Possible Dukedom for Harry and Meghan

[Gaudete]

I think the Queen directs the College to draw up a coat of arms and then approves the final design and grant after the individual approves the design themselves. I think.

 

[Missjersey]

It might have a depiction of her home state?

 

[lady of hay]

I think the Queen directs the College to draw up a coat of arms and then approves the final design and grant after the individual approves the design themselves. I think.

The College Of Arms website has some information about this. Arms can be granted as a result of an award or office . You have to apply to the King of Arms , what lovely titles these people have , and arms are granted by devolved royal authority. You have to pay for them ,currently just under £6000.

 

[Gaudete]

I’m sure there will be some kind of heraldic nod to her home state. Which is as it should be.

 

[HereditaryPrincess]

I agree with the majority in that the Duke and Duchess of Sussex seems to be the most likely choice. I'd also like to see a revival of the Dukedom of Clarence though as I've always liked the sound of that particular title - but Prince Albert Victor, the suspected Jack the Ripper, was the Duke of Clarence and Avondale and given the fact that the BRF still seem reluctant to use names that carry bad connotations, it might be a similar story for titles too.
Another half of me thinks they won't get a title at all and will "just" remain as Prince and Princess of Wales, particularly since Harry is not as important as William, as far as succession is concerned. But I do like a title, so I hope they'll be granted a new one.

 

[O-H Anglophile]

I'd also like to see a revival of the Dukedom of Clarence though as I've always liked the sound of that particular title - but Prince Albert Victor, the suspected Jack the Ripper, was the Duke of Clarence and Avondale

I think that has been pretty thoroughly debunked and not a reason to eliminate it from consideration.

 

[HereditaryPrincess]

I think that has been pretty thoroughly debunked and not a reason to eliminate it from consideration.

I had a feeling this would be the opposing view - but, as I said, the RF still seem pretty reluctant about negative connotations. Hopefully you're right though and they won't really bother about this.

 

[Elly C]

I can't see that there will be no title. Harry will be a senior royal as son and then brother of the future monarch.

 

[Iluvbertie]

I agree with the majority in that the Duke and Duchess of Sussex seems to be the most likely choice. I'd also like to see a revival of the Dukedom of Clarence though as I've always liked the sound of that particular title - but Prince Albert Victor, the suspected Jack the Ripper, was the Duke of Clarence and Avondale and given the fact that the BRF still seem reluctant to use names that carry bad connotations, it might be a similar story for titles too.
Another half of me thinks they won't get a title at all and will "just" remain as Prince and Princess of Wales, particularly since Harry is not as important as William, as far as succession is concerned. But I do like a title, so I hope they'll be granted a new one.

I don't think they will remain as Prince and Princess Henry of Wales as most people already don't understand the British way of doing titles but to have a woman called Princess Henry would seem strange.

They also wouldn't remain 'of Wales' as once Charles becomes King, Harry won't be 'of Wales' anymore. They would then be HRH The Prince and Princess Henry.

I do think they will get a Dukedom but I also wouldn't be surprised to see them get and Earldom to clearly distinguish the fact that Harry's line is the minor line and that he himself is a minor royal these days. Andrew was often described as a minor royal from the birth of Harry on and Harry is now lower in the succession than Andrew was when he was so described and Andrew is still the second son of the monarch which Harry has yet to become - so both are minor royals and moving more and more into minor league territory as they move further and further from the throne (relationship to the monarch doesn't determine the status of major and minor but place in the line of succession).

 

[Countessmeout]

Harry isn't a minor royal and he is not going to be. He will only rise when his father is king and he is the son of the monarch. He will be a senior working royal for many decades to come.

The queen is a very traditional person. Its tradition for male line heirs to be given a dukedom. I don't see her starting with Harry in breaking that. The only exception was Edward and we all know why that happened.

The idea some people have that Meghan and Harry will fade into garden gnomes with moss growing on them as the Cambridge children push Harry further down is laughable at best. We see with his aunts and uncles, even the Kents and Gloucesters, place in succession doesn't make you a minor royal. Senior working royal is a senior working royal. If William allows his kids the freedom he was allowed, not to take on full duties until 30's, it will be over a quarter of a century before even George picks up duties. Harry wont be picking up any moss on his gnomey head for a few decades.

