Possible Dukedom for Harry and Meghan - Page 12

Abbigail · #**221** 11-30-2017, 10:07 PM

Duke and Duchess of Kendal sounds quite nice to me, athough I realize it's not a likely choice. If I had to choose between Clarence and Sussex, I guess I would go with Clarence but neither exactly excites me.

Lady Nimue · #**222** 11-30-2017, 10:09 PM

The more I consider the Duke of Clarence and the Duchess of Clarence, the Duke and Duchess of Clarence

sounds very classy. I really like it. (it's also inching up on Sussex in the poll). But I think they will be the Duke and Duchess of Sussex. Something predictable and (maybe) comforting about the predictable.

Ish · #**223** 11-30-2017, 10:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pranter

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 agree and disagree here.

I think saying you can’t use Duke of Clarence because of William IV and Albert Victor’s histories is a bit silly - as you’ve said in another post, all titles have history and much of it isn’t good. The title Duke of Clarence has been created 3 times; some of its holders were decent (for their time) men, others not; some were controversial (for their time), others not.

Duke of Windsor is a bit different though. It doesn’t have a lot of history; it was created once, for one person, under very negative circumstance. The title is very clearly associated with that one person and the circumstance under which it was created - and it is one that, in the grand scheme of the British monarchy, is still fairly recent. If you add in the parallels that can be made between Meghan and Wallis (both American, both divorcees with living husbands, both unusual royal brides), recreating that title for Harry and Meghan would send a very wrong, very negative message. It’s just a name to some extent, but names still hold meaning and symbolism.

Abbigail · #**224** 11-30-2017, 10:19 PM

I agree Sussex seems to be the most likely choice but perhaps the Queen will surprise us. That would be nice, depending on what she would ultimately choose of course.

padams2359 · #**225** 11-30-2017, 10:25 PM

Harry could be the first in 7 generations of males. I think they want to keep Windsor closer to the crown. If George were to marry under Charles’ reign, Windsor could work. Reassigning it is the only way to clean up a google search. That is the world we currently live in.

Lady Nimue · #**226** 11-30-2017, 10:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Abbigail

I agree Sussex seems to be the most likely choice but perhaps the Queen will surprise us. That would be nice, depending on what she would ultimately choose of course.

I've been told that the Queen does not confer a title without consultation with the conferees.

Whatever is announced will have been agreed to by Harry and Meghan. Maybe Harry and Meghan (and the Queen) will surprise us.

That would be fun!

Abbigail · #**227** 11-30-2017, 10:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lady Nimue

I've been told that the Queen does not confer a title without consultation with the conferees.

Whatever is announced will have been agreed to by Harry and Meghan. Maybe Harry and Meghan (and the Queen) will surprise us.

That would be fun!

Oh, for sure but ultimately she does the choosing and even if Meghan and Harry agree, there is no guarantee that I will like it. That is what I was getting at.

I doubt it would be anything really out there or unappealing, so I'm not really worried...just being a bit facetious.

Lady Nimue · #**228** 11-30-2017, 10:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Abbigail

Oh, for sure but ultimately she does the choosing and even if Meghan and Harry agree, there is no guarantee that I will like it. That is what I was getting at.

I doubt it would be anything really out there or unappealing, so I'm not really worried...just being a bit facetious.

Understood.

So many things to look forward to: the dress, the title, the house, the first born's name.

Abbigail · #**229** 11-30-2017, 11:06 PM

Yes, it's a very exciting time. Looking forward to it all.

wbenson · #**230** 12-01-2017, 01:42 AM

I don't think Clarence is so poisoned as to be unusable again, but I'm not sure it's a good idea for Harry to get it. I'm afraid there would be comparisons to William IV and Mrs. Jordan. (Maybe I'm overestimating the public appetite for early 19th century intrigue.)

Countessmeout · #**231** 12-01-2017, 01:52 AM

I don't think that too many people would think about William IV and Mrs Jordan. Unless they are real history buffs, even then. William was certainly not the first or last king to have a lover, and not even the only one to have a mistress who was an actress.

As far as 'bad history' (all old titles have some less then perfect history) Clarence is pretty tame. The only real bad history is the brother of Edward IV and Richard III. For many Clarence would just summon thoughts of Edward VII's eldest son who died before he became king.

Lady Nimue · #**232** 12-01-2017, 02:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by wbenson

I don't think Clarence is so poisoned as to be unusable again, but I'm not sure it's a good idea for Harry to get it. I'm afraid there would be comparisons to William IV and Mrs. Jordan. (Maybe I'm overestimating the public appetite for early 19th century intrigue.)

I think so.

In this few would be biased in that way, I think.

JMO.

Archduchess Zelia · #**233** 12-01-2017, 02:44 AM

I've always been thinking (hoping) that either William or Harry would get Clarence, so that's the one I'm rooting for. It is, in my opinion, one of the most aesthetically pleasing dukedoms, and Cambridge and Clarence just go well together. I hope it won't be either Ross, Sussex and Suffolk – nothing personal, mainly for aesthetic reasons, I think all of them sound less than aesthetic with a "Duke/Duchess of" attached (especially the latter two clash with the S's of Duchess). I think what annoys me more than anything else is that they can't use Connaught. Man, that was a great dukedom.

Denville · #**234** 12-01-2017, 03:14 AM

I agree that Sussex is going to sound a bit sibilant.. but I don't think that Windsor, is an option. Clarence does have a couple of "bad history" problems, Albert Victors sad death and his problems.. and there's the Duke Of Clarence drowned In the Butt of Malmesy. Besides WIlliam IV was a bit of an idiot.

Bine221 · #**235** 12-01-2017, 04:07 AM

Sussex really sounds so harsh.
I do not think, The Windsor is an option yet.... (let´s wait another generation).

I also voted for Clarence. I this case we would have Cornwall, Cambridge, Clarence - the Triple C rocks!

BYe Bine

principessa · #**236** 12-01-2017, 04:24 AM

Although I have voted for "Sussex" I also could imagine that they also could be "Duke and Duchess of Nottingham" as the place for their first visit is Nottingham and they are living in Nottingham Cottage.

And yes I know that there are connections with Robin Hood. ;-)

M. Payton · #**237** 12-01-2017, 04:49 AM

My vote is for the Duke of Clarence, it has a nice ring to it. And all dukedoms have baggage, history that no one likes and approves of so time to turn a new page on these dukedoms and start fresh....so The Duke and Duchess of Clarence ..........a nice new fresh start for this young couple.

Denville · #**238** 12-01-2017, 04:52 AM

That's True M Paytion, it is possible that given the few names avaialable, they will decide to ignore the Clarnece history.

Iluvbertie · #**239** 12-01-2017, 05:37 AM

As there is an existing Earl of Nottingham it is highly unlikely that HM would also create a Duke. The Earl of Winshilsea is also the Earl of Nottingham - current holder Daniel James Haftield Finch-Hatton born 1967 with an heir apparent born in 1998.

wyevale · #**240** 12-01-2017, 05:39 AM

Quote:

WIlliam IV was a bit of an idiot.

Really NOT.. he steered 'the Great Reform Act' through a resistant Parliament, thus defusing the VERY real possibility of a revolution here, at a time when they were toppling thrones [or threatening to do so] ALL over Europe.
He 'toned' down a VERY extravagant Monarchy inherited from his profligate Brother, and handed a much more popular and stable throne to his niece Victoria all set for a very glorious reign. His Queen [Adelaide] did much to 'round him out', and was popular too.
On balance I think he was GOOD.