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
 
  #301  
Old 12-02-2017, 03:43 PM
Gaudete's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: Nov 2017
Location: South East Coast, United Kingdom
Posts: 514
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.
__________________

  #302  
Old 12-02-2017, 03:48 PM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Sep 2017
Location: jersey shore, United States
Posts: 1,124
It might have a depiction of her home state?
__________________

  #303  
Old 12-02-2017, 03:51 PM
lady of hay's Avatar
Nobility
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: North Yorkshire, United Kingdom
Posts: 332
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gaudete View Post
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.
  #304  
Old 12-02-2017, 04:00 PM
Gaudete's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: Nov 2017
Location: South East Coast, United Kingdom
Posts: 514
Iím sure there will be some kind of heraldic nod to her home state. Which is as it should be.
  #305  
Old 12-02-2017, 04:05 PM
HereditaryPrincess's Avatar
Heir Apparent
Royal Blogger
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 13,873
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.
__________________
"For beautiful eyes, look for the good in others; for beautiful lips, speak only words of kindness; and for poise, walk with the knowledge that you are never alone". Audrey Hepburn

*
"Think of all the beauty still left around you and be happy". Anne Frank
  #306  
Old 12-02-2017, 04:07 PM
O-H Anglophile's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: May 2017
Location: Midwest, United States
Posts: 3,638
Quote:
Originally Posted by HereditaryPrincess View Post
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.
  #307  
Old 12-02-2017, 04:09 PM
HereditaryPrincess's Avatar
Heir Apparent
Royal Blogger
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 13,873
Quote:
Originally Posted by O-H Anglophile View Post
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.
__________________
"For beautiful eyes, look for the good in others; for beautiful lips, speak only words of kindness; and for poise, walk with the knowledge that you are never alone". Audrey Hepburn

*
"Think of all the beauty still left around you and be happy". Anne Frank
  #308  
Old 12-02-2017, 04:10 PM
Elly C's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Worcester, United Kingdom
Posts: 3,194
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.
  #309  
Old 12-03-2017, 12:29 AM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 13,212
Quote:
Originally Posted by HereditaryPrincess View Post
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).
  #310  
Old 12-03-2017, 12:39 AM
Countessmeout's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: alberta, Canada
Posts: 12,817
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.
  #311  
Old 12-03-2017, 12:40 AM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Location: Wherever, United States
Posts: 5,875
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iluvbertie View Post
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.
  #312  
Old 12-03-2017, 01:50 AM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 13,212
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.
  #313  
Old 12-03-2017, 02:01 AM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Location: Wherever, United States
Posts: 5,875
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.
  #314  
Old 12-03-2017, 02:10 AM
Osipi's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: On the west side of North up from Back, United States
Posts: 16,727
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.
__________________
To be yourself in a world that is constantly trying to make you something else is the greatest accomplishment. ~~ Ralph Waldo Emerson ~~
  #315  
Old 12-03-2017, 02:27 AM
Elly C's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Worcester, United Kingdom
Posts: 3,194
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iluvbertie View Post

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!)
  #316  
Old 12-03-2017, 02:50 AM
Countessmeout's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: alberta, Canada
Posts: 12,817
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iluvbertie View Post
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.
  #317  
Old 12-03-2017, 02:50 AM
Abbigail's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: Jan 2017
Location: Nashville, United States
Posts: 627
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.
  #318  
Old 12-03-2017, 03:40 AM
Majesty
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 9,474
Quote:
Originally Posted by Abbigail View Post
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...
  #319  
Old 12-03-2017, 06:53 AM
Gaudete's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: Nov 2017
Location: South East Coast, United Kingdom
Posts: 514
If Harry was only an earl, his uncle Edward would eventually outrank him when Edward becomes a royal duke. Not to mention Andrew. Whilst Iím 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.
  #320  
Old 12-03-2017, 08:03 AM
Yashal's Avatar
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Location: Catania, Italy
Posts: 178
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.
__________________

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 07:34 AM.

Social Knowledge Networks

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