Prince Harry Created Duke of Sussex: May 19, 2018

[cepe]

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.

Correct but in Uk it is pronounced suss six es

 

[XeniaCasaraghi]

Yay I like Sussex

 

[Lee27]

At some point Harry will be way way down the succession list, after any children of George Charlotte and Louis, so passing on his dukedom will not be important in the great scheme of things

 

[Countessmeout]

They could do the Scottish thing and make the Scottish title inheritable by women. So if Harry and Meghan only have daughters, Sussex would go extinct, but the eldest daughter would be Countess of Dumbarton. There is definitely precedence in Scotland for that. In fairness they should have to offer Andrew to do the same, so that Bea could inherit her father's earldom at the least.

Honestly they should

1. Make all future titles equal inheritance
2. Make it clear to any peerage who wishes it, that they can appeal to the queen to change the letters patent on their title which she can do, with the assurance she will. So that any old peerage, who wishes their daughter to be able to inherit, can.

At some point Harry will be way way down the succession list, after any children of George Charlotte and Louis, so passing on his dukedom will not be important in the great scheme of things

It will be as important as passing on Kent and Gloucester which are much further from the throne now. Wessex. Or any non royal peerage. Its a family legacy, nothing to do with how close to the throne it is.

 

[Abbigail]

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.

Yes. One of the reasons I preferred Sussex over Clarence is that Clarence just sounds boring, frankly. Duke and Duchess of Sussex has a nice ring to it, indeed.

 

[Gawin]

They could do the Scottish thing and make the Scottish title inheritable by women. So if Harry and Meghan only have daughters, Sussex would go extinct, but the eldest daughter would be Countess of Dumbarton. There is definitely precedence in Scotland for that. In fairness they should have to offer Andrew to do the same, so that Bea could inherit her father's earldom at the least.

Honestly they should

1. Make all future titles equal inheritance
2. Make it clear to any peerage who wishes it, that they can appeal to the queen to change the letters patent on their title which she can do, with the assurance she will. So that any old peerage, who wishes their daughter to be able to inherit, can.

.

Point #1 - I agree wholeheartedly. And if York does go to one of William's children (which I don't think it will), it should be Charlotte not Louis. If Louis gets a hereditary dukedom/earldom/whatever, so should Charlotte. Princess Royal isn't enough. It's technically a style, not a title, and it's not hereditary.

Point #2 - It's not that simple. While the Queen has the power to grant titles to members of the Royal Family, she cannot give titles to non-royals without the advice of her Prime Minister. The same holds true for peerage claims. She must rely on the advice of her Attorney-General. In terms of contentious claims, the Attorney General generally recommends that the monarch refer them to the House of Lords.

Think about it...if the Queen does have the power to alter a title's letters patent, why aren't the peers who DO want their daughters to succeed them appealing to her instead of Parliament?

See, for example, the case of the 8th Earl Fortescue, who only has daughters and isn't happy that his title will go to a male cousin:

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...ts-battling-to-inherit-the-title-8656310.html

I may be wrong, but I'm not even sure the Queen has the power to change letters patent for royal titles once they have been issued. Why else would she ask Charles to create his brother Edward Duke of Edinburgh when he becomes King? Why doesn't she just change the current letters patent and allow Edward to inherit the title when Philip dies instead of Charles? It seems that in order for Edward to become Duke, new letters patent are required and that can only happen when Charles becomes king and his Edinburgh title merges with the Crown.

 

[pooky929]

I can see social media having a lot of fun with Dumbarton. I hope it's pronounced differently to how i'm saying it in my head...

I know..was it really necessary to give him that Dumbarton title. Hopefully no one ever uses it. Harry & Meg will need to stay pure or they will have fun with Sussex as well.

 

[gerry]

I know..was it really necessary to give him that Dumbarton title. Hopefully no one ever uses it. Harry & Meg will need to stay pure or they will have fun with Sussex as well.

I am very surprised and indeed shocked that people who follow royalty have so little knowledge of history. Dumbarton is the village in Ireland where St. Patrick was born and is the name of both an important site in American history https://www.doaks.org/about
and a concerto by Stravinsky.

 

[CyrilVladisla]

Princess Henry Of Wales.

That will be Meghan's title.

That would have been Meghan's title if her spouse had not been created the Duke of Sussex.

 

[Ish]

I am very surprised and indeed shocked that people who follow royalty have so little knowledge of history. Dumbarton is the village in Ireland where St. Patrick was born and is the name of both an important site in American history https://www.doaks.org/about

and a concerto by Stravinsky.

Um... this is not accurate.

