The Royal Forums Coat of Arms


Join The Royal Forums Today
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #5061  
Old 07-15-2020, 09:15 PM
Majesty
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 8,427
Harry is the Duke of Sussex and has been since his wedding day, just as he has been a Prince since his birth. The Queen has not removed the Dukedom of Sussex from Harry, and therefore Meghan is the Duchess of Sussex.

Like every other woman in England she takes her status from her husband, ie Mrs John Smith for example for the untitled, Lady So and So for wives of knights, viscountess, Marchioness, Duchess, etc for higher ranks of the peerage. Meghan is fully entitled to use the styling of Duchess.
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #5062  
Old 07-15-2020, 09:38 PM
Courtier
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 830
I'd be interested in hearing how the people of Sussex feel about Meghan and Harry representing them. I don't think they should use their titles at all if they want to say whatever they want.
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #5063  
Old 07-15-2020, 09:49 PM
Majesty
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 8,427
Perhaps we should then canvass the people of Cambridge, Kent and Gloucester to see what they think of their royal title holders? Not to mention the people of York! Ducal title holders do not 'represent the people' of their particular geographical designations at all, they are merely historical Dukedoms, in some cases many centuries old. And Harry and Meghan have never stated that they 'want to say whatever they want'.
Reply With Quote
  #5064  
Old 07-15-2020, 10:04 PM
Courtier
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 830
Quote:
Originally Posted by Curryong View Post
Perhaps we should then canvass the people of Cambridge, Kent and Gloucester to see what they think of their royal title holders? Not to mention the people of York! Ducal title holders do not 'represent the people' of their particular geographical designations at all, they are merely historical Dukedoms, in some cases many centuries old. And Harry and Meghan have never stated that they 'want to say whatever they want'.

They're still working members of the royal family. Harry and Meghan aren't.
Reply With Quote
  #5065  
Old 07-15-2020, 10:12 PM
Majesty
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 8,427
Andrew is a working member of the BRF?! And traditionally Dukedoms were given to younger sons of the King and POW, whether they were 'working members' or not.
Reply With Quote
  #5066  
Old 07-15-2020, 10:33 PM
Courtier
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 830
Quote:
Originally Posted by Curryong View Post
Andrew is a working member of the BRF?! And traditionally Dukedoms were given to younger sons of the King and POW, whether they were 'working members' or not.

Andrew should lose his title too. As long as they have their titles and the HRH people who don't know that much about the situation are going to assume they are speaking for the queen.
Reply With Quote
  #5067  
Old 07-15-2020, 10:46 PM
Majesty
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 8,427
The Queen obviously doesn't share your opinion about the Dukedoms of her son and grandson. Perhaps you should take it up with her.

Btw Edward VIII was given a Royal Dukedom by his brother King George VI as one of the first acts of his reign, and the ex King kept his HRH. He wasn't a working member of the Royal Family after December 1936.
Reply With Quote
  #5068  
Old 07-16-2020, 12:27 AM
Leopoldine's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: Apr 2017
Location: New York, United States
Posts: 870
Perhaps the question is whether the US recognizes their titles. If the Sussexes plan to stay here, this would be the big question.
Reply With Quote
  #5069  
Old 07-16-2020, 12:54 AM
Majesty
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 8,427
This question has been discussed and thrashed out before in several other threads on the Forum.

However, Princess Madeleine of Sweden lives in Florida and has not been forced to drop her title because of her residence there. Several other members of royal houses have lived in the US and retained their titles. There's been no evidence that Harry wishes to acquire American citizenship.

https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/ne...lorida-1132834
Reply With Quote
  #5070  
Old 07-16-2020, 03:35 AM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 1,470
Quote:
Originally Posted by Curryong View Post
Harry is the Duke of Sussex and has been since his wedding day, just as he has been a Prince since his birth. The Queen has not removed the Dukedom of Sussex from Harry, and therefore Meghan is the Duchess of Sussex.

