Possible Dukedom for Harry and Meghan

[Somebody]

Originally Posted by ACO

IIRC the letters were changed when Kate was pregnant to allow the children to all have the HRH title. Only George would have had it, not Charlotte without it. It doesn't apply to Harry though unless she changes it. Once HM passes and Charles takes over then then Harry's kids would automatically get the HRCH title. But you are right, I assume that is very much up to Harry and Meghan in the end regardless.

Exactly!

Not sure whether you were replying to my post. I was referring to the situation before the LPs (by George V) that were amended by the queen.

King George VI was born as the second son of the second son of the eldest son, but still he was born a prince (albeit a highness and not a royal highness). Yet, as his uncle died before his birth (otherwise his parents wouldn't have married as his mother was destined to be his uncle's bride), so, in a way his position at birth was more comparable to that of Charlotte and Cambridge #3. Nonetheless, other male-line great-grandchildren of (former) monarchs also were highnesses and prince(sse)s - for example, prince Alastait of Connaught, great-grandson of Victoria. Although I don't expect the queen to return to this system that was abandoned by her grandfather - as the children of the Dukes of Gloucester and Kent and prince Michael aren't princes and princesses.

Under current rules, Harry and Meghan' s children would be born lord and lady - if born during the queen's reign; and with the exception of their eldest son who will use Harry's secondary title (assuming he will be created a royal duke with secondary titles)?

[Somebody]

Originally Posted by Missjersey

Well my gut thinks it’ll be Sussex. However, OT I’m always curious if Earl of Wessex will get DoE as promised should HM go first (not trying to sound morbid)

What do you mean by 'if the queen goes first'? There is no scenario in which the queen will be the one to give the title to Edward. It has to be Charles (or William or George) as the title only becomes available if it merges with the crown which happens when Charles (or his successor) ascend the throne.

If Phillip passes first, Charles - as his eldest son- becomes the new Duke of Edinburgh.
If the queen passes first, Phillip remains the Duke of Edinburgh.
In both cases the title becomes avsilable to be granted to Edward when both have passed away (and either Charles, William or George is king - if Charlotte would be queen, the title would pass on to either Harry (if Cambridge #3 is a girl) or to Cambridge #3 (if a boy).

However, that's going off-topic as there is another topic for the Duke of Edinburgh title.

[Pranter]

Originally Posted by cepe

I accept what you say but with one caveat. That is if the negatives are within living memory. So that's why I do not think Windsor will happen.

If Clarence is the choice then media will play with it for 48 hours and then the noise will go away. It cant be any worse than choosing a wedding day that is an anniversary of the beheading of Anne Boleyn by Henry or the one and only time England was declared a Republic (commonwealth).

Most of the folks who were alive during David's situation are of very advanced ages. So that living memory will most likely cease to exist within 10 years or less.


LaRae

[Countessmeout]

Originally Posted by Pranter

Most of the folks who were alive during David's situation are of very advanced ages. So that living memory will most likely cease to exist within 10 years or less.


LaRae

Charles and Anne were both alive for the death of their grandfather and their mother's coronation. And while they don't have the same memories, as they were small children, it still influenced their lives. Considering Harry will be the last dukedom in the next 10 years, its not really a matter. By the time George marries, he will most likely be POW (if he marries in his 30's or late 20s like his parents which is becoming more common). Perhaps William will see fit to use the title for his second son if baby Cambridge 3 is a boy. For now there are plenty of people who remember Edward and his escapades.

[O-H Anglophile]

I agree with Cepe and Countessmeout. I think the fact that Windsor title was a new creation for a specific man in a specific situation and the comparisons that would be drawn if re-used for Harry would be negative. It hasn't even been 100 years. I would say "living memory" would include stories told directly by those who remember events--so children and grandchildren of those alive at the time.

[Missjersey]

Originally Posted by Somebody

What do you mean by 'if the queen goes first'? There is no scenario in which the queen will be the one to give the title to Edward. It has to be Charles (or William or George) as the title only becomes available if it merges with the crown which happens when Charles (or his successor) ascend the throne.

If Phillip passes first, Charles - as his eldest son- becomes the new Duke of Edinburgh.
If the queen passes first, Phillip remains the Duke of Edinburgh.
In both cases the title becomes avsilable to be granted to Edward when both have passed away (and either Charles, William or George is king - if Charlotte would be queen, the title would pass on to either Harry (if Cambridge #3 is a girl) or to Cambridge #3 (if a boy).

