Possible Dukedom for Harry and Meghan

[Hans-Rickard]

I voted for "Duke of Clarence" but i would love if he was created "Duke of London".

Alexander Mountbatten (son of Prince Henry of Battenberg and Queen Victoria's youngest daughter Princess Beatrice) was Marquess of Carisbrooke, Earl of Berkhampsted and Viscount Launceston. Maybe any of these titles could be actual ? He was the first Carisbrooke but Berkhampsted and Launceston have been in the Royal family before.

 

[Lady Nimue]

I voted for "Duke of Clarence" but i would love if he was created "Duke of London".

Alexander Mountbatten (son of Prince Henry of Battenberg and Queen Victoria's youngest daughter Princess Beatrice) was Marquess of Carisbrooke, Earl of Berkhampsted and Viscount Launceston. Maybe any of these titles could be actual ? He was the first Carisbrooke but Berkhampsted and Launceston have been in the Royal family before.

Oooh! I like Carisbrooke, and Launceston is nice. So many possibilities.

 

[Gaudete]

I wonder if Earl of Launceston will be one of Harry's subsidiary titles? Duke of Sussex, Earl of Launceston....it has a nice ring to it.

 

[Iluvbertie]

I am not sure about Launceston as that is the name of Tasmania's second city and it could be viewed as giving a title relating to Australia rather than the place in the UK. Titles that predate the settlements are fine but new ones I think will have to steer clear of places that also exist in the other realms or Commonwealth countries.

 

[Somebody]

I wonder if Earl of Launceston will be one of Harry's subsidiary titles? Duke of Sussex, Earl of Launceston....it has a nice ring to it.

Where is Launceston located (other than in Tasmania)? As the only thing I think we can be sure of (but maybe some disagree) is that one of the three titles will be English (most likely the primary one, but could be the second one if the first ends up being Scottish), Scottish (could be either first, second or third) and Welsh or Northern-Irish (second or third).

Or are there any recent example of a royal Duke with both a Welsh and Northern-Irish title (most likely instead of the Scottish one in that case)?

Edit: Found the answer: Launceston is also a place in Cornwall, so not likely in combination with Sussex. It could be used if Harry's Ducal title is Scottish So, the Marquess of Carisbrooke's subsidiary titles were also English but I can't imagine they would do the same for Harry

 

[Gaudete]

Where is Launceston located (other than in Tasmania)? As the only thing I think we can be sure of (but maybe some disagree) is that one of the three titles will be English (most likely the primary one, but could be the second one if the first ends up being Scottish), Scottish (could be either first, second or third) and Welsh or Northern-Irish (second or third).

Or are there any recent example of a royal Duke with both a Welsh and Northern-Irish title (most likely instead of the Scottish one in that case)?

It's in Cornwall (there's even a Launceston Castle there) which would be a nice link to his father's Duchy. But you're right of course, there's a pretty well defined nationality order as it were so I would expect English Dukedom, Scottish Earldom and Northern Irish Barony - which sadly puts Launceston out. It can't be upgraded to a Duchy because it would take it out of the Duchy of Cornwall - which wouldn't please the Prince of Wales!

 

[Hans-Rickard]

More can be read here

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marquess_of_Carisbrooke

Carisbrooke is after Carisbrooke Castle in Carisbrooke on Isle of Wight where his parents lived.

Earl of Berkhamsted is named for the city with the same name.

Viscount Launceston is named for Launceston in Cornwall.

 

[Hans-Rickard]

I love all 3 of Alexander Mountbatten's titles. Maybe Harry could be made Duke of Carisbrooke instead of Marquess.....But until we know better, i think it's most likely that H will get a British dukedom, a Scottish earldom and either a Welch or Northern Irish Barony or Viscounty. Or maybe both.

 

[wyevale]

Carisbrooke Castle was a place of imprisonment in the long calvary of Charles 1st [King and Martyr] in 1648. He nearly escaped but got stuck in the Window he was trying to escape from... so possibly the name may not appeal to the future Charles III as a title for his son...?

