Possible Dukedom for Harry and Meghan

[Gaudete]

I can’t see it being an issue for James. If a change in the law did occur, they would most likely use the changes made to the Succession Act as a precedent which made changes for prospective heirs and wasn’t enforced retroactively. In this way, James could keep his inheritance and the new law would only affect his own children in the distant future.

 

[JR76]

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.

If an eventual Dukedom was made inheritable by the eldest child it would change nothing for James Severn. He'd still be first in line to the title Earl of Wessex.

 

[Ish]

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.

Not true.

Currently, James is the heir to the title Earl of Wessex and all its subsidiary titles.

If the Duke of Edinburgh title was created with gender neutral succession, it would only affect the succession of that title, not the Earl of Wessex title.

In that event, both James and Louise would inherit. Which I doubt Edward would have a problem with, although I’m sure Andrew would be mad about.

 

[Countessmeout]

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.

Not at all. James is still heir to the Earl of Wessex title. It would simply mean that Louise would be the future Duchess of Edinburgh, and her brother Earl of Wessex. Since the titles come with no land, money, position or so on there is no real issue with having two different holders of the titles.

With succession to the throne now equal, the aristocracy really needs to be considered. It is quite clear from at least some of the aristocrats, that they would like a change to the succession, that only daughters lose the titles and estates of their father. Maybe passing a rule that the change only applies from the date it was issued, but those families without a male heir, can apply to the queen to have it apply to the current line. Spain has shown the changes can be made, be nice to see UK follow suit.

But will not hold my breath on that ever happening. But would be nice at least among the children of the monarch, if the titles they create, were.

 

[Gaudete]

I think most people would agree that changes should be made but the issue is that it’s not a legislative priority and it wouldn’t look too good if the government were to focus on peers at a time when a pledge to slash the numbers has been rather quickly abandoned. So it should happen but I can’t see that it will.

 

[jacqui24]

Not at all. James is still heir to the Earl of Wessex title. It would simply mean that Louise would be the future Duchess of Edinburgh, and her brother Earl of Wessex. Since the titles come with no land, money, position or so on there is no real issue with having two different holders of the titles.

With succession to the throne now equal, the aristocracy really needs to be considered. It is quite clear from at least some of the aristocrats, that they would like a change to the succession, that only daughters lose the titles and estates of their father. Maybe passing a rule that the change only applies from the date it was issued, but those families without a male heir, can apply to the queen to have it apply to the current line. Spain has shown the changes can be made, be nice to see UK follow suit.

But will not hold my breath on that ever happening. But would be nice at least among the children of the monarch, if the titles they create, were.

Hmm, that's interesting. I didn't know that the children of the aristocracy would lose the Estate as well. But still, I don't think Queen is the type of person to do this type of thing. Could be accused that she's trying to affect policy, which is firmly in Parliament's power.

 

[Somebody]

Not true.

Currently, James is the heir to the title Earl of Wessex and all its subsidiary titles.

If the Duke of Edinburgh title was created with gender neutral succession, it would only affect the succession of that title, not the Earl of Wessex title.

In that event, both James and Louise would inherit. Which I doubt Edward would have a problem with, although I’m sure Andrew would be mad about.

It would be a Iittle weird if the Duke of Edinburg title would be the only one without subsidiary titles...

I don't expect Harry's title to be equal promigeniture (nor the expected new creation of the Duke of Edinburgh title), maybe such a provision will be made for the next generation but not yet.

 

[HereditaryPrincess]

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).

I don't think they will remain prince and princess much either, but there was a small feeling that made me think this could be a slim possibility.
For now, if the slim chance became a reality, they would remain Prince and Princess of Wales, but you're right, when Charles becomes king, they won't keep the title as those will go to Prince George and Princess Charlotte, Baby Cambridge no. 3 and any other additional children the Cambridges may have.

 

[JR76]

It would be a Iittle weird if the Duke of Edinburg title would be the only one without subsidiary titles...

I don't expect Harry's title to be equal promigeniture (nor the expected new creation of the Duke of Edinburgh title), maybe such a provision will be made for the next generation but not yet.

If, a big if, the new Dukedom of Edinburgh was to be inherited through absolute primogeniture there would be created subsidiary titles for it. That said the Duke of Somerset have only one subsidiary title while some other dukes have truckloads of titles.

 

[jacqui24]

I don't think they will remain prince and princess much either, but there was a small feeling that made me think this could be a slim possibility.
For now, if the slim chance became a reality, they would remain Prince and Princess of Wales, but you're right, when Charles becomes king, they won't keep the title as those will go to Prince George and Princess Charlotte, Baby Cambridge no. 3 and any other additional children the Cambridges may have.

It's possible that Prince Charles would like to bestow the title on one of his sons himself. But if that's the case, the Palace would probably explain it as they did with Edward.

 

[CyrilVladisla]

Earl and Countess of Cambridge ??