However, that's going off-topic as there is another topic for the Duke of Edinburgh title.

Thanks for explaining.

[Ish]

Windsor isn’t going to be an option. In all likelihood, Windsor will never be an option again unless another monarch abdicates. It’s a title that has only ever been used once in British history and has no positive associations. Seriously, no Royal is going to want to be given the title of the man associated with Nazis who gave up the throne for a woman who was deemed unacceptable to be Queen. It certainly isn’t going to be recreated for a man whose fiancée is a divorced American - the parallels just open things up for a criticism that won’t go away.

Clarence and Sussex may not have the most cheerful of histories, but they’re longer and older histories that most people really don’t know or care about. The media might have fun dredging up the rumours that Albert Victor was Jack the Ripper or that George Plantagenet drowned in a butt of wine for a day or two, but that’ll quickly be forgotten.

[cepe]

Originally Posted by Pranter

Most of the folks who were alive during David's situation are of very advanced ages. So that living memory will most likely cease to exist within 10 years or less.


LaRae

Its is certainly within the living memory of the person who would grant the Dukedom.

Non starter. Its Clarence or Sussex or something new!

[cmsteepy]

Originally Posted by cepe

Its is certainly within the living memory of the person who would grant the Dukedom.

Non starter. Its Clarence or Sussex or something new!

Based on Sunday’s discussion, which was excellent, cepe summarizes it well and for speculation purposes I believe we should accept the following conclusions:

Windsor is out, it’s a non-starter.
The top 2 likely candidates are Clarence and Sussex or;
Something new!

What if we explored that third option, something new? What could it be?

Borrowing a quote from post #358 in this thread;
“When evaluating the list from the Heptarchy, most are in use. Kent and Wessex by the House of Windsor, Northumbria 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. . .”

We should be able to consider options from the geographic breakdown of the former Kingdom of Mercia. Following are the list of counties within the former Kingdom.Some of these names we will recognize as existing or former ducal or earldom titles;

Oxford, former Earldom.
Buckingham, former Dukedom and Earldom.
Bedford, current non-royal Dukedom.
Northampton, former Earldom.
Rutland, former Dukedom and Earldom
Leicester, former Earldom.
Warwick, former Dukedom and Earldom
Worcester, current Earldom.
Hereford, former Dukedom and Earldom.
Gloucester, current royal Dukedom.
Shropshire
Stafford, former Earldom.
Cheshire
Derby, former Earldom.
Nottingham, former Earldom.
Lincoln, former Earldom.

Now remember, we are looking for a “traditional” royal ducal title. We can eliminate some of these immediately because they are dukedoms currently in use (i.e., Gloucester), or never been associated with a title (i.e., Shropshire or Cheshire), or they are titles generally granted to non-royals, which is almost everything else. None of the other names on the list jump out to me as traditional enough. Not that something brand new couldn’t be granted to Prince Harry, but I just don’t think there is a strong likelihood which is why Clarence and Sussex should still top all of our lists. If it is something new, it will likely be a geographic name outside of the former Kingdom of Mercia and have royal connections i.e. Cumberland or Connaught, neither of which sound very exciting.

[Ish]

Cumberland and Connaught are not new or available though.

Cumberland has been used 5 times previously (for Prince Rupert (brother of Sophia of Hanover), Prince George of Denmark (husband of Queen Anne), Prince William (son of George II), Prince Henry (son of Frederick, Prince of Wales), and Prince Ernest Augustus, later King of Hanover (son of George III). It is not currently used by Ernest Augustus’s descendants, but could be claimed by the current successor (also named Ernst Augustus) if he desired to.

Connaught was created for Queen Victoria’s third son, Prince Alfred, and later inherited by Alfred’s grandson, Alastair, and is now unavailable to be created as Connaught is in the Republic of Ireland, not the UK.

[cmsteepy]

Excellent points. For clarification, by new I meant a new creation. Yes, they have been used before but I believe Cumberland is extinct and I now concede that Connaught is not an option, because it is an Irish title and not U.K. as you pointed out. Thank you. Eitherway, they are both very unlikely choices which supports my initial prediction of Clarence or Sussex.

[Iluvbertie]

A lot of the titles you have listed have current holders either as the title stated, as a subsidiary of another title, or in some other degree within the peerage.

