The Royal Forums Coat of Arms

Go Back   The Royal Forums > Reigning Houses > British Royals > Prince Harry and Prince William

Join The Royal Forums Today
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #1001  
Old 08-23-2013, 10:43 AM
vkrish's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Toronto, Canada
Posts: 842
windsorbrides1, the perception that the Queen Mother "released" herself of the title Dowager Duchess of York to enable Andrew have York title is incorrect.
The moment George VI became King, he and his wife ceased to be the Duke and Duchess of York, as that peerage merges with the Crown.
So QM was no more Duchess of York, leave alone Dowager Duchess. The Dukedom of York was freely available with the Sovereign to create on anyone since 1937, and was used only in 1986 when Prince Andrew married.
One more thing, Dowager Duchesses need not release themselves of the titles. They can simply pass on, or can revert back to Crown to be created again..
__________________

__________________
The only word I hate in the Royal Dictionary - ABDICATION
Reply With Quote
  #1002  
Old 08-23-2013, 10:47 AM
cepe's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 4,431
Quote:
Originally Posted by KittyAtlanta View Post
Current former but vacant royal Dukedoms are:

Albany
Albemarle
Bedford
Clarence
Connaught
Cumberland
Hereford
Kendal
Ross
Sussex
Windsor

I like Ross and Bedford.
Bedford is not a Royal Dukedom. It is currently held by Andrew Russell, 15th Duke.
__________________

__________________

This precious stone set in the silver sea,......
This blessed plot, this earth, this realm, this England,
Reply With Quote
  #1003  
Old 08-23-2013, 10:54 AM
KittyAtlanta's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: KittyLand Junction, United States
Posts: 2,837
Eeeek! Since my list was soooo wrong, I've removed it. I still like Ross, if it is available when the time comes for Harry.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #1004  
Old 08-23-2013, 11:38 AM
Furienna's Avatar
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Örnsköldsvik, Sweden
Posts: 1,206
Maybe, but I like the sound of Sussex.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #1005  
Old 08-23-2013, 05:51 PM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 8,492
Quote:
Originally Posted by windsorbrides1 View Post
Victoria's Albert was also a Prince Consort. He was not made King because he was (a) a foreigner from an unpopular country at the time and (b) Because the connotation in her time would have been that he was in charge.
Victoria asked for Albert to be made King Consort at the time of their marriage but Lord Melbourne - the PM - said 'no' because if 'parliament could make a king it could unmake a king'. In otherwords it was not a precedent that Victoria should give to parliament.

Quote:
Philip was not made a King for the same reasons. The Greek royal house had some taint, and they wanted Elizabeth the undoubted Queen. Also, because the precedent had been set with Prince Albert.
There was never any question of Philip being King Consort as the argument was still the same as it was with Albert. It wouldn't have mattered who she married her husband wasn't going to be King Consort.

Quote:
It was announced at the time of his wedding that Prince Edward will be named Duke of Edinburgh, which is why he is now only an Earl. Both his parents would technically have to die, but I could see the Queen releasing her rights to the title and handing them over as the Queen Mother did with the York title so Prince Andrew could become Duke of York. The Queen would then take the title Dowager Duchess of Edinburgh as her mother became Dowager Duchess of York.
A number of points -

The Queen AND Philip both have to die for the Edinburgh title to be available for regrant. Currently the line of succession of the Edinburgh title is: Charles, William, George, Harry, Andrew and then Edward. This can't be overtaken on the whim of anyone. When both The Queen and Philip have died, assuming that one of the five men ahead of Edward in the line of succession becomes King, then the title would be available for regrant.

The Queen Mother stopped being HRH The Duchess of York when she became HM The Queen as the York title merged with the crown at that point and was thus available for regrant. A monarch doesn't keep a lower title (other than Lancaster and Normandy but they are special cases and only used in certain times and places - but this isn't the thread to discuss those titles). The Queen could technically still be HRH The Duchess of Edinburgh as the wife of the Duke but she holds a higher title in her own right so wouldn't never use it officially anymore. If Philip predeceases the Queen, Charles becomes Duke of Edinburgh and Camilla would add Duchess of Edinburgh to her other titles.