Dumbarton is a town in Scotland (following the tradition of the Earldom being a Scottish location), while Harry’s third title is a place in Northern Ireland (Killeel).

St. Patrick, for the record, was not born in Ireland. He was born in Roman Britain - exactly where is unknown - and abducted by Irish pirates at 16. After six years in captivity he escaped and returned to Britain, where he joined the priesthood. He later returned to Ireland as a Christian missionary, where he played a significant role in converting the island.

 

[Fijiro]

At some point Harry will be way way down the succession list, after any children of George Charlotte and Louis, so passing on his dukedom will not be important in the great scheme of things

I think it still matters however further down the line one is. The current Duke of Gloucester inherited his title from his father, and so did Duke of Kent. And I believe they are still very important members of the BRF.

 

[Gawin]

Um... this is not accurate.

Dumbarton is a town in Scotland (following the tradition of the Earldom being a Scottish location), while Harry’s third title is a place in Northern Ireland (Killeel).

St. Patrick, for the record, was not born in Ireland. He was born in Roman Britain - exactly where is unknown - and abducted by Irish pirates at 16. After six years in captivity he escaped and returned to Britain, where he joined the priesthood. He later returned to Ireland as a Christian missionary, where he played a significant role in converting the island.

There is an unsubstantiated tradition that St. Patrick was born in Dumbarton, Scotland. I suspect gerry meant to say Scotland instead of Ireland.

 

[gerry]

There is an unsubstantiated tradition that St. Patrick was born in Dumbarton, Scotland. I suspect gerry meant to say Scotland instead of Ireland.

Indeed, thank you!

 

[loonytick]

I am very surprised and indeed shocked that people who follow royalty have so little knowledge of history. Dumbarton is the village in Ireland where St. Patrick was born and is the name of both an important site in American history https://www.doaks.org/about
and a concerto by Stravinsky.

Dumbarton Oaks is the name of a manor house/estate in the Washington, DC area (probably named after the original place in Scotland). FWIW, Stravinsky’s Dumbarton Oaks was first performed at that house, thus the name.

 

[Countessmeout]

Indeed it is. The estate of Dumbarton oaks was built on land granted by Queen Anne to a colonial governor named Beall. Beall named the land grant after his home in Scotland 'the rock of Dumbarton'. It refers to the rock that Dumbarton castle is built on. The estate was built on this land grant and was named after it.

The home was later owned by the Bliss family. In 1913 Mildred Bliss commissioned Stravinski to compose a concerto to celebrate their 30th anniversary. The piece was named in honor of their home, and was first performed in the music room there.


Should be noted the 1st earl of Dumbarton supported James II, and when James went into exile, so did the 1st earl. His son was only one at the time, and was raised at the exiled court and died on the continent. The 1st earl's wife Anne was a sister of Catherine Wheatley. Catherine was the 1st wife of George Fitzroy, Duke of Northumberland, the son of Charles II and Barbara Palmer.

 

[alvinking]

Just a little reminder

Yes Prince Harry is now 6th in the line of succession and he will fall further down in the event that William has more children. Yet George is 5, Charlotte is 3 and Louis is just a couple of days old. For all practical purpose for at least the next 20 to 25 years before the children come of age and complete their education he can still be seen as a very senior royal as far as royal engagements are concerned, and God forbids if anything were to happen to Charles and William while George is minor, he would most certainly be the designated regent.

 

[Denville]

I doubt if he wuodl be Regent.. there woud be a council of Regency and he'd be a member

 

[Mbruno]

I doubt if he wuodl be Regent.. there woud be a council of Regency and he'd be a member

By law, the next available person in the line of succession who is 21 or older and a British citizen residing in the UK automatically becomes regent unless there is specific legislation stating otherwise. When Queen Elizabeth II’s children were minors, a special act of Parliament provided for Prince Philip to become regent when, otherwise, by default, the regent would be Princess Margaret.

It is unlikely though that Harry will ever become regent as both Charles and William would have to be deceased before George turned 18.

 

[Contessina]

Correct but in Uk it is pronounced suss six es

Thanks. My main point, however, was to answer the question of where the accent should be, rather than a particular regional pronunciation. FWIW, most of the coverage I've seen seems to emphasize the eh sound, as in SUH-seks-ez, which bears little resemblance to successes. Of course, YMMV.

 

[hel]

Correct but in Uk it is pronounced suss six es

Thanks, Cepe.

Is the singular also pronounced suss six?

To be honest, I'm a little bit surprised it's not pronounced "saw". Because I'm still shaken about Featherstonhaugh.

 

[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]

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]

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.