Possible Dukedom for Harry and Meghan

[Lady Nimue]

The Duke and Duchess of Albany is my current favorite. One can live with Sussex but Albany is very classy sounding.

[Gawin]

I like it too and it's much older than Sussex which wasn't associated with the BRF until 1801 when George III created his son Augustus Duke of Sussex. Albany was used as a ducal title by the Scottish royal family since 1398 and by the English royal family since 1604 when James I/VI gave it to his son Charles.

But because of the legal questions - the Saxe-Coburg-Gothas might have a claim - I don't think it's gonna happen.

[Mbruno]

Originally Posted by Lady Nimue

The Duke and Duchess of Albany is my current favorite. One can live with Sussex but Albany is very classy sounding.

I would pick it too if it were available, but, unfortunately, as we have beeen discussing for the past two pages, it is not.

Personally, I think Parliament should impose a "statute of limitations" on claims under the Titles Deprivation Act. Never mind whether the Saxe-Coburg descendants are legitimate or not under British law; if a claim in a specific context like that has not been made in 100 years or so, the right to petition should expire.

[Gawin]

Originally Posted by Mbruno

I would pick it too if it were available, but, unfortunately, as we have beeen discussing for the past two pages, it is not.

Personally, I think Parliament should impose a "statute of limitations" on claims under the Titles Deprivation Act. Never mind whether the Saxe-Coburg descendants are legitimate or not under British law; if a claim in a specific context like that has not been made in 100 years or so, the right to petition should expire.

That would be a very sensible solution.

[Ish]

I would hope that the British Parliament would have more important matters to attend to than passing legislature that would allow for a handful of titles to be used again, particularly given as hereditary titles are only granted to male members of the BRF.

[Mbruno]

Originally Posted by Ish

I would hope that the British Parliament would have more important matters to attend to than passing legislature that would allow for a handful of titles to be used again, particularly given as hereditary titles are only granted to male members of the BRF.

They don't have to do that only for the Titles Deprivation Act specifically. In the past, the UK parliament used, from time to time, to pass "Statute Law Revision Acts" where a whole bunch of statutory laws that had become obsolete or unnecessary were repealed in bloc. Section 2 of the British North America Act, 1867 (now the Constitution Act, 1867) for example was repealed by one such act in 1893 (that was the section that said that the provisions of the BNA referring to HM The Queen also extended to Queen Victoria's heirs and successors in the United Kingdom).

[Gawin]

Granting hereditary titles to males is the practice now but in the future that could change. It would seem odd if a younger son was given a title while his older sisters who preceded him in the succession weren't.

But it's also possible royal titles will be granted for life only (not hereditary). And of course it's also possible they won't be granted at all.

[Pranter]

Still hoping for Clarence!!!


LaRae

[Stefan]

Originally Posted by Pranter

Still hoping for Clarence!!!


LaRae

I also hope theys will use Clarence. It is much older and historic than Sussex. Of course there are Title Holders who don't have the best reputation but that was long ago and is is also the case with Gloucester and George V. choose it anyway for one of his sons. I found it always strange that he did not choose the Dukedom of his late older brother who was also the fiancee of Queen Mary for one of his sons.

[Pranter]

I think most all of the existing options have had former holders with not so savory reputations so not sure I'd use that to determine what title to use! But no one is asking me either LOL

Seems like Bertie or someone here pointed out a couple months ago that Clarence (along with Cambridge) were part of the same region or territory or something, historically speaking.


LaRae

[Curryong]

Origins of the Dukedom of Clarence.

https://www.theguardian.com/notesand...,-1882,00.html

[Gawin]

Originally Posted by Stefan

I also hope theys will use Calrece. It is muc older and historic than Sussex. Of course there are Title Holders who don't have the best rreputation but that was long ago and is is also the case with Gloucester and George V. choose it anyway for one of his sons. I found it always strange that he did not choose the Dukedom of his late older brother who was also the fiancee of Queen Mary for one of his sons.

I'm guessing his older brother was still a painful memory & King George couldn't bring himself to see another person with the title. Giving it to a son would result in all sorts of newspaper articles about previous holders, including Eddy. But that's only my guess.

[cmsteepy]

This is a re-post of my prediction back in December and now that we are less than 3 weeks away from the wedding, I thought this was a good time to reintroduce my theory.


First, let me say it is strongly believed that Prince Harry and Meghan Markel will be granted the titles of Duke and Duchess of Sussex just before their marriage in May. However, I would like to make the case that the Duke of Clarence should be strongly considered and is my personal preference.

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. Mercia now encompasses Gloucester among others.

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, nearly all 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, the largest of the former kingdoms, it's geographic subdivisions are already tied up in dukedom or earldom titles, 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) View this link https://www.americanancestors.org/up...rkle-chart.pdf This shared common ancestry back to the original Duke of Clarence would seem to make this a very logical choice? In addition, Prince William Henry of Wales was Duke of Clarence before he became King William IV so there are some very positive traits associated with the title as well. 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.

[Princess Larisa]

I’m really hoping it’s not Sussex, just because everyone is taking it for granted that it will be Sussex.
I’m contrary that way

[Lady Nimue]

Originally Posted by Princess Larisa

I’m really hoping it’s not Sussex, just because everyone is taking it for granted that it will be Sussex. I’m contrary that way.

Not only you but Harry! He likes to do the unexpected, so we shall see!

[Terri Terri]

Thank you! I was trying to remember this post the other day! Makes perfect sense. And you will have the Wales branch of the family with all the 'C' dukedoms - Cornwall, Cambridge and Clarence.

Can you all imagine....Camilla, Kate and Meghan on an engagement together.....the Duchesses of Cornwall, Cambridge and Clarence. Nice ring to it.

[Pranter]

Originally Posted by cmsteepy

This is a re-post of my prediction back in December and now that we are less than 3 weeks away from the wedding, I thought this was a good time to reintroduce my theory.


First, let me say it is strongly believed that Prince Harry and Meghan Markel will be granted the titles of Duke and Duchess of Sussex just before their marriage in May. However, I would like to make the case that the Duke of Clarence should be strongly considered and is my personal preference.

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. Mercia now encompasses Gloucester among others.

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, nearly all 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, the largest of the former kingdoms, it's geographic subdivisions are already tied up in dukedom or earldom titles, 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) View this link https://www.americanancestors.org/up...rkle-chart.pdf This shared common ancestry back to the original Duke of Clarence would seem to make this a very logical choice? In addition, Prince William Henry of Wales was Duke of Clarence before he became King William IV so there are some very positive traits associated with the title as well. 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.

Can I 'steal' this for a conversation elsewhere?


LaRae

[cmsteepy]

Sure, no problem :)

[Pranter]

Thank you!


LaRae

[Gawin]

I like Clarence too and agree it shouldn't be eliminated due do any previous associations. As cmsteepy points out it's one of the original ducal titles and has been associated with the Royal Family since the 14th century. Sussex didn't become a royal title until 1801.

One possible reason why Clarence might not be an option: Queen Victoria's son Leopold was created Duke of Albany, Earl of Clarence, and Baron Arklow in 1881. That's why the Queen gave her grandson Albert Victor a double title - Duke of Clarence and Avondale - when he was made a duke in 1890. It was considered necessary to avoid having both a Duke of Clarence and an Earl of Clarence.

As discussed earlier, Leopold's son Charles Edward, the 2nd Duke of Albany (and Earl of Clarence) lost his British titles due to the Titles Deprivation Act but his descendants may have the right to request a reinstatement. I don't think this would ever happen, but it's the reason Albany will probably be off-limits for Harry, and possibly Clarence too.