Prince Harry Created Duke of Sussex: May 19, 2018

[LauraS3514]

There is a mini-war going on over at Wikipedia over Harry and Meghan's new titles. Almost immediately on the day of the wedding they were listed as "Prince Harry, Duke of Sussex" and "Meghan, Duchess of Sussex" (not entirely correct, but tagged in the same way as other title holders are listed, including William and Catherine.) I noticed a little while ago that they have reverted to "Prince Harry" and "Meghan Markle." It seems that a few people complained that no one knows them by their new titles so they were changed back. The "Talk" (discussion) pages are almost amusing with a few people arguing that they should be tagged one way or the other. There are even logical posts suggesting that using that logic Catherine should go back to "Catherine Middleton" or even "Kate Middleton." Maybe someone on here who has a Wiki account should wade into the fray...

[Osipi]

Not a discussion I'd wade into without a really good life jacket on. I can understand where they'd want to use the names Harry and Meghan as that is what most people do know them by. The reality of it is that if Harry or Meghan were to write out their titles, it would simply be The Duke of Sussex or The Duchess of Sussex. A prime example would be to look at Charles and all the different titles he has but is known first and foremost as The Prince of Wales (or The Duke of Rothesay when in Scotland).

Even further, when you look at HRH, Prince X, those are not titles but actually styles that denote a closeness to the monarch. Meghan, Duchess of Sussex would only apply to her if she was to be divorced from Harry. Diana, Princess of Wales and Sarah, Duchess of York are examples of this.

[jacqui24]

This is such a silly arguement. He is The Duke of Sussex and she is The Duchess of Sussex. That’s how they are now officially known and that’s how it should appear on the page. There are well known people that doesn’t be use their real name and the page uses what they are known by, but that’s because that’s the public name they use. Harry and Meghan no longer uses Prince a Harry or Meghan Markle in any official announcements. If we are to get technical in terms of legal documents, I believe it should be HRH Prince Henry The Duke of Sussex and Meghan HRH The Duchess of Sussex. She’s not Meghan, Duchess of Sussex as that would only happen if they divorce.

[Abbigail]

I don't think we've had any further discussion about the titles potential Sussex children would receive since the wedding. But I just read an article on this topic, suggesting that the Queen will likely issue a LP before the birth of the first child to ensure HRH status. The logic for this is based on there being no announcement on the morning of Harry's wedding stating that his children would be styled as children of a duke, unlike what we saw with Edward on the morning of his wedding. I hadn't really thought about this but I think it's pretty sound take.


What titles will the Duke and Duchess of Sussex’s children receive? – Royal Central

[Pranter]

The kids will become HRH even if the Queen doesn't issue new LP's when Charles is the Monarch.

Perhaps though Harry and Meghan don't want them to use their HRH..they may lean to how Edward and Sophie have done things.


LaRae

[Abbigail]

Yes, I know and the article mentions the first point.

We won't know for sure unless/until there is a pregnancy announcement. I just thought it was an interesting take, especially with all the previous comparisons to the Wessexes.

[Pranter]

I think Harry will always be a key figure in the Monarchy, even when William is King he will still be one of the front line royals (as will Meghan). Just not sure what the situation with the children will be. There are 3 Cambridge children (so far) ...will they all be working Royals? Hopefully we'll be here to see!


LaRae

[Mbruno]

Originally Posted by Osipi

Not a discussion I'd wade into without a really good life jacket on. I can understand where they'd want to use the names Harry and Meghan as that is what most people do know them by. The reality of it is that if Harry or Meghan were to write out their titles, it would simply be The Duke of Sussex or The Duchess of Sussex. A prime example would be to look at Charles and all the different titles he has but is known first and foremost as The Prince of Wales (or The Duke of Rothesay when in Scotland).

Even further, when you look at HRH, Prince X, those are not titles but actually styles that denote a closeness to the monarch. Meghan, Duchess of Sussex would only apply to her if she was to be divorced from Harry. Diana, Princess of Wales and Sarah, Duchess of York are examples of this.