 

[jacqui24]

I do think they will get a Dukedom but I also wouldn't be surprised to see them get and Earldom to clearly distinguish the fact that Harry's line is the minor line and that he himself is a minor royal these days. Andrew was often described as a minor royal from the birth of Harry on and Harry is now lower in the succession than Andrew was when he was so described and Andrew is still the second son of the monarch which Harry has yet to become - so both are minor royals and moving more and more into minor league territory as they move further and further from the throne (relationship to the monarch doesn't determine the status of major and minor but place in the line of succession).

We've gone over this already. Harry is not a minor royal. Especially with Charles' plan to streamline the royal family. He's only got two sons. One is the heir, and the other will be Harry as oppose to the four children HMQ has. Meaning, William and Harry and their wives will have to take over for the amount of work of four children. I don't know if I would say Duke of York is a minor royal, but he's just not that popular and hasn't been in a long time. And a lot of it are due to his and Fergie's own actions. And if the minor royal Prince Andrew can get a duke title, "minor royal" Harry can certainly get a duke title. And line of succession does matter.

 

[Iluvbertie]

Andrew was first described as a minor royal shortly after Harry's birth while he was still very popular and Fergie wasn't in the picture.

Harry is lower in the line of succession.

If people were describing Andrew as a 'minor royal' when he was 4th in line, the second son of the reigning monarch, the brother of the next king etc then the person who is 5th in line and about to drop to 6th, grandson of the reigning monarch, second son of the next monarch (the position currently held by Andrew - a minor royal), brother of the King after that (a position also held by Andrew), uncle of a future King (again a position held by Andrew).

Whether a person is a major or minor royal is NOT determined by their relationship to the monarch but by their place in the line of succession. As Andrew has been described as minor since he dropped to 4th then it makes sense that the current 5th and soon to be 6th - who has never been as high as Andrew has - is also a minor royal.

In time Charlotte and the new baby will also be minor royals.

Charles' plans are rumours you realise based on a throwaway line made in 1992 at the Way Ahead Group meeting which is now disbanded. It has never been confirmed but makes sense given the fact that the British public see a bloated royal family. If Charles genuinely is interested in 'streamlining' the royal family then he needs to start with making a clear distinction between the heir and the spare/s so that William is a Duke and his children are HRHs while Harry is an Earl with children styled as Lords/Ladies.

What happened with Andrew 30+ years ago was BEFORE the suggestion of a streamlined royal family was even made and so is irrelevant. What happened with Edward's title is more relevant as it was made clearly AFTER the suggestion was made - but William and Kate having three children has also thrown a spanner in the works as that will again see a blow out in the number of royals unless a line is drawn in the sand - HRHs for the direct heirs only and not the spare/s so HRHs for William's children but not Harry's - or anyone else's in that generation and follow that with HRHs for George's children but not Charlotte's (who don't qualify anyway as they will be descended from a girl) or the new baby's.

 

[jacqui24]

That's, quite frankly, just not how things are done. It sounds a lot like your personal frustration regarding the treatment of Andrew rather than what is realistic. Charles' streamlining has nothing to do with children of a monarch or future monarch. It's more centered around monarch and children and the grandchildren from the heir being working royals. This affects the other grandchildren that are HRHs, but not children of an heir. There is no way, with the number of children Charles has, that Harry wouldn't play a significant role in the next two decades at least. I don't really care to debate what was said when Harry was born by whomever. I didn't witness it since I wasn't yet born, so I can't really speak to that. What is true is that Dukedom for sons of monarch and future monarchs have been very typical. The only reason Edward wasn't granted a Dukedom upon marriage is because they plan for Dukedom of Edinburgh to be bestow on him when it's available. Unless Queen plans to have Harry wait for the Dukedom of York to be available for Harry, I doubt he'll only be an earl. But with the wedding to take place in May, we won't have to wait too long to find out, would we?

And I wouldn't say Charles' plan is just a throw away line. It's evidenced by the fact that the York princesses aren't included as working members of the royal family, and there doesn't appear to be plans for them to join. I do also see that Harry and Meghan choosing not to have their children, if any, take the HRH title when the time comes as the Wessexes have done.