 

[EllieCat]

i like 'Ross' but I'm wondering if he might be created an Earl instead, but I really hope not. At least the Earl of Wessex will probably one day be the Duke of Edinburgh. If Prince Harry becomes an Earl, that would probably be it. It's a bit tricky because at this stage he is 'only' the grandson of a Monarch. And what style will his children have? The Queen had to make it her Will that William's children are Prince/esses. In theory, Harry's potential children will be Lords/Ladies, but i think i've gone off-topic.

That has to be a very old practice because the majority of Dutch people don't have a difference between first name and a calling name.

Off-topic again, I'm half Dutch, and EVERY Dutch person I know goes by another version of their name, in effect a nickname. E.g. my dad is Josephus; he goes by Jo, Josef or Joop. His wife Josephine, also Dutch, is Josy, or Fintje.

 

[principessa]

Once again, I enthusiastically vote for “Duke of Earl”, because it comes with a song:

One of my favourite songs.

What a pity that Earl won't be a Dukedom elsewhere in the world!

 

[Gaudete]

I’m not too sure about Northern Irish baronies but if he is created Duke of Sussex then I would expect Earl of Kendal to be his subsidiary title. It seems the most obvious Scottish peerage that he could be given.

 

[Somebody]

i like 'Ross' but I'm wondering if he might be created an Earl instead, but I really hope not. At least the Earl of Wessex will probably one day be the Duke of Edinburgh. If Prince Harry becomes an Earl, that would probably be it. It's a bit tricky because at this stage he is 'only' the grandson of a Monarch. And what style will his children have? The Queen had to make it her Will that William's children are Prince/esses. In theory, Harry's potential children will be Lords/Ladies, but i think i've gone off-topic.

William and Catherine's eldest son would have been a HRH and prince in any case. An important reason to make the change was the change in the order of succession as it would have been really hard to explain if their first had been a daughter (and thus the future queen but born as 'Lady') and the second a son (who would have been titled as HRH and prince).

Off-topic again, I'm half Dutch, and EVERY Dutch person I know goes by another version of their name, in effect a nickname. E.g. my dad is Josephus; he goes by Jo, Josef or Joop. His wife Josephine, also Dutch, is Josy, or Fintje.

My point was that it is NOT just a nickname in many cases (it would be if used interchangeably) but a 'calling name' that is decided on by the parents and communicated to friends and family on the birth announcement. In a comparable way, Meghan's parents have called her Meghan from birth, so it is not as if she has taken on a different name at some point (contrary to for example princess Laurentien who was known from birth as Petra but decided to start using Laurentien instead; or princess Christina whose calling name (not official name - that was Maria Christina) was Marijke).

 

[Hans-Rickard]

Or maybe they could create a Welch dukedom for Harry from one of the historic welch counties like they did with Philips earldom (Merioneth)... Then he could have Earl of Ross and Viscount Launceston as subsidary titles.

Not very likely, i know but an idea

 

[LadyGlendower]

I cannot imagine the daughter of Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon naming her grandson the Duke of Windsor. Yes, I know it's been 80 years but it is still too soon, ESPECIALLY with an American bride.

And honestly, why saddle sweet Meghan and Harry with the baggage? A new title would be better, although I like the simplicity of Ross and as someone upthread noted, the tranquility of Sussex.

Most important----I would OBJECT!

 

[Skippy]

i like 'Ross' but I'm wondering if he might be created an Earl instead, but I really hope not. At least the Earl of Wessex will probably one day be the Duke of Edinburgh. If Prince Harry becomes an Earl, that would probably be it. It's a bit tricky because at this stage he is 'only' the grandson of a Monarch. And what style will his children have? The Queen had to make it her Will that William's children are Prince/esses. In theory, Harry's potential children will be Lords/Ladies, but i think i've gone off-topic.



Off-topic again, I'm half Dutch, and EVERY Dutch person I know goes by another version of their name, in effect a nickname. E.g. my dad is Josephus; he goes by Jo, Josef or Joop. His wife Josephine, also Dutch, is Josy, or Fintje.

