The oddity about Edward is that, although he does have a son, that son will not inherit his dukedom. Edward was given the dukedom of Edinburgh only for life.
One could imagine that becoming the new norm. The cadet branches of the Windsor, such as the Gloucesters and the Kents, aren’t exactly on Skid Row and are well set-up for the foreseeable future. But a generation or two from now, they may look not quite in the same league as most of the non-royal dukes. Life dukedoms for the children of the monarch would neatly avoid creating new ducal dynasties every generation.
Swedish princes and princesses only receive lifetime dukedoms. This has been the rule for princes since the 18th century and since the 1980s for princesses.
I was in high school when Stark was briefly dating Prince Andrew; those of us who were Star Wars fans learned that she had played Camie, one of Luke’s friends on Tatooine, whose scenes were cut from the final version of the film (but the character did appear in the novelization).
This is a clip of the deleted scene; she appears at the end, has a couple of lines, and is the person who swipes Luke’s macrobinoculars at the end of the scene.
I’m still a little confused. Why do princes and princesses need to have dukedoms? They’re already princes/princesses … what’s the point of the additional titlage???
My recollection of the details of the movie as released is poor, but that scene sure seems to drag and be pointless compared to most of the rest of the movie. I can see why it got cut.
Another atavism from times past when holding some actual feudal lordship under your monarch parent/grandparent was the way you’d support yourself/justify your continued existence, that has now just become something ceremonial you traditionally do. Remember in Ye Olde Tyme you did not just get a check from the Civil List.
One theory, at least for the princes: it gives their wives something to be called other than Princess followed by their husband’s name. “Princess Diana” is what “the common people” called her; her official title was Diana, Princess of Wales. I seem to recall that Queen Elizabeth II made it quite clear that, when Prince Andrew got married, his wife was not to be called Princess Sarah.
Also, it helps to tell them apart. If they weren’t the Dukes of Kent, Gloucester, etc then there’d often be a slew of Prince Georges, Henrys, Edwards, etc in the extended royal family.
It’s about having a title in their own right. Prince Andrew is only Prince by virtue of being the son of a Monarch. He can’t pass his title down, his (ex)wife has no title at all (now).
Whereas Prince Harry, as Duke of Sussex, will be able to pass his Dukedom down, maintaining his family status. Megan would just be Meghan without the Dukedom. His grandson, should he have one, won’t be a royal Prince – you have to be the grandchild of a Monarch for that – but he will be His Grace, the Duke of Sussex, when he inherits.
Aside from Prince of Wales (an unique position in the UK), Prince/Princess doesn’t carry a lot of weight. Duke does, as that’s the highest rank below King/Queen and Prince of Wales
