **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [June 11, 2010, 3:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/1999-royal-princes-all-declined-life-peerages-why/542805 "2010-06-11T15:32:28Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 11\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![Acsenray](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/acsenray/32/4519_2.png) [@Acsenray](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Acsenray)\ **Post date:** [June 11, 2010, 3:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/1999-royal-princes-all-declined-life-peerages-why/542805/1 "2010-06-11T15:32:28Z")
According to [Wikipedia](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declining_a_British_honour#Life_peerage_.28barony.29), in 1999, Queen Elizabeth’s husband and her three sons all declined offers of life peerages. What was that all about? ---
**Author:** ![tagos](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/bbe5ce/32.png) [@tagos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tagos)\ **Post date:** [June 11, 2010, 3:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/1999-royal-princes-all-declined-life-peerages-why/542805/2 "2010-06-11T15:42:55Z")
> [@acsenray](#): > > According to [Wikipedia](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declining_a_British_honour#Life_peerage_.28barony.29), in 1999, Queen Elizabeth’s husband and her three sons all declined offers of life peerages. What was that all about? Not even sure it is true. They all have much more impressive titles already and wouldn’t want a tacky second rate Life Peerage. ---
**Author:** ![Acsenray](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/acsenray/32/4519_2.png) [@Acsenray](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Acsenray)\ **Post date:** [June 11, 2010, 3:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/1999-royal-princes-all-declined-life-peerages-why/542805/3 "2010-06-11T15:57:54Z")
Well, why were they offered then? It seems like they would have been asked in advance whether they would have liked being offered them in the first place. And since it was their own wife/mother/sovereign offering it, I doubt they would have declined them as being beneath them. ---
**Author:** ![Giles](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/giles/32/60_2.png) [@Giles](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Giles)\ **Post date:** [June 11, 2010, 4:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/1999-royal-princes-all-declined-life-peerages-why/542805/4 "2010-06-11T16:07:59Z")
The sovereign bestows peerages, but it’s on the advice of the prime minister. So, in 1999, the question would have come from Tony Blair’s office, not from the sovereign. You can say “No” to the prime minister without giving offense. However, why Tony Blair thought of the idea, I don’t know. ---
**Author:** ![Polycarp](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/82dd89/32.png) [@Polycarp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Polycarp)\ **Post date:** [June 11, 2010, 4:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/1999-royal-princes-all-declined-life-peerages-why/542805/5 "2010-06-11T16:15:12Z")
The logic, such as it is, may be that as part of a package of Lords reform, only life peers would have voice and vote – and as a courtesy it was offered to the Royal males (who traditionally have seats in the Lords but also traditionally never speak [other than the ceremonial Maiden Speech] or vote there). Or it is possible Tony expected them to give up their hereditary titles in favor of life ones, for whatever reason – though that sounds remarkably unlikely. Finally, it’s quite possible that Wikipedia has erroneous information. ---
**Author:** ![Acsenray](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/acsenray/32/4519_2.png) [@Acsenray](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Acsenray)\ **Post date:** [June 11, 2010, 4:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/1999-royal-princes-all-declined-life-peerages-why/542805/6 "2010-06-11T16:17:10Z")
> [@Polycarp](#): > > The logic, such as it is, may be that as part of a package of Lords reform, only life peers would have voice and vote – and as a courtesy it was offered to the Royal males (who traditionally have seats in the Lords but also traditionally never speak [other than the ceremonial Maiden Speech] or vote there). That makes sense. ---
**Author:** ![blindboyard](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/blindboyard/32/2833_2.png) [@blindboyard](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/blindboyard)\ **Post date:** [June 11, 2010, 7:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/1999-royal-princes-all-declined-life-peerages-why/542805/7 "2010-06-11T19:15:51Z")
The Royal Duchies aren’t hereditary titles. So Charlie won’t inherit the Duchy of Edinburgh, for example, when Phil pops his clogs. ---