Like every other woman in England she takes her status from her husband, ie Mrs John Smith for example for the untitled, Lady So and So for wives of knights, viscountess, Marchioness, Duchess, etc for higher ranks of the peerage. Meghan is fully entitled to use the styling of Duchess.
I do take umbrage with that. Women do not always take their husbands name. And it is by no means automatic you have to apply to the records to do it. I dislike the practice myself and hope it will become mess common.
Reply With Quote
  #5071  
Old 07-16-2020, 05:02 AM
Majesty
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 8,427
It has been stated here a few posts back that Harry is no longer the Duke of Sussex. That is incorrect. He is. And Meghan is the Duchess of Sussex as his wife. As I posted before, she is entitled to be called that and to take that styling.
Reply With Quote
  #5072  
Old 07-16-2020, 06:09 AM
Pranter's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Midwest, United States
Posts: 12,310
This reminds me of the hullabaloo over Camilla being called the PoW ...ppl have it in their minds that she is not the PoW, that the Queen didn't 'give' her that title etc etc. Similar issue with the Queen Consort that has popped up more recently....legally Camilla is the PoW since her husband is the PoW. As pointed out Lord knows how many times ..the wife takes the female version of her husband's titles (if she wants).

So much bad info out there online about the Sussexes titles (and Camilla's).



LaRae
Reply With Quote
  #5073  
Old 07-16-2020, 06:15 AM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 13,219
If anyone wants 'evidence' that Camilla is Princess of Wales then just look at what title she uses when in Chester - Countess of Chester.

Why is that significant?

Charles is the Earl of Chester. The Letters Patent creating him as Earl of Chester are the exact same ones that created him Prince of Wales. That means that he was given two titles on that day - Prince of Wales and Earl of Chester.

If Camilla uses Countess of Chester in Chester then she has to also be The Princess of Wales (of course Tony Blair announced that in the week leading up to the wedding, in the parliament, while also saying that she wouldn't use it but also when he said that for her to be anything other than Queen would mean legislation would have to be passed to strip her of that title.)
Reply With Quote
  #5074  
Old 07-16-2020, 06:17 AM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 13,219
Quote:
Originally Posted by poppy7 View Post
I do think Meghan should not be able to use her title and Harry just be able to use Prince Harry. That way they can day what they want.
Under British law Harry would have to have given up using Duke of Sussex within one year of being created as such. As he didn't it is now too late for him to not be The Duke of Sussex unless the UK parliament is going to formally 'deprive him' of his titles and they aren't going to do that.
Reply With Quote
  #5075  
Old 07-16-2020, 06:25 AM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 13,219
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mbruno View Post
Hereditary peers have always been involved in politics as , until 1999, they were automatically members of the British Parliament ( via the House of Lords). Harry is not an ordinary peer though; he is a royal Duke. His title in the peerage cannot be separated from his dignity of Prince and princes are not supposed to be political.

I am not sure, but did the Duke of Kent or the Duke of Gloucester or the Duke of York ( the present holders of the title , I mean) ever vote in the House of Lords when they were members ? Again, since 1999, they are no longer members of the House.
The interesting thing with this reform of the House of Lords is that is also included one additional clause - a new creation of an hereditary peerage was also entitled to keep their seat in the Lords. Kent and Gloucester didn't qualify as they inherited their titles but Philip (Edinburgh), Charles (Chester), Andrew (York) and Edward (Wessex)were all newly created for them. When the reforms happened all of them immediately disclaimed that right ... Edward had never taken his seat.

What would be interesting to find out is whether Harry ever disclaimed that right for himself (I can't find anywhere where that provision has been reformed since 1999). If he didn't then it would be interesting to see what would happen if he tried to take his seat.

The Sussex's may be trying to earn a living but they still have to avoid any political involvement as they will always be aligned with the BRF and Harry is still a very senior member of the family and could be called upon to be Regent if needed for George if he were to become King while a minor.
Reply With Quote
  #5076  
Old 07-16-2020, 06:26 AM
Majesty
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Pittsburgh, United States
Posts: 7,240
Quote:
Originally Posted by Leopoldine View Post
Perhaps the question is whether the US recognizes their titles. If the Sussexes plan to stay here, this would be the big question.