Quote:
Prince Harry, no matter how down to earth he is, will probably not have a choice with the HRH for his children. He is 4th in line to the throne and being that close it's possible (though highly unlikely) that if there was some disaster or terrorist plot, which is not all that crazy an idea since 9/11 in America, that he could be King. Just as Prince Andrew's girls are HRHs, so Harry's children will be also.
There is now no reason for the children of minor royals to have HRH. Any children born to Harry in the present reign won't have it under the 1917 LPs and so they will start like as Lord/Lady. A person without HRH can still be in the line of succession e.g. Peter Philips was born 5th in line as Peter Philips - no HRH but if tragedy had struck the HRH could have been given if needed. Why burden Harry's kids with the negativity the York girls suffer due to their HRH's which Peter and Zara don't have?

Quote:
I don't believe that any royal heir will ever be named Duke of Clarence, since the last Duke of Clarence has the taint of Jack the Ripper about him (there are conspiracy theories). This is why I believe that William was not given the title, even though the last son of a Prince of Wales (Prince Eddy son of Edward VII) was.
Those 'conspiracy theories' have been disproved so long ago as to not be worth discussing and that isn't a valid reason for not using the title. William was given a title that had some meaning for the family as Queen Mary, the Queen's beloved grandmother, was a granddaughter of a previous Duke of Cambridge - so a link to the past.

Quote:
I don't see them reviving the Duke of Windsor's title either after his Nazi connections were exposed.
I agree Windsor won't be revived but not because of the Nazi visit - bearing in mind that many many aristocrats were sympathetic to the Nazis in the 1930s but because that title was especially created for an abdicating king and would, in all probability be kept for an abdicating monarch in the future e.g. if The Queen did decide to abdicate then I could see her being created Duchess of Windsor as an acknowledgement that she had been The Queen but had stood down (no I don't see her ever doing so but was using that as a possible use of the Windsor title in the future). Windsor is the name of the Castle and so is too closely linked to the monarch person so keeping it for another abdicating monarch makes sense.

Quote:
My best guess is that they will either revive an ancient title like they did with Wessex for Edward or they'll make up an entirely new one. I'm thinking Duke of Tudor, since Henry VIII, his 6 wives, and Elizabeth I are presently making a comeback with the Elizabeth movies, and the tv shows The Tudors, and The White Queen.
Britisth titles are associated with places not family names so I don't see a Duke of Tudor at all. Duke of Sussex is the favourite at the time but Harry may have it own views - and that may include Sussex - but he may also decide he doesn't want a title at all and remain HRH Prince Harry with his wife being HRH Princess Harry.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #1006  
Old 01-12-2014, 11:00 PM
Blog Real's Avatar
Nobility
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Lisboa, Portugal
Posts: 355
I'd like to see Harry with the title of Duke of Manchester.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #1007  
Old 01-12-2014, 11:08 PM
Ish's Avatar
Ish Ish is online now
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Vancouver, Canada
Posts: 2,181
There's already a Duke of Manchester, Alexander Montagu, who has a son.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #1008  
Old 01-12-2014, 11:13 PM
Blog Real's Avatar
Nobility
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Lisboa, Portugal
Posts: 355
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ish View Post
There's already a Duke of Manchester, Alexander Montagu, who has a son.
I forgot about that. Thank you
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #1009  
Old 01-12-2014, 11:52 PM
Queen Camilla's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Chicago, United States
Posts: 619
How about Earl X?

Maybe Dukedoms will only be given to the eldest son of the heir. There seems to be a short supply.

Edward is an Earl & Andrew's title will merge with the crown once he is dead, so none of the Queen's children will have a Dukedom.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #1010  
Old 01-12-2014, 11:59 PM
Ish's Avatar
Ish Ish is online now
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Vancouver, Canada
Posts: 2,181
Edward is an Earl with the expectation that he will be made Duke of Edinburgh on the passing of both the Queen and the DoE.

Andrew has a Dukedom and will for the rest of his life. His dukedom won't continue past him, but he'll always remain Prince Andrew, Duke of York (unless a tragedy occurs to give him older titles).
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #1011  
Old 01-13-2014, 12:31 AM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 8,492
Of course Andrew could remarry a young woman and have a son - and that can happen at any time in the future - in which case the York title would have an heir but...
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #1012  
Old 01-13-2014, 06:47 PM
scooter's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: katonah, United States
Posts: 2,346
Quote:
Originally Posted by Queen Camilla View Post
How about Earl X?