 

[Osipi]

We have to remember too that Charles' plan for a streamlined monarchy, at this time, is purely rumor and speculation. Charles has given no concrete evidence that this is his plan for the future when he is King. In fact, he has not spoken out whatsoever on how he plans to do things. He's more concentrated on supporting his mother as her heir.

 

[Elly C]

In time Charlotte and the new baby will also be minor royals.

Charles' plans are rumours you realise based on a throwaway line made in 1992 at the Way Ahead Group meeting which is now disbanded. It has never been confirmed but makes sense given the fact that the British public see a bloated royal family. If Charles genuinely is interested in 'streamlining' the royal family then he needs to start with making a clear distinction between the heir and the spare/s so - HRHs for the direct heirs only and not the spare/s so HRHs for William's children but not Harry's - or anyone else's in that generation and follow that with HRHs for George's children but not Charlotte's (who don't qualify anyway as they will be descended from a girl) or the new baby's.

Without wanting to stray too much away from the topic of this thread- an observation about this . If Charlotte is, as you rightly state, a HRH because of her status as eldest daughter of a direct heir, she may eventually gain the title Princess Royal as Princess Anne has been granted. To describe a Royal with this status/ title as a "minor" Royal suggests that the position in line of succession isn't helpful to the debate about how we view the description "minor" royal. I have very limited knowledge of how the peerage works, but surely the sticking point is the hereditary nature of dukedoms etc. through the male line. Surely, one option is for there to be more lifetime peerages for the descendants who are not in direct line, and during their working lifetime will not be regarded as minor royals. It would also create a system that is not discriminatory in terms of the sexes.
(Sorry, I didn't mean to rewrite the constitution in this post!)

 

[Countessmeout]

Andrew was first described as a minor royal shortly after Harry's birth while he was still very popular and Fergie wasn't in the picture.

Harry is lower in the line of succession.

If people were describing Andrew as a 'minor royal' when he was 4th in line, the second son of the reigning monarch, the brother of the next king etc then the person who is 5th in line and about to drop to 6th, grandson of the reigning monarch, second son of the next monarch (the position currently held by Andrew - a minor royal), brother of the King after that (a position also held by Andrew), uncle of a future King (again a position held by Andrew).

Whether a person is a major or minor royal is NOT determined by their relationship to the monarch but by their place in the line of succession. As Andrew has been described as minor since he dropped to 4th then it makes sense that the current 5th and soon to be 6th - who has never been as high as Andrew has - is also a minor royal.

In time Charlotte and the new baby will also be minor royals.

Charles' plans are rumours you realise based on a throwaway line made in 1992 at the Way Ahead Group meeting which is now disbanded. It has never been confirmed but makes sense given the fact that the British public see a bloated royal family. If Charles genuinely is interested in 'streamlining' the royal family then he needs to start with making a clear distinction between the heir and the spare/s so that William is a Duke and his children are HRHs while Harry is an Earl with children styled as Lords/Ladies.

What happened with Andrew 30+ years ago was BEFORE the suggestion of a streamlined royal family was even made and so is irrelevant. What happened with Edward's title is more relevant as it was made clearly AFTER the suggestion was made - but William and Kate having three children has also thrown a spanner in the works as that will again see a blow out in the number of royals unless a line is drawn in the sand - HRHs for the direct heirs only and not the spare/s so HRHs for William's children but not Harry's - or anyone else's in that generation and follow that with HRHs for George's children but not Charlotte's (who don't qualify anyway as they will be descended from a girl) or the new baby's.

You do realize the streamlining happens Naturally. There are 14 working royals a the moment. When Charles is king, the Gloucesters, Kents and Elizabeth will have retired or passed away. That will leave

Charles and Camilla
Cambridges
Harry and Meghan
Anne
Wessexes
Andrew

It will be nearly 30 years before George and his siblings pick up full royal duties. Ten working royals is already a substantial drop from the working royals we have now.

People wont stop complaining with streamline. Especially when they realize less royals doesn't mean less money. The sovereign's grant doesn't depend on how many people they are supporting. Many of the working royals currently don't have RPOs anyways. The people are going to be paying the same money for less work, less appearances. If anything, the image will not be helped by streamlining.