Northhampton former Earldom

Now a Marquisate with current holder and three generations of heirs - last one born in 2010

Rutland, former Dukedom and Earldom

I think the present Duke of Rutland might object. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_...uke_of_Rutland

Leicester, former Earldom

Current Earl might object - particularly as his heir apparent is only 14

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earl_o...creation_(1837)

Warwick, former Dukedom and Earldom

Nothing 'former' about it. The current Earl is very much alive and has an heir who is the same age as Prince William.

Stafford, former Earldom.

Current Baron Stafford might not be happy with that idea

Cheshire

Highly unlikely they would create a Dukedom of Cheshire when his father is the Earl of Chester and, in time, his brother will probably be created Earl of Chester - it is usually given with the Prince of Wales title.

Derby, former Earldom.

Current Earldom with a heir apparent as well. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward..._Earl_of_Derby

Nottingham, former Earldom.

Current Earldom held as a subsidiary title by the Earl of Winchelsea - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward..._Earl_of_Derby

Lincoln, former Earldom.

Again the current Earl might not like having someone take his title.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earl_o...Creation_(1572)

Now remember, we are looking for a “traditional” royal ducal title. We can eliminate some of these immediately because they are dukedoms currently in use (i.e., Gloucester), or never been associated with a title (i.e., Shropshire or Cheshire), or they are titles generally granted to non-royals, which is almost everything else. None of the other names on the list jump out to me as traditional enough. Not that something brand new couldn’t be granted to Prince Harry, but I just don’t think there is a strong likelihood which is why Clarence and Sussex should still top all of our lists. If it is something new, it will likely be a geographic name outside of the former Kingdom of Mercia and have royal connections i.e. Cumberland or Connaught, neither of which sound very exciting.

Cumberland is out - there are a number of living potential claimants - namely the Hanovers. The current claimant is Prince Ernst August husband of Princess Caroline of Monaco and he has two sons one of whom married earlier this year.

Connaught is out because the place itself is in the Republic of Ireland and it would not be acceptable in this day and age to create a title associated with a foreign country.

[Iluvbertie]

Originally Posted by cmsteepy

Excellent points. For clarification, by new I meant a new creation. Yes, they have been used before but I believe Cumberland is extinct and I now concede that Connaught is not an option, because it is an Irish title and not U.K. as you pointed out. Thank you. Eitherway, they are both very unlikely choices which supports my initial prediction of Clarence or Sussex.

Cumberland, like Albany, is not extinct. Teviotdale also created with Cumberland is also unavailable

They are both 'in abeyance' due to the Titles Deprivations Act but there are existing heirs who can apply to have the titles reinstated. There are about half a dozen heirs and with one marrying this past summer that number could easily grow.

The current claimant for Cumberland would be Prince Ernst of Hanover while for Albany it would be Prince Hubertus with about a dozen heirs after him. Included in that list are some of Prince Philip's sister's descendants as she married a younger brother and had sons by her second marriage all of whom could claim the Cumberland title at some point in the future if they ever became the head of the house.

[cmsteepy]

All excellent points above. That just furthers the point that a title from the former Heptarchy Kingdom of Mercia is not likely and that the choices between one from the "original list of 5" (Clarence) or the former Kingdom of Sussex are clearly the top 2 options to be considered. I think we have this narrowed down fairly well.

[Curbside]

I like both Clarence and Sussex, but Duke and Duchess Sussex is a bit of a tongue-twister.

[wyevale]

Duke and Duchess Sussex is a bit of a tongue-twister.

There is an 'of' in the middle [to make it easier for you]...

[jacqui24]

Originally Posted by wyevale

There is an 'of' in the middle [to make it easier for you]...

Duchess of Sussex is still a bit of a tongue twister. Although, I have to admit, it's growing on me.

[Osipi]

That really never occurred to me as I guess I'm pretty used to the Countess of Wessex by now.

I am still leaning towards Sussex as it is just more pleasing to my ear than Clarence. For some odd reason, I still connect Clarence with Clown. I'm odd that way.

[loonytick]

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).

I hadn't realized this. If true, it's a game changer for me and makes Clarence seem like the most likely choice.

[Osipi]

wOw. Yeps. That's a serious game changer here too. It has a personal connection to the couple even though its quite a remote connection. It would give more of a personal story behind the dukedom and also make for a really, really neat story to tell the kids and grandkids when they're growing up. Adds a bit of flavor to the couple's being drawn to each other by fate that perhaps took centuries.

Brings out the storyteller in me, I guess.