Maybe Dukedoms will only be given to the eldest son of the heir. There seems to be a short supply.
That would fly in the face of history. Right now the Queen's 2 eldest are already Dukes. Her youngest will become a Duke when his father passes. All sons of a monarch up til now have been Dukes. I dont believe that before the present crop, that sons had to wait to marry to be granted a royal Dukedom. Where Victorias sons not all confered Dukedoms befor marriage. I have been reading the new book on Edvard VII. His son was the Duke of Clarence (yes, the one with the Jack the Ripper suspision).
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #1013  
Old 01-13-2014, 07:06 PM
Ish's Avatar
Ish Ish is online now
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Vancouver, Canada
Posts: 2,181
Victoria's sons were all Dukes before their marriages, although other than Albert-Edward (who, as the eldest son of the monarch became Duke of Cornwall and Rothesay at birth) they all had to wait until they were adults to be made peers.

Albert Victor was made a Duke as a child, but his brother George wasn't made a Duke until his elder brother died, the year before his marriage. The sons of George V weren't created dukes until they were older (exception being the future Edward VIII), with Prince George not becoming one until just before his marriage as well.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #1014  
Old 01-13-2014, 08:31 PM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 8,492
Just a few notes

Albert-Victor was over 26 when he was created Duke of Clarence - born 8th January, 1864 and created Duke of Clarence 24th May, 1890 - aged 26 years, 4 months and 8 days.

24th May 1892 - two years after his brother was created a Duke, George V was created Duke of York - aged 25 - 10 days before his 26th birthday.

Back to Victoria's sons:

Albert Edward born Duke of Cornwall and Rothesay - created Prince of Wales 8th December 1841 - aged 1 day less than 1 month
Alfred - Duke of Edinburgh - aged 21 - again created on 24th May 1866 - but born in August 1844 so nearly 3 months before his 22nd birthday
Arthur - yes you guessed it - 24th May 1874 - 3 weeks after his 24th birthday (born 1st May, 1850)
Leopold - again 24th May 1881 - born 1853 - so 28 when created Duke of Albany.

Other than her son and heir, Victoria waited until her sons and grandsons were in their 20s before giving their dukedoms and all on the 24th May (her birthday)

George V created Albert Duke of York on 4th June 1920 when he was 24 years and 6 months, Henry Duke of Gloucester 31st March 1928 - on Henry's 28th birthday and George Duke of Kent was created on 12th October 1934 - when he was nearly 32. He also created Edward Prince of Wales on 23rd June 2011 on his birthday and over a year and a month after Edward became the heir to the throne.

Going back to George III:

George - born Duke of Cornwall and Rothesay - created Prince of Wales 19th August 1762 - aged 7 days
Frederick - Duke of York - 27th November 1784 - aged 21 years, 3 months 9 days
William - Duke of Clarence - 16th May, 1789 - aged 23 years, 8 months and 26 days
Edward - Duke of Kent - 24th April 1799 - aged 31 years, 5 months and 22 days
Augustus - Duke of Sussex - 27th November, 1801 - 28 years and 10 months
Adolphus Duke of Cambridge - 17th November 1801 - 27 years, 8 months and 24 days.

Interesting that Augustus was actually given his dukedom after his younger brother.

Elizabeth waited until their wedding days - but what were the ages:

Andrew - Duke of York - 23rd July, 1986 - aged 26 years, 5 months and 6 days
Edward - Earl of Wessex - 19th June 1999 - aged 35 years, 3 months and 9 days
William - Duke of Cambridge - 29th April, 2011 - aged 29 years, 10 months and 8 days

Charles became Duke of Cornwall and Rothesay on the 6th February 1952 of course but had to wait until 1958 to be created Prince of Wales.

So it seems that they have waited until the younger sons are into their 20s and in the case of the late Duke of Kent into his 30s before getting their dukedoms.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #1015  
Old 01-13-2014, 08:36 PM
Ish's Avatar
Ish Ish is online now
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Vancouver, Canada
Posts: 2,181
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iluvbertie View Post
Just a few notes

Albert-Victor was over 26 when he was created Duke of Clarence - born 8th January, 1964 and created Duke of Clarence 24th May, 1890 - aged 26 years, 4 months and 8 days.