There is no reason to believe that dropping Harry to an earl is part of streamlining. HRH doesn't equal a pay cheque. An earl doesn't get paid less then a duke does. A HRH doesn't remotely, ask the Yorks, ensure that they will be working royals. Even if Harry's kids are HRH, in no way would that mean they would be working royals nor they would ever get any money for their duties either.

When Charles is king there will only be 2 children of the monarch. Nothing will change that. And no reasonable proof to think that he would have only one of those as a duke.

I get when people who know nothing about royals get excited about kicking out royals and think it will save so much money. I don't get though how posters seem on that path.

Again Andrew to this day is not a 'minor royal'. He is simply not very popular and gets publicity only for scandal.

Maybe in thirty years or so you will get your wish and Harry and Meghan will become the garden gnomes of your dreams, statues growing moss in the palace gardens as forgotten by anyone important.

 

[Abbigail]

At this point, most everyone expects Harry to get a Dukedom, so much so that the speculation more so centers on which dukedom he gets, not whether or not he'll get one. I can't see the Queen throwing a curveball by making his primary title an earldom, nor do I see why Harry would want that.

 

[Denville]

At this point, most everyone expects Harry to get a Dukedom, so much so that the speculation more so centers on which dukedom he gets, not whether or not he'll get one. I can't see the Queen throwing a curveball by making his primary title an earldom, nor do I see why Harry would want that.

I think it is very unlikely he would only get an earldom... POSSIBLE but not likely. Butpeople love to speculate, it seems to me, that the "younger royals" particularly Will and Harry, were going to kick against tradition, and refuse the usual marks of honour such as a royal dukedom when they get married. I remember before Will got married, there was a load of people sayng that he would refuse a dukedom.. or that he wanted Kate to be a princess in her own right.. both of which scenarios were of course pretty damn unlikely...

 

[Gaudete]

If Harry was only an earl, his uncle Edward would eventually outrank him when Edward becomes a royal duke. Not to mention Andrew. Whilst I’m sure that would please the Duke of York, it would be very improper for the son of the future King to be considered lower in the pecking order than his uncles.

 

[Yashal]

I doubt Edward feels outranked by his mother's cousins just because he voluntarily chose to wait for his father to pass his dukedom on to him.
I'm pretty sure Harry's mentality is pretty close to his uncle's. As the son of the monarch he will outrank almost anybody else no matter what. Then, of course, royal watchers will see and believe whatever they want.

Anyway I'm sure he'll get a dukedom so nobody will be upset and Andrew's dreams of glory will be shattered.

I like the Greenwich option somebody mentioned a few pages ago. I don't think it's gonna happen though so Sussex gets my vote.

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

So the general tendence is that it indeed means nothing. Harry "needs" a dukedom to have an ermine robe to swipe the floor with and a reason go have a coronet on his head. That it is named Nottingham, Clacton or Brixton says comma zero comma. Best argument to stop it. I have "lost" my believe in the Dukedoms since that completely out-of-the-blue choice of "Cambridge" for William. A city he has no any relation, achievement, history or whatever to. Then the dime felt on the right place: make the dude Duke of Showaddywaddy: there is no any link required.

 

[Gaudete]

You seem a little obsessed with ermine robes. As I said in an earlier response (which you didn’t acknowledge), what you’re suggesting is that they take on some kind of devolved monarchical duties in one area which is totally impractical. It isn’t that it doesn’t mean anything, to the contrary, it’s important because of the position and rank that it will give Harry. It’s not the territorial designation that matters, it’s the rank that comes with being a royal duke.

If you don’t approve that’s fine but I think it’s something you’ll have to learn to live with. It’s a tradition, it has a practical side to it and it’s also a personal gift from the Sovereign. It’s the way it’s done. And will continue to be done.

 

[jacqui24]

THe only reason that I can see Harry possibility not getting a dukedom is if Charles would want to bestow that honor on his son one day. And you can bet the palace would take pains to emphasize that.

 

[Somebody]

Regarding the discussion on senior/minor members: If we look at the formal order of precedence (although the Queen seems to have moved away from it by moving William up in practice) for male members to keep it simple, it is clear that relation to the monarch is most important.