That is usually the case with Catholic names. There is a full name and a name by which someone is known. As far as I know, Catholic people (almost) never go by their full name.

William and Catherine's eldest son would have been a HRH and prince in any case. An important reason to make the change was the change in the order of succession as it would have been really hard to explain if their first had been a daughter (and thus the future queen but born as 'Lady') and the second a son (who would have been titled as HRH and prince).


My point was that it is NOT just a nickname in many cases (it would be if used interchangeably) but a 'calling name' that is decided on by the parents and communicated to friends and family on the birth announcement. In a comparable way, Meghan's parents have called her Meghan from birth, so it is not as if she has taken on a different name at some point (contrary to for example princess Laurentien who was known from birth as Petra but decided to start using Laurentien instead; or princess Christina whose calling name (not official name - that was Maria Christina) was Marijke).

Also true, but in your exmple the 'calling name' already exists. While in EllieCat's example the 'calling name' is an abbreviation of the existing name.

"Rachel Meghan Markle. We call her Meghan." Laurentien's name is a combination of her father and mother's name - completely made up so no form of anything

Princess Christina's former 'calling name' of Marijke was possibly a form of Maria, but she went to use her second name.

So here we have three different examples of women who don't use their first name (anymore)



But this has gone way off-topic and is not about possible Dukedoms any longer. I suggest we move on from this.

 

[Skippy]

I cannot imagine the daughter of Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon naming her grandson the Duke of Windsor. Yes, I know it's been 80 years but it is still too soon, ESPECIALLY with an American bride.

And honestly, why saddle sweet Meghan and Harry with the baggage? A new title would be better, although I like the simplicity of Ross and as someone upthread noted, the tranquility of Sussex.

Most important----I would OBJECT!

That was me who noted the tranquility of Sussex

And Ross makes me think in a totally different direction, like 3 centuries back.

 

[Missjersey]

Oh jeepers ! I actually wouldn’t mind it but as I stated before I know it won’t happen. I hope it’s something that takes us by surprise. Of course Windsor would do that. No worries

 

[jacqui24]

People are objecting to Clarence due to long past bad connection, but people are throwing Windsor out there? Really?

 

[Hans-Rickard]

People are objecting to Clarence due to long past bad connection, but people are throwing Windsor out there? Really?

You said what i thought

A new "Duke of Windsor" won't happen in the reign of Queen Elizabeth II and Harry will not reside at Fort Belvedere for the very same reason. But tbh i don't see anything that would make "Duke of Clarence" a bad option. Most titles carries a "past use" with it and i think it's wrong to disqualify them because of what happened to a Duke of a certain title 200-500 years ago. No one really cares about that.

 

[CyrilVladisla]

Oooh! I like Carisbrooke, and Launceston is nice. So many possibilities.

Where is Carisbrooke?

 

[O-H Anglophile]

I'm with jacqui27 and Hans-Rickard with this one. I'll be surprised if Windsor happens.

 

[Biri]

You said what i thought

A new "Duke of Windsor" won't happen in the reign of Queen Elizabeth II and Harry will not reside at Fort Belvedere for the very same reason. But tbh i don't see anything that would make "Duke of Clarence" a bad option. Most titles carries a "past use" with it and i think it's wrong to disqualify them because of what happened to a Duke of a certain title 200-500 years ago. No one really cares about that.

And George Villiers, 1st Duke of Buckingham (known even from "The Three Musketeers") was MURDERED.

 

[Hans-Rickard]

Where is Carisbrooke?

It's a castle and a village on Isle of Wight.

 

[Pranter]

I don't have a problem if they use Windsor. It's just a name. Same with Clarence. All historic titles have something negative about them.

Fort Belvedere is just a property. The man left England in the late 30's and never lived there again. Almost 80 years ago.

Until they do something to replace the negative (new title holder, new owner etc) it will just keep on with the negative.


