Possible Dukedom for Harry and Meghan

[Humbugged]

If someone else is already Earl of X, then Harry cannot be Duke of X. The only work-around would be to use a double title for one. Earl of X & Y and Duke of X, or vice versa.

Just as William is Duke of Cambridge and the Duke of Hamilton is Earl of Arran & Cambridge, and Charles Edward Duke of Albany was Earl of Clarence while his cousin Albert Victor was Duke of Clarence & Avondale.

Or you can do the Devon/Devonshire ruse

Earl of Devon and the Duke of Devonshire have co existed since 1830

 

[Dman]

Although the Dukedom of Clarence is my favorite. Am I crazy in secretly desiring the Dukedom of Windsor to be given new life and meaning by Harry and Meghan?

 

[Pranter]

That would be a huge twist...I would like it but don't believe it at all likely. Still hoping for Clarence!


LaRae

 

[Hans-Rickard]

I'm still hoping for Duke of London No royal history, i know but it deserves to get some.

 

[Denville]

Although the Dukedom of Clarence is my favorite. Am I crazy in secretly desiring the Dukedom of Windsor to be given new life and meaning by Harry and Meghan?

I'd say it would be incredibly unlikely. Since it was given to Edwrd VIII to prevent him from doing anyting like getting involved in brtiish politics, it was hardly any kind of honour. And sicne Meg is also an American divorcee it might look like a slight on her and Harry

 

[wyevale]

hoping for Duke of London

That Title was offered [and declined by] to Sir Winston Churchill, in gratitude for his service to the Nation in WWll.
Fond of Harry as we all are, he has done nothing to warrant so weighty a Title..

 

[Madame Verseau]

I didn't know there was a dukedom of London. Harry served in Afghanistan. Why wouldn't deserve that title?

 

[JR76]

I didn't know there was a dukedom of London. Harry served in Afghanistan. Why wouldn't deserve that title?

There doesn't have to "be" a dukedom. The Queen can make anything up if she wants. She could make Harry, Duke of Edmonton , Earl of Colindale, Baron of Chigwell if she wanted too.

 

[Hans-Rickard]

That Title was offered [and declined by] to Sir Winston Churchill, in gratitude for his service to the Nation in WWll.
Fond of Harry as we all are, he has done nothing to warrant so weighty a Title..

Harry is an H.R.H and a Prince since birth so he is already higher in rank than Winston would have ever been.

 

[Countessmeout]

Although the Dukedom of Clarence is my favorite. Am I crazy in secretly desiring the Dukedom of Windsor to be given new life and meaning by Harry and Meghan?

I don't see Windsor being given in the lifetime of anyone who was alive when it was last given.

Windsor has the negative connotation of being 'punishment'. Dukedoms are normally given a geographical designation (usually something large like a region, sometimes small like a city). Instead David was given a title that was of his family. Windsor was not meant to be Duke of the town of Windsor, but of the Windsor family. They didn't want to waste a historical title on David, likely knowing it wouldn't be used again for a long time.

Giving this title to Harry, whose fiancé is also an American divorcee What kind of message do you think most people would read in that???

Already too many people doubting the queen approves of the marriage.

 

[Rudolph]

Edmonton is in England. Edmonton, Alberta isn’t the original.

 

[wyevale]

Edmonton

Edmonton is an ENGLISH town 8.6 miles NE of Charing Cross...[like SO many places names in Canada and the US, it was duplicated outside this realm]..

 

[Denville]

I didn't know there was a dukedom of London. Harry served in Afghanistan. Why wouldn't deserve that title?

He doesn't compare with Winston Churchill......

 

[wyevale]

^ quite....^

 

[JuliannaVictoria]

I quite agree with Wyevale and Denville on this that Harry's service in Afghanistan cannot and should not be compared to Winston Churchill's.

However, I can't see why the title Duke of London should only be reserved of for an individual of Churchill's stature? In the past 80 years, no one has come close to Churchill's accomplishment in U.K. politics and service.

I actually think given Harry's service to country, although not at the same level of Churchill, that the title could be fitting.

Personally, I'm hoping for something else, and that the HMQ will surprise us all next Saturday.

 

[O-H Anglophile]

I didn't know there was a dukedom of London. Harry served in Afghanistan. Why wouldn't deserve that title?

That Title was offered [and declined by] to Sir Winston Churchill, in gratitude for his service to the Nation in WWll.
Fond of Harry as we all are, he has done nothing to warrant so weighty a Title..

Yes, one officer serving cannot be compared to the man who successfully led the United Kingdom through WWII. Winston Churchill holds a unique place in history.

 

[Princess B]

I’d really like a new dukedom for Harry, something that hasn’t been used before.
Really hoping for a Duke of Oxford

 

[Countessmeout]

I’d really like a new dukedom for Harry, something that hasn’t been used before.
Really hoping for a Duke of Oxford

Not likely. There is an Earl of Oxford.

While it is not ruled out a geographical designation can be used twice, there is an Earl of Cambridge, this is a different situation. The Earl of Cambridge is a minor subsidiary title of a peer, one he doesn't use. Oxford is a senior peerage.

May shock us and do it, but seems highly unlikely.

 

[Mbruno]

I quite agree with Wyevale and Denville on this that Harry's service in Afghanistan cannot and should not be compared to Winston Churchill's.

However, I can't see why the title Duke of London should only be reserved of for an individual of Churchill's stature? In the past 80 years, no one has come close to Churchill's accomplishment in U.K. politics and service.

I actually think given Harry's service to country, although not at the same level of Churchill, that the title could be fitting.

Personally, I'm hoping for something else, and that the HMQ will surprise us all next Saturday.