The monarch (the Queen granted her husband rank above all men, except for situations in which her heir has to have prominence) - Philip
The prince Wales/Duke of Cornwall - Charles
Younger sons of monarch (promigeniture) - Andrew, Edward
Grandsons of monarch - William, Harry, James, Peter
Brothers of monarch
Uncles of monarch
Nephews of monarch - David
Cousins of monarch - Richard, Edward, Michael

Interestingly, George ranks after all royal and non-royal dukes in the UK.

So, only after Charles becomes the monarch Harry is more senior than his uncles!

The monarch - Charles
The prince Wales/Duke of Cornwall - William
Younger sons of monarch - Harry
Grandsons of monarch - George
Brothers of monarch - Andrew, Edward
Uncles of monarch
Nephews of monarch - James, Peter
Cousins of monarch - David
[Cousins (once removed) of monarch - Richard, Edward, Michael - my assumption that grandsons of a monarch will always be included with the royal family - certainly royal dukes rank above other dukes]

 

[Andy T]

I would be extremely surprised if Harry is not made a Duke. As has been noted, whereas Charles has three siblings, William & Harry are the "star" royals of their generation and there are just two of them. Not only that but Charles, Camilla & Anne are approaching 70 and are likely to be in their mid-late 70s, maybe even older, before Charles becomes King. Andrew & Edward will most likely be in their sixties by then as well. With William's children so young, Harry is going to be very high profile for the next 25-30 years.

Moreover, under the 'rules' as they stand, Harry's children will not be Prince(ss) and won't have an HRH. If they're children of a Duke, the oldest (?son) will be able to use their father's second title as a courtesy title. The others - and all of them if Harry is nt a Duke - will be Lord/Lady x Mountbatten.

Given recent changes to the rules concerning the order of succession, I wonder if the Queen will decree that Harry's title is to pass to the oldest child or to the oldest son.

 

[Gaudete]

I don’t think Her Majesty would do that. It could cause legal problems from the likes of Julian Fellowes who are very sore that their daughters can’t inherit in the same way sons might. It could be seen as “one rule for them and another for us” and could be a tad embarrassing.

 

[jacqui24]

I don’t think Her Majesty would do that. It could cause legal problems from the likes of Julian Fellowes who are very sore that their daughters can’t inherit in the same way sons might. It could be seen as “one rule for them and another for us” and could be a tad embarrassing.

Agreed. I don't see the Queen change the rules for Harry unless it's changed for all peerage. Which I don't know if the Queen has the power to do? Or is that by act of Parliament?

 

[Gaudete]

The Queen can change the rules for Harry simply by including it in the Letters Patent creating him a Duke. Much in the same way that alternative arrangements were made for Lord Mountbatten’s eldest daughter Patricia. But to change the rules for all peers would require an act of parliament which is unlikely to be introduced any time soon.

 

[Ish]

I don’t see it happening (she didn’t do it for William, i don’t see her doing it for Harry), but I disagree that it would be “one set of rules” for “us” and one for “them”. If Harry got a title with gender neutral succession, it would be setting a precedent for future hereditary title creations - we could then assume that any future titles created for George, Charlotte, Baby 3, and even the DoE title for Edward, would have gender neutral successions.

The Queen does not have the ability to change the succession rules for existing peerages. Only Parliament can do that - and the Queen creating a title with gender neutral succession for Harry could actually be seen as encouragement for the movements to get Parliament to change the succession rules to all peerages.

 

[jacqui24]

I don’t see it happening (she didn’t do it for William, i don’t see her doing it for Harry), but I disagree that it would be “one set of rules” for “us” and one for “them”. If Harry got a title with gender neutral succession, it would be setting a precedent for future hereditary title creations - we could then assume that any future titles created for George, Charlotte, Baby 3, and even the DoE title for Edward, would have gender neutral successions.

The one problem this would create is for Prince Edward's children. Currently, Viscount Severn is his heir. If that were to be changed when he becomes the Duke of Edinburgh, then Lady Louise would be his heir rather than Viscount Severn. So James would be without title in favor of his sister.