Prince Harry Created Duke of Sussex: May 19, 2018

[wbenson]

Originally Posted by Mbruno

The remainder is usually heirs to the body male, but do we know for sure in this case ? Have the LPs been published ?

I doubt we'll see the actual letters patent (before 1999 they would have been read out in full in the House of Lords on his introduction), but they'll probably be gazetted with the remainder.

William's letters patent weren't issued until a month after the wedding.

[Countessmeout]

I decided to be insane and wake up after 3 hours and watch this.

No surprise Sussex. Not disappointed, I quite like the title

My close friend is excited about Dumbarton. We were discussing Dumbarton the other day as his family is from the region. They were actually the ancient pipers for the clan in the region.

[Tatiana Maria]

Originally Posted by Charlotte_Aster

https://twitter.com/SteveJonesPA/sta...39348010373120
Here are the explainations of the titles.

A press release issued from Buckingham Palace - I wonder why they did not include the background information in the online press release as they did in 2011.

It states that the Earldom of Dumbarton was granted to a younger son of the Marquess of Douglas and became extinct in 1749, whereas the Barony of Kilkeel has never previously been granted.

Originally Posted by Mbruno

Take note of the subsidiary Scottish earldom as it may be Harry and Meghan’s eldest son’s courtesy title.

And the eldest son of the Earl of Dumbarton would be known as Lord Kilkeel.

[Gawin]

I'm posting the relevant entries from The Complete Peerage:

Sussex:
https://archive.org/stream/completep.../n333/mode/2up

Dumbarton (listed under the alternate spelling, Dunbarton):
https://archive.org/stream/completep...e/514/mode/2up

Harry is the first royal to have the title Earl of Dumbarton. Prior to that it was held by the Douglas family. Harry descends from 1st cousins of George Douglas, 1st Earl of Dunbarton through is great-grandmother, the Queen Mother, and his mother, Diana.

Sussex wasn't a royal title until 1801. Before that it was an earldom held by other families, including the Radclyffes and Saviles. Through his mother Diana, Harry is a direct descendant of Robert Radclyffe, 1st Earl of Sussex and Thomas Savile, 1st Earl of Sussex [new creation].

[Sister Morphine]

I don't think anyone was particularly surprised by the choice of duchy. I'm pretty sure it was obvious to everyone that it would be Sussex. In fact, when William was created Duke of Cambridge before his wedding in 2011, I posited that when Henry got married, he'd get the Sussex title, since I think that was the runner-up in the poll here for what duchy William would get.

[Vizier]

Given that there is no more "male preference primogeniture" and succession to the throne is based on birth order, not sex, why shouldn't the letters patent allow daughters to inherit the dukedom? Meghan Markle is an advocate for various progressive causes, so this would seem like a logical step. They could also make it a life peerage, I suppose, but this seems like a long shot.

[Gawin]

Originally Posted by Vizier

Given that there is no more "male preference primogeniture" and succession to the throne is based on birth order, not sex, why shouldn't the letters patent allow daughters to inherit the dukedom? Meghan Markle is an advocate for various progressive causes, so this would seem like a logical step. They could also make it a life peerage, I suppose, but this seems like a long shot.

I suspect the Queen prefers the traditional ways meaning the title was probably granted to Harry and the "heirs male of his body."

It's also my understanding gender equity within the peerage is a controversial issue within the UK (some peers oppose it) and the BRF may want to avoid accusations that they are taking sides, at least this point in time.

But I also think things will change once William is King. A new generation with new attitudes.

[Countessmeout]

Originally Posted by Gawin

I suspect the Queen prefers the traditional ways meaning the title was probably granted to Harry and the "heirs male of his body."

It's also my understanding gender equity within the peerage is a controversial issue within the UK (some peers oppose it) and the BRF may want to avoid accusations that they are taking sides, at least this point in time.

But I also think things will change once William is King. A new generation with new attitudes.

How is it taking sides

William can only change the peerages he creates.

Peerages are individual. The rules of who can inherit said title are set for each individual peerage. Making Harry's peerage inheritable by a woman would not affect any other peerage. And shouldn't bother any other peer. We have no idea how other peers feel about if titles should be inherited by women. Other then people's opinion on what the peers think.

There are titles which are inheritable by women. Its actually common with older Scottish titles. One of said inheritors was at the wedding sitting with the family, Lady Saltoun. The only difference is that it is male preference, so sons still take preference over daughters, though daughters can inherit.

