The Royal Forums Coat of Arms


Join The Royal Forums Today
View Poll Results: What Dukedom will Prince Harry receive upon marriage?
Duke of Clarence 63 25.71%
Duke of Sussex 112 45.71%
Duke of Kendal 8 3.27%
Duke of Ross 8 3.27%
Duke of Hereford 6 2.45%
Duke of Windsor 13 5.31%
Duke of Buckingham 8 3.27%
Something 'New' (Please specify) 8 3.27%
An Earldom (Please specify) 4 1.63%
Nothing - he and Meghan will remain Prince and Princess Henry of Wales 9 3.67%
Other (Please specify) 6 2.45%
Voters: 245. You may not vote on this poll

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #201  
Old 11-29-2017, 06:00 PM
CyrilVladisla's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Conneaut, United States
Posts: 7,591
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lady Nimue View Post
Oooh! I like Carisbrooke, and Launceston is nice. So many possibilities.
Where is Carisbrooke?
__________________

  #202  
Old 11-29-2017, 06:02 PM
O-H Anglophile's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: May 2017
Location: Midwest, United States
Posts: 3,638
I'm with jacqui27 and Hans-Rickard with this one. I'll be surprised if Windsor happens.
__________________

  #203  
Old 11-29-2017, 06:04 PM
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Warsaw, Poland
Posts: 10,138
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hans-Rickard View Post
You said what i thought

A new "Duke of Windsor" won't happen in the reign of Queen Elizabeth II and Harry will not reside at Fort Belvedere for the very same reason. But tbh i don't see anything that would make "Duke of Clarence" a bad option. Most titles carries a "past use" with it and i think it's wrong to disqualify them because of what happened to a Duke of a certain title 200-500 years ago. No one really cares about that.
And George Villiers, 1st Duke of Buckingham (known even from "The Three Musketeers") was MURDERED.
  #204  
Old 11-29-2017, 06:06 PM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Stockholm, Sweden
Posts: 1,409
Quote:
Originally Posted by CyrilVladisla View Post
Where is Carisbrooke?
It's a castle and a village on Isle of Wight.
  #205  
Old 11-29-2017, 06:18 PM
Pranter's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Midwest, United States
Posts: 12,310
I don't have a problem if they use Windsor. It's just a name. Same with Clarence. All historic titles have something negative about them.

Fort Belvedere is just a property. The man left England in the late 30's and never lived there again. Almost 80 years ago.

Until they do something to replace the negative (new title holder, new owner etc) it will just keep on with the negative.


LaRae
  #206  
Old 11-29-2017, 06:44 PM
Somebody's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: Somewhere, Suriname
Posts: 6,661
Quote:
Originally Posted by Skippy View Post
That is usually the case with Catholic names. There is a full name and a name by which someone is known. As far as I know, Catholic people (almost) never go by their full name.

Also true, but in your exmple the 'calling name' already exists. While in EllieCat's example the 'calling name' is an abbreviation of the existing name.
Not sure that I understand what you are trying to say. I indeed suggested that a nickname is different from an official 'calling name' (for lack of a better word). Some of the (Catholic) shorter versions of a name are 'existing' names, for example Jan for Johannes or Henk for Hendricus (so would be a 'calling name' if announced at birth). So, I agree that it is important to distinguish between nick names and 'calling names' - which was exactly the point I was trying to make.

Quote:
"Rachel Meghan Markle. We call her Meghan."
Yes indeed, so Meghan is not a nickname but a 'calling name' (which can be the same or different than official names).

Quote:
Laurentien's name is a combination of her father and mother's name - completely made up so no form of anything
Well, it is her official second name! Which she asked people to use at a certain point in time instead of Petra.

Quote:
Princess Christina's former 'calling name' of Marijke was possibly a form of Maria, but she went to use her second name.
Of course it was a variation on Maria - but she never went by 'Maria' as Queen Juliana and Prince Bernhard announced from the start that she would be called Marijke.

Quote:
So here we have three different examples of women who don't use their first name (anymore)
Of which Meghan is the only consistent one - who never changed her name and still some people seem to expect her to change into 'Rachel' which she never used

Moreover, in the past several of the British royals didn't go by their first name but by one of their other names or a derivate of one of their names. Queen Victoria (Alexandrina Victoria) comes to mind as someone who used her second name as her regal name. And her daughter-in-law Queen Mary was officially: Victoria Mary Augusta Louise Olga Pauline Claudine Agnes - and known as May. And her only daughter was also a 'Mary' but officially: Victoria Alexandra Alice Mary. So, Meghan is in good company.