The United States does not recognize any foreign title of nobility. If Harry becomes a permanent resident and is issued any U.S. document, it will not include any title (I assume he will be cited as Henry Mountbatten-Windsor). Hoiwever, the private use of titles is not forbidden .



My original comment was not about whether it was appropriate for them to use titles, but rather the title and style that is being used to introduce Meghan in the US: Meghan Markle, The Duchess of Sussex.



In the UK, the following styles are used:


  • HRH The Duchess of Sussex
  • Rachel Meghan, HRH The Duchess of Sussex (cf. the way Catherine was cited in Prince George's birth certificate )
  • Meghan, Duchess of Sussex (in case of divorce and, according to the confusing statement, later retracted (?) by the Palace, how Meghan was supposed to be referred to post-Megexit).
Reply With Quote
  #5077  
Old 07-16-2020, 06:38 AM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: St Thomas, U.S. Minor Outlying Islands
Posts: 3,976
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pranter View Post
This reminds me of the hullabaloo over Camilla being called the PoW ...ppl have it in their minds that she is not the PoW, that the Queen didn't 'give' her that title etc etc. Similar issue with the Queen Consort that has popped up more recently....legally Camilla is the PoW since her husband is the PoW. As pointed out Lord knows how many times ..the wife takes the female version of her husband's titles (if she wants).

So much bad info out there online about the Sussexes titles (and Camilla's).



LaRae
Provided they are not claiming she has been legally deprived of the title, which would indeed be very wrong, I think that in informal conversation it is acceptable to say "she is not the Princess of Wales" given that she is not using it. After all, it is likewise technically "bad info" from the legal point of view to refer to Queen Letizia as "the Queen of Spain" or Queen Máxima as "the Queen of the Netherlands", but royal watchers do so often and it attracts no complaints.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Iluvbertie View Post
Under British law Harry would have to have given up using Duke of Sussex within one year of being created as such.
British law does not obligate a peer to use his title; there are peers who have not legally disclaimed (which is what must be done within the one-year window) or been deprived of their peerages, but have nonetheless chosen not to use the title.
Reply With Quote
  #5078  
Old 07-16-2020, 06:52 AM
Majesty
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Pittsburgh, United States
Posts: 7,240
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iluvbertie View Post
The interesting thing with this reform of the House of Lords is that is also included one additional clause - a new creation of an hereditary peerage was also entitled to keep their seat in the Lords. Kent and Gloucester didn't qualify as they inherited their titles but Philip (Edinburgh), Charles (Chester), Andrew (York) and Edward (Wessex)were all newly created for them. When the reforms happened all of them immediately disclaimed that right ... Edward had never taken his seat.

As far as I understand, the Act also excluded newly created peers. The newly created hereditary peers, including Princess Margaret's husband, were given life peerages so that they could retain their membership. Accordingly, Lord Snowdon did not seat in the House post-1999 as the Earl of Snowdon, but rather as the Baron Armstrong-Jones, see this link.

The royal dukes, including Gloucester and Kent, were also offered the possibility of retaining their seats, but declined it.


There are still 90 seats though that can be occupied by election by hereditary peers. A list of current hereditary peers who are members of the House can be seen in the following Wikipedia article , which also explains how elections are conducted.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Tatiana Maria View Post

British law does not obligate a peer to use his title; there are peers who have not legally disclaimed (which is what must be done within the one-year window) or been deprived of their peerages, but have nonetheless chosen not to use the title.

That is interesting. If I understand it correctly, peerage titles are used in personal documents like British passports. If a peer chooses not to use his title, does he have to ask for the title not to be included in his passport, or is it the other way around, i.e., those who want to include titles in documents have to ask for it?


Quote:
Originally Posted by Curryong View Post
This question has been discussed and thrashed out before in several other threads on the Forum.

