If memory serves, the above titles are the three most recently granted to royal family members. With reference to those names in particular, how were those place names determined? In contrast to Charles as Duke of Cornwall, who derives income from extensive property holdings there, there’s no “ownership” or other specific connection between Wessex, Cambridge, and Sussex and their respective title holders Princes Edward, William and Harry. Nor is there some personal association as there often is with some non-royal grantees, e.g. Earl Mountbatten of Burma, or at least none that I’m aware of.
I was rather surprised when Prince William was made Duke of Cambridge, because the name Cambridge already has such powerful connotations on its own, as a university. It even seemed a little off to me, as if it were the name of an English style pub in, oh, I don’t know, anywhere English is not the main language and people don’t have a feel for these things. I was slightly relieved to hear that Prince Henry hadn’t been made Duke of Oxford, because that would have been too much.
You’ll see from those posts that Duke of Cambridge is a traditional one given to younger royals, used by both the Stuart and Hanoverian kings.
Sussex had only been used once before, for one of George III’s younger sons.
With respect to the Earl of Wessex, it is unusual. “Wessex” was one of early English kingdoms, prior to the unification into one kingdom of England. It’s name indicated that it was the kingdom of the “west Saxons”, just as Sussex was the kingdom of the “south Saxons”, and Essex was the kingdom of the “east Saxons.”
Alfred the Great was the king of Wessex, and he was largely successful in containing the Danish invasions of the 900s, although there were Danish kingdoms in north-east England (the “Danelaw”). Alfred’s successors managed to unify England under their control as a single kimgdom, gradually eliminating all the other kingdoms. The House of Wessex was thus the far-distant ancestor of the current royal house. However, the name “Wessex” disappeared from the map of local counties, unlike Sussex and Essex. It lived on as a regional name, eventually picked up by Thomas Hardy.
So if there’s no county of Wessex, how come there’s an Earl of Wessex? Blame Colin Firth. He played a fictional character, the “Earl of Wessex” in the movie “Shakespeare in Love.” That came out in 1998 and apparently Prince Edward was a fan of the movie.
When Prince Edward got married the next year, he apparently asked HM to give him the title of “Earl of Wessex.” It’s not like he’s being short-changed in the ducal stakes; it’s expected that he will eventually get the title “Duke of Edinburgh” when Prince Phillip is done using it.
See the “Titles and Honours” section of the Wikipedia articles on Prince Edward:
One other note about the Earldom of Wessex: it was first created for the Godwin family in the early 11th century. It was held by Harald Godwinson, who became King of England in 1066 on the death of Edward the Confessor. The title merged with the Crown. After Harald died at Hastings, William the Conqueror did not re-create it, so it was unused for over nine centuries.
So then, if I understand what you’ve posted here and in the other thread, the royal family has a sort of grab-bag of unused, mostly ducal titles, and the Monarch can hand them out as she sees fit. Since the territorial designation, e.g. CambridBge goes with the title, as it were, there’s no way the “Cambridge” part could have been changed other than if she had bestowed a different title.
By contrast, when non-Royals are ennobled, their titles are completely new creations so there can be some flexibility regarding the territorial designation. My impression from fictional settings is that the grantee has some choice in the matter.
All these years I thought Wessex was a place made up by Thomas Hardy, the sour old git, and not a place I’d ever want to be associated with on that account alone.
Close, but maybe not quite - William may have recreated it for his close companion and 1rst cousin William FitzOsbern. It’s just not entirely clear( to me )if the title was actually held or just de facto held. In addition to the Isle of Wight and what he conquered in south Wales ,he seems to have had held local authority in Herefordshire, Gloucestershire, Worcestershire and Oxfordshire. However for whatever reason when his lands were divided after his death it and his various other earldom titles were dropped in favor of the single title of Hereford. Presumably his sons were( accurately )assumed to be less reliable and thus not good candidates to hold even weak authority over 4 shires, especially after resistance had been broken in the west and the Welsh border regions.
Just to point out that lack of a Royal or Noble Title does not make you a non Royal and as Zara Phillips can attest, you might find yourself performing Royal duties without having a title.
Its completely unimportant. These are ceremonial titles and grant no power or wealth.
Theres only royal wealth associated with the Monarch inheriting Duke of Lancaster , and the Prince of Wales being bestoyed Duke of Cornwall. .
What the monarch gets income from … which divides into two. Trust - the assets held in trust, (meaning that the monarch has no power to simply sell them or give them away ), which is the main castles, and all the treasured contents, the Duchy of Lancaster, the Crown Estates, and investments in more ordinary look … office blocks, houses, hotels,shares, etc . Personally owned are Sandringham House and Balmoral Castle she inherited from her mother… (who had ownership because her husband willed them to her.). Its unclear that the government would let Sandringham and Balmoral would let the titles leave the monarch’s direct family but its said to be privately owned so as to pass it to the widow.
What the Prince (or Princess) of Wales gets income from - the Duchy of Cornwall, that operates as a trust fund and only pays profits to the Duke. Its tradition that if there is no child of the monarch, the monarch gets the income, however that wouldn’t prevent a future monarch nominating a Duke of Cornwall - especially as the Monarch could simply pass the profits over to someone, whether the title goes with it or not.
I can’t quite pass this sentence, but if you’re questioning whether the government would have any say if the Queen wished to sell Balmoral or Sandringham, then no, they are entirely privately owned and for her to do with what she wishes.
Of course, that’s understood. My question, which has been answered, was more about the forms and usages, and why a particular name (e.g. Sussex) goes with that particular ducal title.
Didn’t Edward VIII sell one of the castles to George VI because he inherited it as the eldest son of George V and the castle didn’t belong to whoever was monarch? IIRC cause even more bad blood between the two.
Sandringham House and Balmoral Castle are both personal property, not property of the Crown so the former Edward VIII retained them after he abdicated and his brother, George VI, had to buy it from him. It wasn’t a symbolic £1 transaction either.
It has been speculated that one of the reasons that Harry might have been given the title of Duke of Sussex is that Prince Augustus Frederick, the only previous holder of the title, was very liberal and known for his opposition to the slave trade and his support for religious minorities, including Catholics and Jews.