They also can petition to have the queen allow a daughter to inherit. The queen has had no problem doing this. The Earl of Burma is a prime example. She had no concern for 'being accused of taking sides' when she allowed Louis' daughter to inherit his title.

It really is time to stop whinging about 'well the next generation can....' and realize its time for change. If the royal family wants to continue to be considered relevant, it needs to modernize at times. The regular peerage, non royals, is one thing. But the Duke of Sussex is a royal peerage. Its not enough the royals 'slim down'. They need to actually make steps to show they aren't archaic.

Why is it if Charlotte was born first she would be queen, but if Harry has a daughter she cant inherit?? Gender equality needs to be equal.

[Gawin]

Originally Posted by Countessmeout

How is it taking sides

I didn't say they would be taking sides. I CLEARLY stated the BRF "may want to avoid accusations that they are taking sides." This is a point that has been made in other Internet forums.

There is a campaign in the UK to do away with male-only primogeniture within the peerage and allow daughters to succeed even if they have younger brothers. By creating gender-blind titles, the BRF could be seen as taking sides. If there's a move to ban ostrich feathers in hats and Camilla shows up with an ostrich feather hat, she could be seen as taking sides, whether that was her intention or not.

We have no idea how other peers feel about if titles should be inherited by women. Other then people's opinion on what the peers think.

Yes, we certainly do know how some peers feel about this. They have made their opinions known in many online articles and websites. These are just a few:

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...e-8656310.html

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equality_(Titles)_Bill

https://www.facebook.com/EqualityFor...age?ref=stream

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...s-8735041.html

https://hansard.parliament.uk/Lords/...Titles)Bill(HL)

There are titles which are inheritable by women. Its actually common with older Scottish titles. One of said inheritors was at the wedding sitting with the family, Lady Saltoun. The only difference is that it is male preference, so sons still take preference over daughters, though daughters can inherit.

But there are MANY other titles that daughters can't inherit, meaning the title becomes extinct if there are no sons. And, as you state, sons still take preference over daughters. Lady Saltoun is only Lady Saltoun because she doesn't have a brother.

They also can petition to have the queen allow a daughter to inherit. The queen has had no problem doing this. The Earl of Burma is a prime example. She had no concern for 'being accused of taking sides' when she allowed Louis' daughter to inherit his title.

The Queen did NOT ALLOW Earl Mountbatten of Burma's daughter to inherit his title. Because he had no sons the letters patent creating the title in 1947 stated that it could be inherited by "his eldest daughter Patricia Edwina Victoria, Baroness Brabourne...and the heirs male of her body lawfully begotten; and in default of such issue to every other daughter lawfully begotten of the said Louis Francis Albert Victor Nicholas, Viscount Mountbatten of Burma, successively in order of seniority of age and priority of birth and to the heirs male of their bodies lawfully begotten..."

This was done to avoid the title becoming extinct at Lord Mountbatten's death. The daughters were allowed to succeed only because he had no sons. And notice that while Lord Mountbatten's daughters could succeed to the title, THEIR daughters couldn't.

It really is time to stop whinging about 'well the next generation can....' and realize its time for change. If the royal family wants to continue to be considered relevant, it needs to modernize at times. The regular peerage, non royals, is one thing. But the Duke of Sussex is a royal peerage. Its not enough the royals 'slim down'. They need to actually make steps to show they aren't archaic.

Why is it if Charlotte was born first she would be queen, but if Harry has a daughter she cant inherit?? Gender equality needs to be equal.

I agree. Where in my post did I say I didn't? This is what I stated: "I suspect the Queen prefers the traditional ways." That's why I don't think Harry's title will be gender-blind. The Queen's preferences matter, not mine or yours. So if you don't like whinging about the next generation, please direct your posts to her.

The Queen might pleasantly surprise me but if not we'll probably see changes when Charles or more likely William are King.

[Vizier]

By the time Charles becomes King, it might be clear that Harry will only have daughters. Meghan is older than the typical new princess and seems likely to have no more than a couple of kids. So if Charles can't change Harry's current titles and those reflect the Queen's traditionalism, he could I guess create a new one (Duke of Sandhurst?) which would be heritable by the heirs, not just heirs male. There have been some men who had multiple dukedoms. Charles does, but while he is a special case, I think that's also true of some others who weren't even royals.

[Empress Merel]

No surprise there. We've guessed this for years.

[Stefan]

Originally Posted by Vizier

By the time Charles becomes King, it might be clear that Harry will only have daughters. Meghan is older than the typical new princess and seems likely to have no more than a couple of kids. So if Charles can't change Harry's current titles and those reflect the Queen's traditionalism, he could I guess create a new one (Duke of Sandhurst?) which would be heritable by the heirs, not just heirs male. There have been some men who had multiple dukedoms. Charles does, but while he is a special case, I think that's also true of some others who weren't even royals.

