Titles and Styles of Harry, his Future Wife and Children

[Hans-Rickard]

I would love if The Duke of Exeter would be used again. Or why not make Harry The Duke of London ! It doesn't have any history (except that Churchill was said to have been offered it but turned it down) but it can hardly be any grander !

I would also love to see "The Duke of Windsor" back om use. It's a nice and grand title. But that might be under Charles or Williams reign. I can perfectly understand if the Queen won't do it

And i really think they should do what they can to get "The Duke of Albany" back. It's too grand to be "stored" forever.

[Vicomte de Valjean]

Originally Posted by Hans-Rickard

I would love if The Duke of Exeter would be used again. Or why not make Harry The Duke of London ! It doesn't have any history (except that Churchill was said to have been offered it but turned it down) but it can hardly be any grander !

I love your way of thinking! However as for a possible Dukedom of Exeter, there's already a Marquessate of Exeter (possessed by members of the Cecil family; the head of another branch of the family is the Marquess of Salisbury).

Originally Posted by Mbruno

I'd be very surprised if Harry didn't get either Sussex or Clarence as his dukedom.

The main problem with the Dukedom of Clarence is that Earldom of Clarence already exists as a subsidiary title of the Dukedom of Albany, although both were suspended in 1919 and have yet to be reclaimed. "Duke of Kendal" is another possible title, but I think that that title sounds possibly even less impressive than that of "Duke of Sussex."

Originally Posted by Kitty1224

I rather it be Clarence since the media will have a great time making fun of SusSEX since Harry is known as the playboy prince.

It also sounds like Wessex...

[Pranter]

Couldn't the Queen (or Charles if he's King when Harry is created a duke) create a new dukedom?


LaRae

[Vicomte de Valjean]

Originally Posted by Pranter

Couldn't the Queen (or Charles if he's King when Harry is created a duke) create a new dukedom?


LaRae

Of course. The only hindrance is the tradition not to make "duplicate" titles (e.g. not to make someone "Duke of Albemarle" if another living person is the Earl of Albemarle).

[Kitty1224]

Originally Posted by Curryong

Id really, really rather Harry have Sussex than Clarence, whatever fun the DM has with it! Previous Dukes of Clarence were killed in the Tower, died from pneumonia in their twenties or were crass idiots with at least ten illegitimate children like the future William IV. It's been quite an unlucky Dukedom.

All Dukedoms have had bad lucks lol.

[Countessmeout]

Originally Posted by Vicomte de Valjean

I think that "Duke of Ross" would be a more fitting title for Harry. It has gravitas and hasn't been created since 1514. "Duke of Sussex" sounds boring and doesn't have any history before 1801. "Duke of Albany" is nice too, but it still exists (even if it was suspended and has never been reclaimed).

It's unlikely Scottish would be primary. More likely secondary, for when in Scotland which is much less.

The Duke of Ross may be older but it doesn't have much history. And it has no royal history in the United Kingdom, only in Scotland. Was created twice but never inherited. One was a son of James III who was an archbishop and had no kids. The other was his nephew who died as an infant.

There is a history for Earl of ross. It would make a nice secondary title.

Thought there is only one holder, Sussex was held by a son of George III. That is a closer royal link.

Clarence good chance too. Reality is, unless a new title, any title will have some dark history.

Prince Harry, duke of Clarence, Earl of Ross, Baron (insert northern Irish or possibly welsh title here) good suggestion.

As for any others, pretty sure we can rule out any titles used in other forms. Like Exeter for instance.

[Curryong]

Yes, but Clarence seems to have had more than most. At least Sussex has had only one recipient, who died in his old age.

[Countessmeout]

Originally Posted by Curryong

Yes, but Clarence seems to have had more than most. At least Sussex has had only one recipient, who died in his old age.

Yeah, other then his issues with marrying inappropriate (by birth) women, the only thing the previous Duke is known for is being the favoured uncle of Victoria.

[MaiaMia_53]

Originally Posted by Vicomte de Valjean

I think that "Duke of Ross" would be a more fitting title for Harry. It has gravitas and hasn't been created since 1514. "Duke of Sussex" sounds boring and doesn't have any history before 1801. "Duke of Albany" is nice too, but it still exists (even if it was suspended and has never been reclaimed).

I think 'Duke of Ross,' 'Duke of Albany,' and even 'Duke of Clarence' (aside from its less than favorable associations), all have a nice ring. However, I do not find 'Duke of Sussex' to be at all boring. Quite the opposite. It sounds like Duke & Duchess of Success! Hmmm, and there's also something of a 'sexy' nature to 'Sussex.' (ETA: Oh, I see that someone already mentioned the obvious. I think Harry is said to have liked the ring of 'Sussex,' but he's also been reported to have said he doesn't want a title). I guess we shall see what happens.

I like 'Duke of Cumberland,' as well but that could be seen as somewhat cumbersome and too similar to Cambridge.

Plus, Countessmeout's reasoning about 'Duke of Ross' being a Scottish title makes sense. As mentioned, Prince Harry could be given 'Ross' as a secondary title, e.g., 'Duke of Sussex, Earl of Ross ... Duchess of Sussex, Countess of Ross...'

Here's a recent article that discusses possible titles of Harry, and his future wife and offspring:
http://www.express.co.uk/news/royal/...ren-engagement
This article seems to assume that 'Sussex' is a frontrunner.