Yes. but an article named Duchess of Sussex in the English-language Wikipedia would refer to the title per se rather than an specific person such as the present title holder. That is why the French and Dutch Wikipedia’s for example use the alternative convention of naming articles on royal consorts using their maiden names instead.

[Osipi]

When we look at things in Wikipedia, I think a lot of how people are named or addressed is done for ease of finding the information on a certain person rather than being obsessed about getting the proper title correct. As strong as the familiarity is worldwide with Harry and Meghan, to the average person (outside the UK), most likely not that much attention was paid to their new titles.

As you said, Mbruno, Wikipedia isn't solely a British thing but a global information base and the aim is more for ease of access to information than being culturally correct as far as British titles.

[Duke of Leaside]

Originally Posted by wbenson

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.

So as far as I can tell, there's nothing to date in the Gazette about the letters patent.

Maybe they haven't been prepared yet or maybe they have and haven't been gazetted. Maybe they will never be gazetted; which would beg the question why?

Perhaps they are trying to avoid controversy due to an unusual remainder other than to heirs male of the body lawfully begotten. I'm wondering if they've done something like that of the Duke of Fife or Earl Mountbatten so daughters could inherit. Or maybe they've done the full "to the heirs of the body lawfully begotten".

Does anyone know if that last example has ever been done for a peerage?

The lack of a gazette notice is making me a little curious.

[Duke of Leaside]

Originally Posted by Duke of Leaside

So as far as I can tell, there's nothing to date in the Gazette about the letters patent.

Maybe they haven't been prepared yet or maybe they have and haven't been gazetted. Maybe they will never be gazetted; which would beg the question why?

Perhaps they are trying to avoid controversy due to an unusual remainder other than to heirs male of the body lawfully begotten. I'm wondering if they've done something like that of the Duke of Fife or Earl Mountbatten so daughters could inherit. Or maybe they've done the full "to the heirs of the body lawfully begotten".

Does anyone know if that last example has ever been done for a peerage?

The lack of a gazette notice is making me a little curious.

Okay, forgive me for quoting my own post; it saved me having to re-state everything.

Am I the only one who believes it is now passing strange that there has been no Gazette notice of the Letters Patent conferring the Dukedom of Sussex on Prince Harry?

[Rudolph]

It was about 30 days for Prince William’s. So it’s definitely taking longer for Harry.

[Tatiana Maria]

Originally Posted by Duke of Leaside

So as far as I can tell, there's nothing to date in the Gazette about the letters patent.

Maybe they haven't been prepared yet or maybe they have and haven't been gazetted. Maybe they will never be gazetted; which would beg the question why?

Perhaps they are trying to avoid controversy due to an unusual remainder other than to heirs male of the body lawfully begotten. [...]

Or likewise, they may be trying to avoid controversy due to a remainder to heirs male of the body lawfully begotten. Assuming that the Duke of Sussex's peerages are hereditary, they are the first hereditary peerages to be created after the campaign for women's right to succession was founded. A remainder to heirs male only may be perceived as taking a side in opposition to women peers.

However, the eldest son of the Sussexes will be referred to as Earl of Dumbarton if he is the heir to the dukedom and Lord X Mountbatten-Windsor if he is not the heir. Should they have a daughter first, and refer to her younger brother as Earl of Dumbarton, it would prove that the remainder either was to heirs male or gave preference to sons.

[jacqui24]

Originally Posted by Tatiana Maria

Or likewise, they may be trying to avoid controversy due to a remainder to heirs male of the body lawfully begotten. Assuming that the Duke of Sussex's peerages are hereditary, they are the first hereditary peerages to be created after the campaign for women's right to succession was founded. A remainder to heirs male only may be perceived as taking a side in opposition to women peers.

However, the eldest son of the Sussexes will be referred to as Earl of Dumbarton if he is the heir to the dukedom and Lord X Mountbatten-Windsor if he is not the heir. Should they have a daughter first, and refer to her younger brother as Earl of Dumbarton, it would prove that the remainder either was to heirs male or gave preference to sons.

