From what I understand (and I may be wrong), a peer is created in the UK by means of a letters patent declaring so-and-so to be Duke/Marquis/Earl/Count/Baron so-and-so. In addition, if the peerage is hereditary, it will state the method of transmission in the letters patent.
The current Duke of Edinburgh is Prince Philip. He was created the Duke of Edinburgh prior to his marriage to Princess Elizabeth in 1947. At the time, of course, the couple had no children.
The Dukedom of Edinburgh, like most Dukedoms, are passed to the eldest (surviving) son. As such, when he passes away, the title will go to Prince Charles, who, if he is not yet king, become the Duke of Edinburgh (along with his other dukedoms) or, if he is king, the title will merge with the crown.
According to Wikipedia, it has been announced that the title will eventually pass to Prince Edward, the younger brother of Prince Charles. However, Edward cannot inherit the title directly from his father (barring the death of Charles AND his sons) as the title will go to Charles upon his death where it will eventually merge with the crown. The assumption is that after Charles assumes the throne, he will re-create Edward as the Duke of Edinburgh.
However, I’m wondering if all that is necessary. Can’t the Queen issue a letters patent to grant the title to Edward directly upon the death of Philip?
To answer the thread-title question, no – as you note, the mode of inheritance is specified in the Letters Patent creating the peerage. (There have, by the way, been a few cases where a “lesser included” title got segmented out – where one passed to the heir general, the person entitled by British-style primogeniture (males take precedence, but a title passes to or through the female line in the absence of brothers of the heiress), but the other to the heir male, where the peerage was to go to male descendants of the ancestor. E.g., the 3rd Viscount Vickers is also legally the 10th Lord Whatnot (a barony). On his death, the viscountship passes to his only daughter, the heiress general; the barony passes to his father’s younger brother’s grandson, his heir male.
However, when a title merges back into the Crown, or is due to, it can always be given out again by new Letters Patent. This presumably is the arrangement with Princes Philip and Edward (Charles, of course, standing to inherit the throne, and Andrew already being Duke of York – which was also the title of his grandfather and great-grandfather, Georges VI and V respectively, before George V became Prince of Wales on Queen Victoria’s death and George VI assumed the throne on Edward VIII’s abdication, both having been second sons who ended up inheriting the throne). Historically, the title given to John Churchill, Duke of Marlborough, was confined to him and his (nonexistent) sons. So Letters Patent were prepared to pass the title to his daughter and her husband (previously surnamed Spencer and renamed Spencer Churchill by them), who were Sir Winston Churchill’s ancestors.
Thanks, Poly. I suppose my question is, could the Soverign issue a new letters patent on a peerage that changes the mod of inheritance. Is that within the power of Soverign (as the fount of honours)?
Zev Steinhardt
Was the succession to the Marlborough dukedom altered by Letters Patent or by Act of Parliament?
Another method of “redirecting” the succession to a peerage can be seen at work in the dukedom of Fife. Alexander Duff was created the Duke of Fife in 1889 on his marriage to HRH Princess Louise of Wales, eldest daughter of the Prince of Wales (later Edward VII). The dukedom contained the usual rules restricting succession to heirs male. The new Duke and Duchess of Fife then had two daughters. Later, in 1900, when it became fairly obvious that there would not be any male issue from the marriage, Queen Victoria re-created the dukedom of Fife for Alexander Duff, but with succession to each of his daughters and their sons. The Duke of Fife thus held two separate, similarly named ducal titles. When he eventually died in 1912:
the 1889 dukedom became extinct since he had no male heirs;
his elder daughter succeeded to the 1900 dukedom as Duchess of Fife in her own right. Her nephew still holds the title today.
Creating a second peerage, to be held concurrently by the owner of the original peerage, was clearly an ingenious way around the problem of having to alter the original peerage’s mode of inheritance. Presumably it’s still open to the Queen, as the fount of honour, to do something similar with the Edinburgh dukedom. I imagine it’s highly unlikely though, since any such move would run the risk of two Edinburgh dukedoms being held simultaneously by Charles and Edward until the 1947 creation merged with the crown.
It was by Act of Parliament, specifically 6 Anne c. 7.
This is the standard way of extending succession to an existing peerage, with the Amherst, Nelson and Brougham baronies being the other examples. But, as you say, the potential complications if Prince Philip dies before the Queen are doubtless the reasons why this was not used in this case.
There is the further complication that any promise, however formal, made by the monarch about what their successor might do is not binding on that successor. Which is why it was made clear that Charles had agreed to the arrangement. Edward only has his brother’s word that he’ll get it, although that is presumably good enough.
Assuming Prince Phillip predeceases the Queen, and the Dukedom of Edinburgh passes to Prince Charles while he is still Prince of Wales (and thus does not merge into the crown), what about his renouncing the title? If so, would it become available for reissuance, held in abeyance, or would it pass down to Prince William? If so, and William renounced, would it pass to his brother Prince Harry, or wait until Prince William has children? Could everybody before Prince Edward in line for the title renounce and pass it to him that way?