Edward the new Duke of Edinburgh

[SnottyLottie]

www.telegraph.co.uk/royal-family/2023/03/10/king-charles-prince-edward-royal-family-title-duke-edinburgh/

In order to honour Edward’s 59th birthday

I think posters on here need to do their research

The reports are that he had severe epilepsy (no treatment at the time) plus probably what today would have been considered 'learning disabilities'. Until his death he was often with his grandmother (Queen Alexandra, at Sandringham) during the day having tea with her and gardening. He didn't take part in public events, but had a life built around his needs as understood at the time.

It is easy to criticise the past in light of our understanding today

Well done @Roussette ! Keep it up!

I think it might be… because they aren’t royal?

@Roussette slightly confused as I wasn’t aware the Queen mother (Elizabeth Bowles-Lyon)was descended from royalty, I thought it was by marriage so how are Bowes-Lyon’s royal.

If they become royal by marriage of their cousin, does that mean Pippa’s children are royal because they are cousin’s to Prince George, Princess Charlotte and Prince Louis, and Samantha and Thomas Markle’s children royal because they are Prince Archie and Princess Lilibet’s cousins?

Anyway about Edward becoming DoE...,,

I think good too

Be interesting if he can re-raise the profile of the scheme a bit more - I just to hear more about it for a new generation.

My don will be doing it soon

I think it's lovely, I don't follow the royal family much, do the DC get different titles as well

They're family. That's it really. Or does the monarchy want to put a ring round themselves and anyone without blue blood is obviously not worth considering?
Actually, no need to answer, I think I've answered my own question.

I think it is a good decision, Edward seemingly a valuable member of the Royal Family.

So do you consider the RF currently responsible, for example, for Emily, George and Celia McCorquodale?

(Same degree of connection via sibling who married in)

James will be known as the Earl of Wessex going forward.

No change for Louise.

Correct.

At the time of her birth, she was styled as the daughter of an earl, and now as daughter of a duke. Both are Lady FirstName

She is also able to make her own choice now over activating "Princess" as she is over 18 and birth-entitled to it. But her parents have said how they expect their DC will never be working royals, will need to find their own career, and therefore didn't think using their royal titles was the right thing. And she has shown no sign of wanting to make any change.

You can brush over it all you like. I think it was pretty appalling. First cousins of the QM. Her brother's children.

Sorry... first cousins to the Queen. Not QM. It was QM's brother's chldren.

It's not brushing it over. It's using a current day example of how close the people are to the RF.

Would you, today, criticise (or praise) the RF for any part of the upbringing and actions of those three?

It's not brushing over the issues of the decision-making a hundred years ago, nor what consequences it brought to those (and every other) individual affected. It's pointing out how flimsy the RF connection is.

Personally, I don't write off cousins like that. First cousins of a Monarch who reigned for 70 years.

So you do think the current RF should have similar levels of responsibility to the McCorquodale DC?

They are the exact parallel of first cousins to a (future) monarch

I think there is a duty of care for first cousins of a Monarch yes.

Do you think the Queen knew? I mean for the majority of her life until the scandal broke. Bearing in mind they were the same age as her, and hidden away at a very early age.
Her mother must have known.

Thanks@YetMoreNewBeginnings @EdithWeston

But how is it the Queens decision what to do about them?

My relative well it was their parents & siblings to decide how they lived their life not for other family. Can you imagine the furore if the Queen had interfered?

And actually my relatives life was no different. In an institution as common as that time. It closed eventually & they were moved into social housing. Not back home to their family. No different.

This is not something to bash the RF for.

Then we have a difference of opinion!

We do! But that's OK. That's what opinions on a forum are all about.

The Queen had 23 Bowes Lyon’s cousins, plus another 7 on the Windsor side. Plus 4 children of her own, and she was head of state. I think she might have been a bit busy, personally.

Additonally, I have no idea why people think she had a role to interfere into another family’s decisions about their children. Particularly since it was quite clearly a family decision - Nerissa and Katherine Bowes Lyon were in the same institution as three of their cousins on their mother’s side (Rosemary, Idonea and Etheldreda Fane). The girls’ mothers, Harriet and Fenella Hepburn-Stuart-Forbes-Trefusis, had obviously decided that the Institution was the best place for five of their children. Obviously we would disagree, but the decision was made 80 years ago (when the Queen was still a child) and things were self-evidently different then. Joseph P Kennedy had his daughter with learning difficulties secretly lobotomised, for example!

Anyway, I note however that should either Charles of William seek to interfere int he upbringings of Archie and Lilibet, that will be supported by various posters here on the basis that they will obviously know what’s best for their extended family. But somehow, I think that would be different….

Actually he & his wife were offered the title of duke & Duchess of Cambridge upon their marriage but turned it down.They requested the title of earl & countess of Wessex for their own reasons.