However, Princess Madeleine of Sweden lives in Florida and has not been forced to drop her title because of her residence there. Several other members of royal houses have lived in the US and retained their titles. There's been no evidence that Harry wishes to acquire American citizenship.

https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/ne...lorida-1132834


Nonetheless, it is correct that, if Harry becomes a US citizen, he will have to renounce his titles. Interestingly, a natural-born citizen of the United States doesn't have to do any such thing, for example if he or she inherits a British peerage or baronetcy, but naturalized citizens are required to renounce the titles they hold at the moment of naturalization. It is very unfair.
Reply With Quote
  #5079  
Old 07-16-2020, 07:30 AM
Pranter's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Midwest, United States
Posts: 12,310
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tatiana Maria View Post
Provided they are not claiming she has been legally deprived of the title, which would indeed be very wrong, I think that in informal conversation it is acceptable to say "she is not the Princess of Wales" given that she is not using it. After all, it is likewise technically "bad info" from the legal point of view to refer to Queen Letizia as "the Queen of Spain" or Queen Máxima as "the Queen of the Netherlands", but royal watchers do so often and it attracts no complaints.

But that would be incorrect, she IS the Princess of Wales, regardless if she uses the title or not.



LaRae
Reply With Quote
  #5080  
Old 07-16-2020, 07:34 AM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: St Thomas, U.S. Minor Outlying Islands
Posts: 3,976
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mbruno View Post
That is interesting. If I understand it correctly, peerage titles are used in personal documents like British passports. If a peer chooses not to use his title, does he have to ask for the title not to be included in his passport, or is it the other way around, i.e., those who want to include titles in documents have to ask for it?
There are directories and media reports which mention various peers as not using their titles, but I am not sure whether that extends to legal documents such as passports. However, the discussion here was seemingly centered on whether the Sussexes were obliged to use their ducal titles for giving speeches, and as giving speeches is not a legal matter, no British law would require it.


Quote:
Originally Posted by QueenMathilde View Post
Andrew should lose his title too. As long as they have their titles and the HRH people who don't know that much about the situation are going to assume they are speaking for the queen.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Curryong View Post
The Queen obviously doesn't share your opinion about the Dukedoms of her son and grandson. Perhaps you should take it up with her.
Why is that?


Quote:
Originally Posted by Pranter View Post
But that would be incorrect, she IS the Princess of Wales, regardless if she uses the title or not.



LaRae
In that case, would you agree that it is also incorrect to say "Queen Letizia is the Queen of Spain"?
__________________

Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
british royal family, consort, duke of york, kate, princess beatrice, queenmother, spouse, styles and titles, titles uk styles


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


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Non-British Styles and Titles Lord Sosnowitz Royal Ceremony and Protocol 792 08-22-2021 12:16 PM
Abdication Beatrix and Inauguration WA: Titles, Names, Succession, Precedence Princess Robijn King Willem-Alexander, Queen Máxima and family 78 08-21-2021 07:14 AM
Diana's Styles and Titles florawindsor Diana, Princess of Wales (1961-1997) 894 11-26-2019 11:04 PM
Titles and Styles of Harry, his Future Wife and Children Aussie Princess The Duke and Duchess of Sussex and Family 1897 11-29-2017 03:13 AM
Styles and Titles Nahla10 Ruling Family of Dubai 50 06-02-2017 02:28 PM




Popular Tags
america american archie mountbatten-windsor asian birth britain britannia british british royal family buckingham palace camilla camilla's family camilla parker-bowles camilla parker bowles carolin china china chinese ming dynasty asia asian emperor royalty qing chinese colorblindness commonwealth countries coronation crown jewels customs dresses duchess of sussex duke of sussex edward vii elizabeth ii family tree fashion and style gemstones genetics george vi gradenigo harry and meghan henry viii highgrove history hochberg house of windsor hypothetical monarchs japan history kensington palace king edward vii king juan carlos liechtenstein lili mountbatten-windsor line of succession list of rulers medical meghan markle monarchy mongolia names nara period plantinum jubilee pless politics portugal prince harry queen elizabeth ii queen victoria st edward sussex suthida tradition unfinished portrait united states wales welsh


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 12:13 PM.

Social Knowledge Networks

eXTReMe Tracker
Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2021
Jelsoft Enterprises
×