Quote:
But this has gone way off-topic and is not about possible Dukedoms any longer. I suggest we move on from this.
Oops, you're right!

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pranter View Post
I don't have a problem if they use Windsor. It's just a name. Same with Clarence. All historic titles have something negative about them.

Fort Belvedere is just a property. The man left England in the late 30's and never lived there again. Almost 80 years ago.

Until they do something to replace the negative (new title holder, new owner etc) it will just keep on with the negative.

LaRae
I don't agree. It makes a huge difference whether that 'negative thing' personally impacted you (=the Queen) enormously or that it is truly something of the past. So, I don't really see a problem with using Clarence, but Windsor is a no-go at least for now (that could change in a few generations).

A complication for the Windsor title (also in the future) might be that it is also the name of the House.
  #207  
Old 11-29-2017, 07:00 PM
Osipi's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: On the west side of North up from Back, United States
Posts: 16,727
Quote:
Originally Posted by Somebody View Post
Of which Meghan is the only consistent one - who never changed her name and still some people seem to expect her to change into 'Rachel' which she never used
This isn't entirely true. For seven years, people knew her and identified her as "Rachel Zane" in Suits. All the more reason to skittle away from using Rachel as her given name after marriage.
__________________
To be yourself in a world that is constantly trying to make you something else is the greatest accomplishment. ~~ Ralph Waldo Emerson ~~
  #208  
Old 11-29-2017, 07:03 PM
Somebody's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: Somewhere, Suriname
Posts: 6,661
Quote:
Originally Posted by Osipi View Post
This isn't entirely true. For seven years, people knew her and identified her as "Rachel Zane" in Suits. All the more reason to skittle away from using Rachel as her given name after marriage.
Yes, indeed . On screen she was known as Rachel... in private she wasn't. So, better to keep that distinction.
  #209  
Old 11-29-2017, 07:29 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Location: Wherever, United States
Posts: 5,875
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hans-Rickard View Post
You said what i thought

A new "Duke of Windsor" won't happen in the reign of Queen Elizabeth II and Harry will not reside at Fort Belvedere for the very same reason. But tbh i don't see anything that would make "Duke of Clarence" a bad option. Most titles carries a "past use" with it and i think it's wrong to disqualify them because of what happened to a Duke of a certain title 200-500 years ago. No one really cares about that.
On top of that, I think the problem with Windsor that's different is that King Edward VIII was exiled and given that title AFTER he abdicated. It's one thing when you are given the title as a happy occasion and then things go wrong. It's another when things have gone sour and you are given a lesser title while being sent into exile.
  #210  
Old 11-29-2017, 08:11 PM
O-H Anglophile's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: May 2017
Location: Midwest, United States
Posts: 3,638
Quote:
Originally Posted by Somebody View Post
Yes, indeed . On screen she was known as Rachel... in private she wasn't. So, better to keep that distinction.
And Mike Ross was Rachel Zane's boyfriend.
  #211  
Old 11-29-2017, 08:16 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Location: Wherever, United States
Posts: 5,875
Emily Andrews tweeted that they've confirmed with KP she'll be known as Meghan.

https://twitter.com/byEmilyAndrews/s...83716677095426
  #212  
Old 11-29-2017, 08:19 PM
Somebody's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: Somewhere, Suriname
Posts: 6,661
Quote:
Originally Posted by O-H Anglophile View Post
And Mike Ross was Rachel Zane's boyfriend.
That's another reason while Duke and Duchess of Ross - although it somehow seems to fit them - won't be used

Suits made it really hard on them, couldn't they have avoided these issues
  #213  
Old 11-30-2017, 12:28 PM
loonytick's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: Oct 2016
Location: Tennessee, United States
Posts: 755
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pranter View Post
I don't have a problem if they use Windsor. It's just a name. Same with Clarence. All historic titles have something negative about them.
But those two have a lot negative about them, not just a little something.

And they're not "just names." There'd be no point in reusing the same ones again and again if they were. Ever since these titles stopped being associated with specific grants of property, the primary value attached to them is their history. If that weren't the case, the queen would make up a new name every time she granted one.