LaRae

 

[Somebody]

That is usually the case with Catholic names. There is a full name and a name by which someone is known. As far as I know, Catholic people (almost) never go by their full name.

Also true, but in your exmple the 'calling name' already exists. While in EllieCat's example the 'calling name' is an abbreviation of the existing name.

Not sure that I understand what you are trying to say. I indeed suggested that a nickname is different from an official 'calling name' (for lack of a better word). Some of the (Catholic) shorter versions of a name are 'existing' names, for example Jan for Johannes or Henk for Hendricus (so would be a 'calling name' if announced at birth). So, I agree that it is important to distinguish between nick names and 'calling names' - which was exactly the point I was trying to make.

"Rachel Meghan Markle. We call her Meghan."

Yes indeed, so Meghan is not a nickname but a 'calling name' (which can be the same or different than official names).

Laurentien's name is a combination of her father and mother's name - completely made up so no form of anything

Well, it is her official second name! Which she asked people to use at a certain point in time instead of Petra.

Princess Christina's former 'calling name' of Marijke was possibly a form of Maria, but she went to use her second name.

Of course it was a variation on Maria - but she never went by 'Maria' as Queen Juliana and Prince Bernhard announced from the start that she would be called Marijke.

So here we have three different examples of women who don't use their first name (anymore)

Of which Meghan is the only consistent one - who never changed her name and still some people seem to expect her to change into 'Rachel' which she never used

Moreover, in the past several of the British royals didn't go by their first name but by one of their other names or a derivate of one of their names. Queen Victoria (Alexandrina Victoria) comes to mind as someone who used her second name as her regal name. And her daughter-in-law Queen Mary was officially: Victoria Mary Augusta Louise Olga Pauline Claudine Agnes - and known as May. And her only daughter was also a 'Mary' but officially: Victoria Alexandra Alice Mary. So, Meghan is in good company.

But this has gone way off-topic and is not about possible Dukedoms any longer. I suggest we move on from this.

Oops, you're right!

I don't have a problem if they use Windsor. It's just a name. Same with Clarence. All historic titles have something negative about them.

Fort Belvedere is just a property. The man left England in the late 30's and never lived there again. Almost 80 years ago.

Until they do something to replace the negative (new title holder, new owner etc) it will just keep on with the negative.

LaRae

I don't agree. It makes a huge difference whether that 'negative thing' personally impacted you (=the Queen) enormously or that it is truly something of the past. So, I don't really see a problem with using Clarence, but Windsor is a no-go at least for now (that could change in a few generations).

A complication for the Windsor title (also in the future) might be that it is also the name of the House.

 

[Osipi]

Of which Meghan is the only consistent one - who never changed her name and still some people seem to expect her to change into 'Rachel' which she never used

This isn't entirely true. For seven years, people knew her and identified her as "Rachel Zane" in Suits. All the more reason to skittle away from using Rachel as her given name after marriage.

 

[Somebody]

This isn't entirely true. For seven years, people knew her and identified her as "Rachel Zane" in Suits. All the more reason to skittle away from using Rachel as her given name after marriage.

Yes, indeed . On screen she was known as Rachel... in private she wasn't. So, better to keep that distinction.

 

[jacqui24]

You said what i thought

A new "Duke of Windsor" won't happen in the reign of Queen Elizabeth II and Harry will not reside at Fort Belvedere for the very same reason. But tbh i don't see anything that would make "Duke of Clarence" a bad option. Most titles carries a "past use" with it and i think it's wrong to disqualify them because of what happened to a Duke of a certain title 200-500 years ago. No one really cares about that.

On top of that, I think the problem with Windsor that's different is that King Edward VIII was exiled and given that title AFTER he abdicated. It's one thing when you are given the title as a happy occasion and then things go wrong. It's another when things have gone sour and you are given a lesser title while being sent into exile.

 

[O-H Anglophile]

Yes, indeed . On screen she was known as Rachel... in private she wasn't. So, better to keep that distinction.

And Mike Ross was Rachel Zane's boyfriend.