**Author:** ![Giles](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/giles/32/60_2.png) [@Giles](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Giles)\ **Post date:** [June 11, 2010, 7:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/1999-royal-princes-all-declined-life-peerages-why/542805/8 "2010-06-11T19:27:24Z")
> [@blindboyard](#): > > The Royal Duchies aren’t hereditary titles. So Charlie won’t inherit the Duchy of Edinburgh, for example, when Phil pops his clogs. The [Duke of York](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duke_of_York) is hereditary, but the last time it was actually passed from father to son was in 1460. (Since then, Dukes of York have either died without male heirs, or become the king – since the current Duke of York only has daughters, he doesn’t look like breaking the pattern.) Apart from Cornwall and Edinburgh, the other royal dukes are Gloucester and Kent. The current dukes both inherited from their fathers. ---
**Author:** ![Polycarp](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/82dd89/32.png) [@Polycarp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Polycarp)\ **Post date:** [June 11, 2010, 7:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/1999-royal-princes-all-declined-life-peerages-why/542805/9 "2010-06-11T19:47:02Z")
Is it fact or only speculation that Edinburgh is set to pass from Philip to Edward, who is presently ‘only’ Earl of Wessex (his brothers being Dukes)? I’d heard that that was the plan on Philip’s death, but whether anything formal ever got done, I don’t know. ---
**Author:** ![Acsenray](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/acsenray/32/4519_2.png) [@Acsenray](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Acsenray)\ **Post date:** [June 11, 2010, 7:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/1999-royal-princes-all-declined-life-peerages-why/542805/10 "2010-06-11T19:56:21Z")
> [@blindboyard](#): > > The Royal Duchies aren’t hereditary titles. I don’t think that’s true. Charles is the heir to the Duchy of Edinburgh. But since he’s also heir apparent, the dukedom is likely to merge with the crown in the near (?) future and it would become part of the titles of the monarch. He could then choose to hand it out again. > [@Giles](#): > > The Duke of York is hereditary, but the last time it was actually passed from father to son was in 1460. (Since then, Dukes of York have either died without male heirs, or become the king – since the current Duke of York only has daughters, he doesn’t look like breaking the pattern.) I suppose it could be reissued by the monarch again after Andrew’s death. I suspect when/if it is reissued it could be made heritable by daughters. > [@](#): > > Is it fact or only speculation that Edinburgh is set to pass from Philip to Edward, who is presently ‘only’ Earl of Wessex (his brothers being Dukes)? I’d heard that that was the plan on Philip’s death, but whether anything formal ever got done, I don’t know. I believe it is speculation. They can’t do anything formal, because there is an heir to the title (Charles). At whatever point a single person becomes both the sovereign and the Duke of Edinburgh (presumably Charles) that person can then decide to give it to Edward, but it seems to me that it’s very unlikely that Queen Elizabeth would do it in such a way that deprives Charles of what it is currently presumed he has a right to inhereit. ---
**Author:** ![alphaboi867](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/alphaboi867/32/3898_2.png) [@alphaboi867](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/alphaboi867)\ **Post date:** [June 11, 2010, 9:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/1999-royal-princes-all-declined-life-peerages-why/542805/11 "2010-06-11T21:28:21Z")
> [@Polycarp](#): > > The logic, such as it is, may be that as part of a package of Lords reform, only life peers would have voice and vote – and as a courtesy it was offered to the Royal males (who traditionally have seats in the Lords but also traditionally never speak [other than the ceremonial Maiden Speech] or vote there)… You’re almost right. It wasn’t just royal peers who were offered life peerages; _all_ hereditary peers who were the _first to hold_ their titles were offered life peerages. So if you inheirited your title no life peerage; if the Queen created your title just for you got a life peerage. For example the Queen’s cousin, HRH the [Duke of Kent](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prince_Edward,_Duke_of_Kent) was not offered a life peerage (despite being a prince of royal blood) because he inheirited the dukedom from his father. The late Princess Margerat’s ex-husband (Anthony Armstrong-Jones) was created Earl of Snowdon when he married the princess; he was offered (& accepted) a life peerage. His son will inheirit the earldom, but won’t be able to sit in the Lords. The only time the Queen’s sons ever attended the Lords was; when they first claimed their seats after being granted peerages (or coming of age in Charles’s case), and once a year when she gave the Throne Speech. Prince Phillip only attends the Lords when she’s giving the Throne Speech, but he sits at her side and not with he other dukes.