Even when she decided not to stick to the standard stable of titles for Edward, she used one that had existed before and that had an interesting history. When her uncle abdicated, it was very important to create Windsor from scratch and not squander a historic title on him. Although perhaps Clarence would have been appropriate...but there was a distinct message being sent by giving him a title which was just a repeat of his family name, and it wasn't a friendly or happy message.

I suspect the sound of the word is not the primary reason why the last couple of monarchs have chosen which title to grant their sons and grandsons. Philip, who so treasured his time at Gordonstoun School in Scotland, was given a Scottish title in Duke of Edinburgh. Sophie and Edward, who are said to be history buffs, got a link to the nation's earliest history of nobility in Wessex. There are some parallels between William and a previous Duke of Cambridge (who held that title for years before becoming Prince of Wales and then King George II). If you're looking for a meaningful reason to choose one title over another, Clarence and Windsor both become quite tricky to the point of distasteful.
  #214  
Old 11-30-2017, 06:24 PM
Leopoldine's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: Apr 2017
Location: New York, United States
Posts: 862
Loonytick is spot on, especially concerning the Duke of Windsor title.

I read that an important reason for the former King Edward VIII to be given a ducal title and retain his HRH was so that he would not be tempted to run for a seat in the House of Commons.

If I was a savvy young American woman marrying Harry and HM made us the D and Dss of Windsor, I would be very mad. I'd feel cheapened ...sullied. And I'd know right away that they had the lowest expectations of me and I should just call the Fake Sheikh, show him my (insert body part here) and get the whole inevitable downfall over with.
  #215  
Old 11-30-2017, 08:00 PM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Stockholm, Sweden
Posts: 1,409
Quote:
Originally Posted by loonytick View Post
But those two have a lot negative about them, not just a little something.

And they're not "just names." There'd be no point in reusing the same ones again and again if they were. Ever since these titles stopped being associated with specific grants of property, the primary value attached to them is their history. If that weren't the case, the queen would make up a new name every time she granted one.

Even when she decided not to stick to the standard stable of titles for Edward, she used one that had existed before and that had an interesting history. When her uncle abdicated, it was very important to create Windsor from scratch and not squander a historic title on him. Although perhaps Clarence would have been appropriate...but there was a distinct message being sent by giving him a title which was just a repeat of his family name, and it wasn't a friendly or happy message.

I suspect the sound of the word is not the primary reason why the last couple of monarchs have chosen which title to grant their sons and grandsons. Philip, who so treasured his time at Gordonstoun School in Scotland, was given a Scottish title in Duke of Edinburgh. Sophie and Edward, who are said to be history buffs, got a link to the nation's earliest history of nobility in Wessex. There are some parallels between William and a previous Duke of Cambridge (who held that title for years before becoming Prince of Wales and then King George II). If you're looking for a meaningful reason to choose one title over another, Clarence and Windsor both become quite tricky to the point of distasteful.

I don't see any serious problems in creating Harry Duke of Clarence. If we look further back. Lionel of Antwerp (1338-1368) who was the first to be created Duke of Clarence ever died without male issue. Not a scandal. The next one to be created was Thomas of Lancaster (1388-1421) brother of King Henry V. He died in war on the battlefield. Not exactly uncommon during that time. He had no male issue. The 3:rd one to be created Duke of Clarence was George Plantagenet (1449-1478), brother of King Edward IV and Richard III. He was imprisoned in the Tower of London and put on trial for treason against his brother Edward IV. He was convicted and executed. Here is a scandal. He had also murdered. But this is 539 years ago.

And that Queen Victorias uncle King William IV (Duke of Clarence and St Andrews) would die without legitimate heirs or that the eldest son of King Edward VII Prince Albert Victor (Duke of Clarence and Avondale) who was expected to become King would pass away early due to illness isn't something you can predict, nor is it scandalous in any form. And there is no evidence he was Jack The Ripper or involved in the Cleveland Street scandal.....