I think they will stick with titles that are historically associated with the Royal Family, as was also the French custom, which seems to have influenced British custom.

 

[JuliannaVictoria]

I think they will stick with titles that are historically associated with the Royal Family, as was also the French custom, which seems to have influenced British custom.

Yes, you are probably right. What is your guess for the title if you don't mind me asking?

 

[Mbruno]

Yes, you are probably right. What is your guess for the title if you don't mind me asking?

The most likely choices are Sussex or Clarence.

As I said before, I personally prefer Albany and see no reason to avoid using it because of the potential German claimants, first because it is unclear whether they actually have a legitimate legal claim to the title or not, and, second, because they are unlikely to make a claim anyway after 100 years have already passed since their ancestor was deprived of the title.

 

[FashionMaven]

The most likely choices are Sussex or Clarence.

As I said before, I personally prefer Albany and see no reason to avoid using it because of the potential German claimants, first because it is unclear whether they actually have a legitimate legal claim to the title or not, and, second, because they are unlikely to make a claim anyway after 100 years have already passed since their ancestor was deprived of the title.

But if that title was passed on to H&M, if there were any German claimants, I'd think that would be when they'd pop up again making a claim.

I'm still hoping for Clarence, though the pessimist in me thinks it will be Sussex. But REALLY hoping for Clarence since both Harry and Meghan can trace ancestry to it.

 

[Countessmeout]

I think the queen will want to make it as uncomplicated and simple as possible. No need to take on any possible controversy, by using a title there are claimants to. Even if their right is debated. Plenty of other titles to use.

Clarence really doesn't have that bad of a history. And all titles do. And unlike Windsor, its shady history was not in the lifetime of any royals.

But I do think we will see Sussex.

 

[JR76]

The most likely choices are Sussex or Clarence.

As I said before, I personally prefer Albany and see no reason to avoid using it because of the potential German claimants, first because it is unclear whether they actually have a legitimate legal claim to the title or not, and, second, because they are unlikely to make a claim anyway after 100 years have already passed since their ancestor was deprived of the title.

I think I've read somewhere that nowadays there's an unofficial rule that without a clear, agnatic heir applications regarding titles in abeyance aren't recognised after more than a 100 years after the passing of the last holder.

 

[Gawin]

Strictly speaking, the Albany title isn't in abeyance. The last duke was stripped of the title by the Titles Deprivation Act. The Act gives his heirs the right to petition the Crown for a reinstatement and doesn't specify a deadline.

 

[Countessmeout]

I think I've read somewhere that nowadays there's an unofficial rule that without a clear, agnatic heir applications regarding titles in abeyance aren't recognised after more than a 100 years after the passing of the last holder.

Abeyance is a different matter then Albanny. Its when there is no one clear heir to a title. It doesn't happen very often, as is usually only the case when a man dies with no sons, and his heirs are female. Unlike sons, when the eldest son is the designated heir, with English peerages, there is no designated heir among daughters. If the peerage can be inherited by a woman, all daughters have equal claim. Either the other claimants die out, or one of the claimants appeals to the monarch, to have their claim recognized. It doesn't happen in Scotland, because with Scottish peerages, eldest daughter is recognized as the designated heir, if no son exists.

And yes there has been a move for these claims to be eliminated after 100 years.

Albanny was deprived of the title. Which is also different from foreifeiture. Deprivation allows for the male line heir to still lay claim to the title. Forefeiture would mean the title would be extinct and could be reused. There is no time limit on deprived titles.

 

[Mbruno]

Abeyance is a different matter then Albanny. Its when there is no one clear heir to a title. It doesn't happen very often, as is usually only the case when a man dies with no sons, and his heirs are female. Unlike sons, when the eldest son is the designated heir, with English peerages, there is no designated heir among daughters. If the peerage can be inherited by a woman, all daughters have equal claim. Either the other claimants die out, or one of the claimants appeals to the monarch, to have their claim recognized. It doesn't happen in Scotland, because with Scottish peerages, eldest daughter is recognized as the designated heir, if no son exists.

And yes there has been a move for these claims to be eliminated after 100 years.

Albanny was deprived of the title. Which is also different from foreifeiture. Deprivation allows for the male line heir to still lay claim to the title. Forefeiture would mean the title would be extinct and could be reused. There is no time limit on deprived titles.

But there may actually be no legitimate heir to the title to make the claim. In fact, before 2015, apparently there were none. Now, it remains to be seen if any potential heirs have been legitimized by the Succession to the Crown Act or not. Their case seems weak to me and, in any case, as I said, they are not making it and don't see to be interested in the title.

 

[Countessmeout]

But there may actually be no legitimate heir to the title to make the claim. In fact, before 2015, apparently there were none. Now, it remains to be seen if any potential heirs have been legitimized by the Succession to the Crown Act or not. Their case seems weak to me and, in any case, as I said, they are not making it and don't see to be interested in the title.

Some of the heirs are quite young.

Like I said, the queen may just want to avoid a whole mess. There would be constant talk and possible controversy if she grants that title. Why would she want to pile that on her grandson? While the title has a nice sound, its not the only title out there. And not the only one with historical importance left.

 

[wyevale]

A bit 'late in the day', two Welsh Titles occur to me.. The Duchy of Powis and the Duchy of Montgomery have been lying dormant since the time of the Jacobite rebellion ?

 

[Princess Robijn]

I voted for Duke of Sussex simply because I don't expect Harry to be created an Earl. The latter would have my preference.

It could create precedence. The Monarch could create the Heir to the Throne (or his/her Heir) Duke upon his marriage (or possible Duchess for a female Heiress to the Throne) and the other children (only sons, or possibly sons and daughters) of the Monarch and the Heir to the Monarch can be created Earl (or Countess) upon marriage.