He could make a second creation of Duke of Sussex. Like Queen Victoria did for the Duke of Fife. The first original Titel given at their marriage was for the heirs male. But as it turned out that they only had daughters a second creation of the same Titel was made in 1900 to allow the daughters of the first duke to succeed.
But if Charles does that for Harry he should that also do for Andrew so that Beatrice could succeed as Duchess of York.

[Curbside]

The first Duke of Sussex was an abolitionist. Did not know that.

[Vizier]

Relatedly, do people expect that any kids this couple has will be HRHs and Princes/Princesses as opposed to Lord and Lady, by virtue of being children of a Duke? They're entitled to HRH Prince/Princess under current rules, but Edward's kids don't use those styles, and Harry and Megan are younger and maybe even more modern than he is, so...

[Mbruno]

Originally Posted by Vizier

Given that there is no more "male preference primogeniture" and succession to the throne is based on birth order, not sex, why shouldn't the letters patent allow daughters to inherit the dukedom? Meghan Markle is an advocate for various progressive causes, so this would seem like a logical step. They could also make it a life peerage, I suppose, but this seems like a long shot.

Because the Succession to the Crown Act , as the name says, applies only to succession to the Crown, not to succession to peerages.

The succession to the Crown in fact has always followed different rules from those of succession to peerages. Women for example could inherit the Crown both in England and in Scotland, but their brothers (and their respective descendants) were ahead of them in the line of succession even when the brothers were younger. Most peerages on the other hand descended and descend by agnatic primogeniture, meaning that only male descendants in paternal line could or can inherit it.

The only country where titles of nobility are now transmitted by default by equal primogeniture is, I think, Spain. Ironically, male-preference primogeniture still applies, however, to succession to the Soanish Crown.

Originally Posted by Vizier

Relatedly, do people expect that any kids this couple has will be HRHs and Princes/Princesses as opposed to Lord and Lady, by virtue of being children of a Duke? They're entitled to HRH Prince/Princess under current rules, but Edward's kids don't use those styles, and Harry and Megan are younger and maybe even more modern than he is, so...

They are only entitled to HRH Prince/Princess when Charles becomes king. If they are born during the current Queen’s reign, they will be styled as children of a Duke in the peerage of the UK.

[Contessina]

Originally Posted by Curbside

Important question: will they be the Sussexes or the Sussex's'? Will it come out "Successes" when said too quickly?

It should be Sussexes, no apostrophe (apostrophes only show possesion, abbreviation, or a contraction).

I don't think it will sound like successes. The accent is on the second syllable, whereas in Sussexes, it's on the first.

[Stefan]

Originally Posted by Mbruno

B

The only country where titles of nobility are now transmitted by default by equal primogeniture is, I think, Spain. Ironically, male-preference primogeniture still applies, however, to succession to the Soanish Crown.

But in Spain noble Titles could always be inherited by woman when there was no son. Therefore we got the Duchess of Alba, the Duchess of Medina Sidonia to name a few examples.

[wyevale]

I think we all hope the Sussexes, will be successes...

[HereditaryPrincess]

I'm not surprised; I had originally suspected Sussex. "Duke and Duchess of Sussex" has a great ring to it and I like that they revived an old title. Prince/ss X of Sussex for their future children (if they have any) sounds wonderful.

[Gawin]

Originally Posted by Mbruno

Because the Succession to the Crown Act , as the name says, applies only to succession to the Crown, not to succession to peerages.

The succession to the Crown in fact has always followed different rules from those of succession to peerages. Women for example could inherit the Crown both in England and in Scotland, but their brothers (and their respective descendants) were ahead of them in the line of succession even when the brothers were younger. Most peerages on the other hand descended and descend by agnatic primogeniture, meaning that only male descendants in paternal line could or can inherit it.

The only country where titles of nobility are now transmitted by default by equal primogeniture is, I think, Spain. Ironically, male-preference primogeniture still applies, however, to succession to the Soanish Crown.

Yes, exactly so, and I should also add another point: while the monarch can decide who succeeds to peerages she (or he) creates, Parliament controls the rules governing succession to the Crown.

In other words it was Parliament, not the Queen, who decided to make succession to the Crown gender-blind. She can choose to follow that model when she creates peerage titles (like Harry's dukedom) or she can continue to restrict them to males only.