Thank you for this correction. I totally misread Albert Victor's birth year as being 1884 instead of 1864.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #1016  
Old 01-14-2014, 08:01 AM
cinrit's Avatar
Nobility
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Deep South, United States
Posts: 381
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ish View Post
Edward is an Earl with the expectation that he will be made Duke of Edinburgh on the passing of both the Queen and the DoE.
Wouldn't the Duke of Edinburgh title traditionally pass automatically to Charles? Father to first-born son. Or is an exception to be made?
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #1017  
Old 01-14-2014, 08:11 AM
Lumutqueen's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
Royal Blogger
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Carlton, York, United Kingdom
Posts: 17,124
Quote:
Originally Posted by cinrit View Post
Wouldn't the Duke of Edinburgh title traditionally pass automatically to Charles? Father to first-born son. Or is an exception to be made?
It'a quite complicated, iluvbertie created a thread to explain the predicament. It is presumed Charles will reissue the title to his brother I believe.


The future of the Duke of Edinburgh title
__________________
We Will Remember Them.
Reply With Quote
  #1018  
Old 01-14-2014, 03:45 PM
Ish's Avatar
Ish Ish is online now
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Vancouver, Canada
Posts: 2,181
Quote:
Originally Posted by cinrit View Post
Wouldn't the Duke of Edinburgh title traditionally pass automatically to Charles? Father to first-born son. Or is an exception to be made?

Hence why both the Queen and the DoE have to pass first. When Charles is king all his titles will merge with the crown - a King cannot also be a peer. It is said that Charles will then recreate the DoE for Edward.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #1019  
Old 01-14-2014, 05:22 PM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 8,492
Quote:
Originally Posted by cinrit View Post
Wouldn't the Duke of Edinburgh title traditionally pass automatically to Charles? Father to first-born son. Or is an exception to be made?
Correct - the Edinburgh title will pass automatically to Charles.

To change the 1947 LPs to allow Edward to inherit the title directly would take an act of parliament and as the most likely scenario is that the title will eventually merge with the Crown and be available for regrant within a relatively short period of time after Philip's passing, if not immediately, it will simply be regranted to Edward when the time comes.

The line of succession to Edinburgh is:

Charles, William, George, Harry, Andrew, Edward, James.

As the most likely scenario is that Charles will succeed to both his mother's title of monarch and his father's of Duke of Edinburgh at some point and he can't hold the peerage title as King he has already agreed to create Edward - Duke of Edinburgh when the time arises as was announced in 1999.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #1020  
Old 05-09-2014, 08:56 PM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Conneaut, United States
Posts: 1,382
(Edward) John Spencer, 8th Earl Spencer (1924-1992) was the father of Diana, Princess of Wales and Prince Henry's maternal grandfather.

Scenario:
Suppose Diana had been the only child of the 8th Earl Spencer.
Would Prince Harry have been able to become the new Earl Spencer upon his grandfather's demise?
__________________

__________________
Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
prince harry, prince william, styles and titles


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off





Additional Links
Popular Tags
abdication birth charlene chris o'neill crown prince haakon crown princess letizia crown princess mary crown princess mette-marit duchess of cambridge fashion genealogy grand duchess maria teresa grand duke henri hohenzollern infanta leonor infanta sofia jordan king abdullah ii king carl xvi gustav king constantine ii king felipe king felipe vi king harald king juan carlos king philippe king willem-alexander luxembourg nobility olympic games olympics ottoman picture of the month poland pom president hollande prince albert prince albert ii prince carl philip prince constantijn prince felipe prince floris prince pieter-christiaan princess anita princess astrid princess beatrix princess charlene princess laurentien princess letizia princess mabel princess margriet princess marilene princess mary princess mary fashion queen anne-marie queen letizia queen mathilde queen maxima queen rania queen silvia queen sofia royal royal fashion russia sofia hellqvist spain state visit sweden the hague visit wedding



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 02:01 AM.

Social Knowledge Networks

eXTReMe Tracker
Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2014
Jelsoft Enterprises

Royal News Delivered to your Email!

You can get the latest Royal News right in your inbox.

unsusbcribe at anytime with one click

Close [X]