Article on British titles 'order of precedence':
http://www.edwardianpromenade.com/re...of-precedence/

Additional info: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...in_and_Ireland

[Iluvbertie]

Cumberland and Albany are unavailable as there are living claimants to both titles. They were stopped from being used under the Titles Deprivations Act 1917 but future heirs have had the right to petition for them to be restored. While there are living heirs neither can be used.

The last time the Ross title was used it was as an Earldom for Charles I and we all know what happened to him. It is also a title from the peerage of Scotland and so I am not sure if it can be used in the UK - I know that there are still peers who hold their peerage in the peerage of Scotland from before 1701 but I can't find any creation of a peerage that had been in the peerage of Scotland that has been then recreated in the peerage of the UK (no doubt someone will come up with one ... always the way.

[Countessmeout]

Really don't have to look far. To his brother. The Earl of Strathearn was a peerage in Scotland in the thirteen hundreds. Didn't stop it being used now for William. Or the others before him since the Union of thrones.

[MaiaMia_53]

Originally Posted by Iluvbertie

Cumberland and Albany are unavailable as there are living claimants to both titles. They were stopped from being used under the Titles Deprivations Act 1917 but future heirs have had the right to petition for them to be restored. While there are living heirs neither can be used.

The last time the Ross title was used it was as an Earldom for Charles I and we all know what happened to him. It is also a title from the peerage of Scotland and so I am not sure if it can be used in the UK - I know that there are still peers who hold their peerage in the peerage of Scotland from before 1701 but I can't find any creation of a peerage that had been in the peerage of Scotland that has been then recreated in the peerage of the UK (no doubt someone will come up with one ... always the way.

Yes, I linked an article earlier in this thread about the abeyant dukedoms of Cumberland and Albany, so I am aware that those titles have claimants. This happened as a result of Charles Edward Duke of Albany, the son of Queen Victoria's youngest son, Prince Leopold, being stripped of a British peerage due to his German loyalties during WW I. And similarly the Cumberland title belonged to an uncle of Queen Victoria, Ernest Augustus, who was given the responsibility of ruling Hanover when Victoria became Queen of England (because under the misogynistic Salic Law, QV was prevented from ruling Hanover as a female). During WW I, the Cumberland dukedom was deprived of Ernest Augustus' descendant. Today the Cumberland title is potentially available to the current Prince Ernst of Hanover, third husband of Princess Caroline of Monaco.

I suppose there is no urgency felt by HM QE II to either restore these two peerages to the respective German descendants, or to resolve the abeyance status by taking back both titles for British use.

Here's the article in question (written prior to Prince William receiving the Duke of Cambridge title):
A Dukedom for Harry? | Unofficial Royalty

[Dee Anna]

Originally Posted by Spheno

No. Connaught is in Ireland.

It is indeed! and not part of the UK. However, when the title was created all of Ireland was governed by England, until 1922. It took us a while but we got there in the end!

[Spheno]

one more option is Duke of Dorset

[Dee Anna]

Why does a Prince have to wait to marry to be granted a Dukedom? If Harry never married would his potential titles be held back.? Just wondering!

[Molly2101]

Originally Posted by Dee Anna

Why does a Prince have to wait to marry to be granted a Dukedom? If Harry never married would his potential titles be held back.? Just wondering!

It seems to be the tradition of late that the men receive a title upon marriage. If Harry never marries I am not sure what will happen, although I can't see him never marrying.

[Mbruno]

Originally Posted by Vicomte de Valjean

Of course. The only hindrance is the tradition not to make "duplicate" titles (e.g. not to make someone "Duke of Albemarle" if another living person is the Earl of Albemarle).

Duke of Albemarle and Earl of Albemarle are two different titles, so, as it has already been argued by other posters in this forum, there is no impediment to grant Harry a dukedom that has the same territorial designation of another existing earldoms. Some posters previously provided examples where that situation exists in practice in the peerage.

[Curryong]

The Queen has certainly given Dukedoms (and an earldom) to her sons and grandson on marriage, but that didn't happen in previous reigns. King George V gave all his sons Dukedoms, for instance, unconnected to their marital status (they were all bachelors at the time.)

I can't imagine that, when Charles becomes King and a bachelor Harry would no longer be 'of Wales,' that Charles would not give him a dukedom. However, I don't think that will be necessary. I can see Harry marrying in the next year or so, anyway.

[Vicomte de Valjean]

Originally Posted by Spheno

one more option is Duke of Dorset

I have no idea why a "Dorset" title hasn't been taken by anyone (royal or aristocrat) since the Dukedom and Earldom of Dorset went extinct in 1843. It's a fairly attractive and prestigious title.

Originally Posted by Mbruno

Duke of Albemarle and Earl of Albemarle are two different titles, so, as it has already been argued by other posters in this forum, there is no impediment to grant Harry a dukedom that has the same territorial designation of another existing earldoms. Some posters previously provided examples where that situation exists in practice in the peerage.

It's possible but very unlikely. "Vacant" designations are usually preferred but when they're "duplicated," title designations are usually changed in some grotesque way (e.g. "Earl of Buckinghamshire"). In addition, Albemarle is unlikely used in a title again if the current Earldom of Albemarle goes extinct, given that Albemarle (or Aumale) is in France, since George III officially dropped the British claim to the Kingdom of France in 1801.

[wyevale]

Mr & Mrs Henry Mountbatten-Windsor looks increasingly likely !