What of Earl and Countess of Clarence?

 

[O-H Anglophile]

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.

When in the past 200 years has a Royal Duke had a relationship with the region of his title? Why are you making such an issue of something that has not had any importance in the past?

 

[Ish]

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.

You lost your faith when William became Duke of Cambridge?

What about when Edward became Earl of Wessex, despite having no connection to Wessex?

Or when Andrew became Duke of York, despite having no connection to York?

 

[Iluvbertie]

To a large extent the Dukes don't have any connection to the land after which they are named - e.g. The Duke of Devonshire - based in Derbyshire not Devonshire.

The Duke of Wellington had no connection to any place called Wellington (the capital city of New Zealand was named AFTER his dukedom not him named after a place).

 

[Humbugged]

To a large extent the Dukes don't have any connection to the land after which they are named - e.g. The Duke of Devonshire - based in Derbyshire not Devonshire.

The Duke of Wellington had no connection to any place called Wellington (the capital city of New Zealand was named AFTER his dukedom not him named after a place).

I live in Keighley in W.Yorkshire and the Devonshire's owned the Castle just down the road from me .I walk through Devonshire Park and up Devonshire Street every day.

The Earl of Devon does live in Devon though with his American actress wife - AJ Langer from My So Called Life

Wellington like you said had no relation to Wellington (which is in Somerset by the way) - but funnily enough my local regiment is the Duke of Wellington's Regiment (the 33rd and 76th Foot which made it up both served under him in India) .And Beaky's favourite fictional underling Richard Sharpe was re imagined for the TV show to be from here )and they filmed parts of two episodes here (they filmed at East Riddlesden Hall which has a colorful history)

 

[Denville]

Yes why on earth would anyone be bothered by the fact that nowadays, titles don't have any connextion with land or a place. in bygone days, boht royal and noble titles were often connected with a particular area, with which the recipient had a connextion.. or where they owned land.
But as some have pointed out, even in olden times this wasn't a rule. The Devonshire estates, well the big one, is Chatsworth in Derbyshire.
Andrew has no property or local connection in Yorkrshire, nor Will in Cambridge.
So why should Harry be any different?

 

[W.Y.CII]

I don't think a royal must get a title/dukedom which he/she has relationship with. Actually I think most of the duke/duchess in current monarchies have nothing to do with their duchies...? The connection will build after they receive the dukedom (doing engagement in their dukedom, having connection with the local community/association, etc.) so I think it doesn't really matter.

 

[Denville]

True though I don't think that William does anyting special in Cambridge nor Andrew in York...maybe a once a year thing. The title is a mark of honour and has usually nowadays histrorcial significance.. ie the queen's Grandmother, Q Mary, was connected to a former Duke of Cambridge.. and Kent and Gloucester are titles that have been royal ones for a long time...

 

[W.Y.CII]

True though I don't think that William does anyting special in Cambridge nor Andrew in York...maybe a once a year thing. The title is a mark of honour and has usually nowadays histrorcial significance.. ie the queen's Grandmother, Q Mary, was connected to a former Duke of Cambridge.. and Kent and Gloucester are titles that have been royal ones for a long time...

Oops, I just realize I didn't think of the situation in BRF, what pop into my mind is Estelle visiting Östergötland and shaking hands with her people when she still is a baby girl

 

[kyle]

Just curious and too lazy to look it up... Did the Duke of Edinburgh have a connection to Edinburgh before receiving the title?

I know he went to school somewhere in Scotland.

 

[Pranter]

Just curious and too lazy to look it up... Did the Duke of Edinburgh have a connection to Edinburgh before receiving the title?

I know he went to school somewhere in Scotland.

Gordonstoun. Charles and IIRC his brothers went there also.

 

[Denville]

No he had no connection with Scotland that I know of. He attended Kurt Hahn's school when it was based in Germany.. but Hahn was I think jewish or anti Nazi and left Germany and moved to the UK
Duke of Edinburgh is a royal title.. and it was given to him because it was free at the time.. that's all. As we have said, its the same with mot of the recent royal dukedoms, they are given because they are available and sometimes there is a historic link.. The Second son is usually Duke of York but that's not a hard and fast rule.. as Q Victoria's son was Duke of Edinburgh.

 

[Spheno]

Just curious and too lazy to look it up... Did the Duke of Edinburgh have a connection to Edinburgh before receiving the title?

I know he went to school somewhere in Scotland.

His great-great-many times-grandmother, Mary, Queen of Scots lived in Edinburgh ?

 

[Curryong]

Gordonston is on the Morayshire coast, not near Edinburgh. I have a feeling that the Dukedom of Edinburgh was chosen because it had a bit of Royal history to it, having last been given to Prince Alfred, Queen Victoria's second son.

 

[CyrilVladisla]

What of the title of Duke or Earl of Albemarle?