Agreed. Regardless, it's not going to a mystery forever. We'll find out as soon as they have kids. Most of the outlets have already assumed it's male heir only. All the articles about how feminist Meghan would be shocked to find out (I highly doubt that would've been a shock to her on her wedding day somehow) that her daughters wouldn't be able to inherit the title.

Also, do we have the time frame for the Gazette for anyone else's title? Just William is an awfully tiny sample.

[Gawin]

Yes, the delay is definitely unusual.

Andrew - titles announced on the date of his marriage, 23 July 1986, and published the same day:

https://www.thegazette.co.uk/London/...ent/1/data.pdf

Edward'- titles announced the day of his marriage, 19 June 1999, and published 28 June:

https://www.thegazette.co.uk/London/...5536/page/7011

[jacqui24]

It seems it just gets later and later with each one.

[Tatiana Maria]

Originally Posted by jacqui24

Agreed. Regardless, it's not going to a mystery forever. We'll find out as soon as they have kids. Most of the outlets have already assumed it's male heir only. All the articles about how feminist Meghan would be shocked to find out (I highly doubt that would've been a shock to her on her wedding day somehow) that her daughters wouldn't be able to inherit the title.

It won't necessarily be found out when they have children; if they have only two children, there is a 75 percent chance that they will either have a son first or only have daughters, and then their eldest son's title would not be predicated on the remainder.

An heirs male only remainder in Britain would not be shocking; however, it is widely purported that the Queen allowed the Earl and Countess of Wessex and the Duke and Duchess of Sussex to choose the titles of their future children. I am not sure there is anything to support this claim, but if it is accurate and it was the Sussexes' choice that their daughters be passed over for sons, that of course would not be seen as a feminist request.

[Mbruno]

Originally Posted by Gawin

Yes, the delay is definitely unusual.

Andrew - titles announced on the date of his marriage, 23 July 1986, and published the same day:

https://www.thegazette.co.uk/London/...ent/1/data.pdf

Edward'- titles announced the day of his marriage, 19 June 1999, and published 28 June:

https://www.thegazette.co.uk/London/...5536/page/7011

Why are HM's sons referred to in the Gazette as "His Royal Highness Prince Andrew [...] " and " His Royal Highness Prince Edward [...]" rather than "His Royal Highness The Prince Andrew [...]" and "His Royal Highness The Prince Edward [...]"? I am confused now.

[Osipi]

That's being pretty eagle eyed there, Mbruno. Perhaps the "The" is excluded from the official proclamation so that it remains relevant through time. Once Charles becomes King, Andrew would no longer be "The Prince Andrew" but revert again to just Prince Andrew.

That's my guesstimation anyways.

[jacqui24]

Originally Posted by Tatiana Maria

An heirs male only remainder in Britain would not be shocking; however, it is widely purported that the Queen allowed the Earl and Countess of Wessex and the Duke and Duchess of Sussex to choose the titles of their future children. I am not sure there is anything to support this claim, but if it is accurate and it was the Sussexes' choice that their daughters be passed over for sons, that of course would not be seen as a feminist request.

The Wessexes were allowed to have their children addressed as those of an Earl rather than HRH title a grandchild of the monarch would be. And the announcement for the Earl of Wessex's title included an announcement about how their future children would be addressed as, but not for Sussexes. So that issue remains to be resolved in the future as well. I personally think they'll ask that any child be addressed as a child of a duke rather than HRH when Charles becomes King, but who knows.

Whether it's male heirs only or if it's like Earl of Mountbatten's case, that's an entirely different situation. I don't believe the Wessexes would've chosen to pass over their eldest daughter if given the choice. I'm not sure why it'd be offered to the Sussex either. There is a debate going on and a law was actually introduced (but never made past committee) about allowing daughters to inherit titles. Given this, I don't think the Queen would venture into that discussion.