I don't think this "history" would harm Harry and Meghan in 2018. Most people will call them Prince Harry and Princess Meghan anyway (even though she will likely never be a Princess). The only Duke of Sussex so far, Queen Victoria's uncle Prince Augustus Frederick married twice without consent of the Crown, as required by Royal Marriages Act 1772, thus both his marriages and children was illegitimate. I don't think we should read too much in the titles "past" (except Duke of Windsor). If we really wants to find a scandal, we can find one almost everywhere so there is no idea in searching for the "scandal free title".
  #216  
Old 11-30-2017, 08:12 PM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 13,212
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hans-Rickard View Post
I don't think this "history" would harm Harry and Meghan in 2018. Most people will call them Prince Harry and Princess Meghan anyway (even though she will likely never be a Princess).
Some Americans might call her 'Princess Meghan' because they don't want to learn the British way of doing things.

She will be a Princess the instant she is married to Harry - as the wife of a Prince of the UK she will be a Princess of the UK.

If the Queen doesn't give Harry a peerage then she will be HRH Princess Henry of Wales as soon as they are married and on Charles' accession HRH The Princess Henry. She will always have those titles but if, as we assume, Harry is promoted from commoner to peer of the realm on his wedding day she will use the style associated with being the wife of a peer e.g. Duchess, Countess etc.
  #217  
Old 11-30-2017, 08:26 PM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Stockholm, Sweden
Posts: 1,409
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iluvbertie View Post
Americans might call her 'Princess Meghan' because they don't want to learn the British way of doing things.

She will be a Princess the instant she is married to Harry - as the wife of a Prince of the UK she will be a Princess of the UK.

If the Queen doesn't give Harry a peerage then she will be HRH Princess Henry of Wales as soon as they are married and on Charles' accession HRH The Princess Henry. She will always have those titles but if, as we assume, Harry is promoted from commoner to peer of the realm on his wedding day she will use the style associated with being the wife of a peer e.g. Duchess, Countess etc.
True that Harry must be given a title, unless they will be Prince and Princess Henry of Wales (then she will be compared to Princess Michael of Kent :-D hahaha)

Most people outside UK, not only in US, will call her Princess Meghan or just Meghan even if her correct title is H.R.H The Duchess of ...... Like Princess Diana was always Diana or Princess Diana, though her correct title was H.R.H The Princess of Wales. Kate is only called H.R.H The Duchess of Cambridge formally at her work, by the media and by us who are following the reports and has an interest in royal families and monarchy. For the rest, she is just Kate or Princess Kate.
  #218  
Old 11-30-2017, 08:37 PM
Leopoldine's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: Apr 2017
Location: New York, United States
Posts: 862
Duke of Clarence sounds sort of desperate. Eddy died yelling Helene's name, and now you want to saddle this engaging young man with such an unappealing back story?
  #219  
Old 11-30-2017, 08:42 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Torrance, United States
Posts: 5,185
Quote:
Originally Posted by wyevale View Post
If it were [Heaven forfend] we'd likely end up with Dukey McDukeface...
  #220  
Old 11-30-2017, 08:44 PM
Pranter's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Midwest, United States
Posts: 12,310
Quote:
Originally Posted by Leopoldine View Post
Duke of Clarence sounds sort of desperate. Eddy died yelling Helene's name, and now you want to saddle this engaging young man with such an unappealing back story?
They all have unappealing back stories. Especially the older titles.


LaRae
__________________

Closed Thread


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
Harry and Meghan: Wedding Suggestions and Musings soapstar The Duke and Duchess of Sussex and Family 5538 05-19-2018 06:37 AM
Which dukedom will inherit the first child of Victoria and Daniel? principessa Crown Princess Victoria, Prince Daniel and Family 24 02-25-2012 02:20 AM




Popular Tags
american archie mountbatten-windsor asia baptism biography britain british british royal family buckingham palace camilla's family camilla parker bowles china chinese clarence house colorblindness commonwealth countries crown jewels customs daisy doge of venice dresses duchess of sussex duke of cambridge duke of sussex elizabeth ii family life fashion and style genetics george vi gustaf vi adolf harry and meghan hello! henry viii hereditary grand duke guillaume history jack brooksbank japan japan history jewellery kensington palace king edward vii książ castle lili mountbatten-windsor line of succession list of rulers luxembourg medical monarchy mountbatten names nara period plantinum jubilee politics portugal prince charles of luxembourg prince harry queen consort queen louise solomon j solomon spanish royal family speech st edward sussex swedish queen taiwan thai royal family tradition united states wales welsh


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 07:36 AM.

Social Knowledge Networks

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