 

[Gaudete]

There is currently an Earl of Albermarle. Interestingly he is a cousin of the Duchess of Cornwall. Both the 10th Earl and Her Royal Highness are great great grandchildren of the 7th Earl, William Keppel.

 

[Humbugged]

What of the title of Duke or Earl of Albemarle?

The last Duke proper was the son of General Monck and died in 1688 .

Mary and Anne's half brother Henry was given the title by the Jacobite Court but died without children .They then handed it out again but the last one died in 1776

 

[cmsteepy]

First, let me say that I truly believe that Prince Harry and Meghan Markel will be granted the titles of Duke and Duchess of Sussex. However, I would like to make the case that the Duke of Clarence should be strongly considered.

Royal Dukedoms have generally followed one of two patterns:
1) From the original list of 5 dukedoms established by King Edward III; Cornwall, Clarence, Lancaster, York & Gloucester.
2) Dukedoms or Earldoms from the geographic names of the Heptarchy (the 7 Anglo-Saxon Kingdoms of England prior to the unification under King Egbert); Northumbria, Kent, Wessex, Sussex, Essex, East Anglia & Mercia.Two of these larger kingdoms have been broken down into smaller geographic subdivisions.For example, East Anglia now encompasses the titles of Norfolk, Suffolk and Cambridge.

When evaluating the original list of 5 from above, all are in use by a member of the current House of Windsor, except Clarence which is vacant.When evaluating the list from the Heptarchy, most are in use.Kent and Wessex by the House of Windsor, Northumria by the House of Percy, Essex by the House of Capell, East Anglia and its geographic subdivisions are held by the Houses of Howard or Windsor.Mercia could be argued that there are geographic opportunities and finally Sussex which is vacant.

At this point, the choice between Clarence and Sussex is a toss-up.Some would (and do) argue that Clarence should not be chosen due to some of the negative character associations connected to this title. However, we have recently learned that Prince Harry and Meghan Markel share common royal ancestry, both descending from Lionel of Antwerp, the 1st Duke of Clarence, the second son of King Edward III (according to American Ancestors by the New England Historic Genealogical Society). This fact alone tips the scales for me. For those that still argue against the title of Clarence, I would suggest, what better couple could change the perception of the Clarence title in a more positive light than Prince Harry and Meghan?

As mentioned above, I do believe Sussex is going to be the more likely choice, however, there is an opportunity for the House of Windsor to grant and hold the final title from the “original list of 5” all within the current royal family.

We now wait and see.

 

[Denville]

Gordonston is on the Morayshire coast, not near Edinburgh. I have a feeling that the Dukedom of Edinburgh was chosen because it had a bit of Royal history to it, having last been given to Prince Alfred, Queen Victoria's second son.

As I recall Philip attended K Hahn's school before it moved to Scotland?

 

[Pranter]

First, let me say that I truly believe that Prince Harry and Meghan Markel will be granted the titles of Duke and Duchess of Sussex. However, I would like to make the case that the Duke of Clarence should be strongly considered.

Royal Dukedoms have generally followed one of two patterns:
1) From the original list of 5 dukedoms established by King Edward III; Cornwall, Clarence, Lancaster, York & Gloucester.
2) Dukedoms or Earldoms from the geographic names of the Heptarchy (the 7 Anglo-Saxon Kingdoms of England prior to the unification under King Egbert); Northumbria, Kent, Wessex, Sussex, Essex, East Anglia & Mercia. Two of these larger kingdoms have been broken down into smaller geographic subdivisions. For example, East Anglia now encompasses the titles of Norfolk, Suffolk and Cambridge.

When evaluating the original list of 5 from above, all are in use by a member of the current House of Windsor, except Clarence which is vacant. When evaluating the list from the Heptarchy, most are in use. Kent and Wessex by the House of Windsor, Northumria by the House of Percy, Essex by the House of Capell, East Anglia and its geographic subdivisions are held by the Houses of Howard or Windsor. Mercia could be argued that there are geographic opportunities and finally Sussex which is vacant.

At this point, the choice between Clarence and Sussex is a toss-up. Some would (and do) argue that Clarence should not be chosen due to some of the negative character associations connected to this title. However, we have recently learned that Prince Harry and Meghan Markel share common royal ancestry, both descending from Lionel of Antwerp, the 1st Duke of Clarence, the second son of King Edward III (according to American Ancestors by the New England Historic & Genealogical Association). This fact alone tips the scales for me. For those that still argue against the title of Clarence, I would suggest, what better couple could change the perception of the Clarence title in a more positive light than Prince Harry and Meghan?

As mentioned above, I do believe Sussex is going to be the more likely choice, however, there is an opportunity for the House of Windsor to grant and hold the final title from the “original list of 5” all within the current royal family.

We now wait and see.

Ok this is really interesting info....I'm a fan of Clarence as the pick so I'm all for it!


LaRae