The Royal Forums

The Royal Forums (https://www.theroyalforums.com/forums/)
-   The Duke and Duchess of Sussex and Family (https://www.theroyalforums.com/forums/f34/)
-   -   Possible Dukedom for Harry and Meghan (https://www.theroyalforums.com/forums/f34/possible-dukedom-for-harry-and-meghan-43903.html)

JessRulz 11-24-2017 03:44 AM

Possible Dukedom for Harry and Meghan
 
It is likely that Queen Elizabeth will bestow Prince Harry a Dukedom upon his marriage next year.

What do you think it will be?
Happy guessing!

***

Telimena 11-27-2017 08:00 AM

Will she be Rachel or Meghan?

Pranter 11-27-2017 08:05 AM

I would think, in formal situations they will use both her names.


LaRae

An Ard Ri 11-27-2017 08:24 AM

There are quite a few extinct dukedoms ,though these 5 are my favourites,I guess we won't know until the day of the wedding as with William/Kate.

Duke of Exeter
Duke of Buckingham
Duke of Suffolk
Duke of Surrey
Duke of Clarence

Curryong 11-27-2017 08:26 AM

Please not Clarence! Such a sad history. I do like Sussex.

Furienna 11-27-2017 08:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Curryong (Post 2041351)
Please not Clarence! Such a sad history. I do like Sussex.

Yes, me too.

Molly2101 11-27-2017 08:35 AM

I have a feeling it will be Duke of Sussex, which I am not a big fan of due to the similarity to Wessex, but I guess the Wessex couple will be the Duke and Duchess of Edinburgh in the next 10 years anyway.

I like the sound of Clarence but the history attached to it isn't great.

jacqui24 11-27-2017 09:05 AM

I like Clearance better. I know some are wary of the bad history, but it’s time to make new memories.

Pranter 11-27-2017 09:08 AM

Most all of the titles have some bad history. Doesn't matter really. I just hope it's not one that ends in 'ex'.



LaRae

Andy T 11-27-2017 09:11 AM

Duke of Sussex and Ross would be my guess.

Unlike William, whose Cambridge title will be supplemented by the titles of Duke of Cornwall, Duke of Rothesay and Prince of Wales in due course (in the normal scheme of things), what Harry gets now will be what he'll keep for life. Given the divisions within the UK, I imagine he'll get both an English and a Scottish dukedom/ or at least a Scottish earldom (plus a minor Northern Irish title).

If it's not Sussex, I'd say Clarence is most likely.

Somebody 11-27-2017 09:57 AM

His uncles didn't get two dukedoms (Edward in fact is still waiting for his); so I don't see why Harry would get them. Most likely he will get three titles just like his brother and uncle Andrew of which one will be a dukedom.

princess carmen 11-27-2017 11:25 AM

Someone correct me if i'm wrong, but didn't Edward turn down a dukedom in favor of being an Earl.

wyevale 11-27-2017 11:33 AM

My money's on Sussex...

O-H Anglophile 11-27-2017 11:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by princess carmen (Post 2041595)
Someone correct me if i'm wrong, but didn't Edward turn down a dukedom in favor of being an Earl.

Edward didn't turn down a dukedom. The plan is when the Duke of Edinburgh title merges back into the Crown (when Philip passes), the title will be recreated and given to Edward. This was announced at the time of his wedding

Rudolph 11-27-2017 11:49 AM

When Philip dies Charles inherits the dukedom. It’s only when Charles becomes king does it merge with Crown

jacqui24 11-27-2017 11:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rudolph (Post 2041619)
When Philip dies Charles inherits the dukedom. It’s only when Charles becomes king does it merge with Crown

Can Charles renounce the title and have it become available? Of course, I don't think the decision has been made as it's fluid situation depending on what happens.

Ish 11-27-2017 11:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jacqui24 (Post 2041622)
Can Charles renounce the title and have it become available? Of course, I don't think the decision has been made as it's fluid situation depending on what happens.



No. If Charles renounced it, it would simply be not used by anyone until Charles dies (or becomes King and it’s merged with the crown).

Even if Charles could renounce it, Edward is not the next in the succession to it; the succession to the DoE is Charles, William, George, Harry, Andrew, then Edward.

Biri 11-27-2017 12:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Curryong (Post 2041351)
Please not Clarence! Such a sad history. I do like Sussex.

Why sad story? I suppose there were many Dukes of Clarence, what happened to them?

wyevale 11-27-2017 12:11 PM

The title was first granted to Lionel of Antwerp, the second son of King Edward III, in 1362. Since he died without sons, the title became extinct. The title was again created in favour of Thomas of Lancaster, the second son of King Henry IV, in 1412. Upon his death, too, the title became extinct. The last creation in the Peerage of England was for George Plantagenet, brother of King Edward IV, in 1461. The Duke forfeited his title in 1478, after he had been convicted of treason against his brother. He allegedly met his end (according to William Shakespeare) by being drowned in a butt of Malmsey.

A fourth creation in England was suggested and planned to take effect; the title of Duke of Clarence was going to be given to Lord Guilford Dudley, husband of Lady Jane Grey, upon her coronation, as she declined to make her husband king consort. However, she was deposed and executed before this could take effect.

Two double dukedoms, of Clarence and St Andrews and of Clarence and Avondale, were later created for British royal princes. The title also took the form of an earldom for Queen Victoria's son Prince Leopold, Duke of Albany, and his son Prince Charles Edward, the Clarence earldom being a subsidiary title. Prince Leopold died of Haemophilia aged 30, and Charles Edward was deprived of his English Titles in 1917, as a result of WW1.

NOT a happy tale..

O-H Anglophile 11-27-2017 12:12 PM

I don't know the terms upon which Philip was created Duke of Edinburgh but is it possible it is not inheritable and ends with his death and therefore Her Majesty can recreate it for Edward at that time?
Because the stories have been fairly clear than Edward will be made Duke of Edinburgh when his father passes.


Anyway, that is off topic from Harry's future title. Sussex seems to be the front runner.

Rudolph 11-27-2017 12:15 PM

Philip’s dukedom has the standard remainder of ‘heirs male’

Succession is Charles, William, George, Harry, Andrew then Edward

Ish 11-27-2017 12:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by O-H Anglophile (Post 2041651)
I don't know the terms upon which Philip was created Duke of Edinburgh but is it possible it is not inheritable and ends with his death and therefore her Majesty can recreate it for Edward at that time?
Because the stories have been fairly clear than Edward will be made Duke of Edinburgh when his father passes.


Anyway, that is off topic from Harry's future title. Sussex seems to be the front runner.



This has been discussed extensively on TRF and has its own thread: https://www.theroyalforums.com/forums...tle-24343.html

The short is: when the DoE dies his title will be inherited by Charles.

When Charles is King, the title will merge with the Crown.

When the title is merged with the Crown, it is intended that Charles will create Edward Duke of Edinburgh.

The stories that are fairly clear on anything other than that timeline of events are wrong about how things work.

Somebody 11-27-2017 12:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ish (Post 2041658)
This has been discussed extensively on TRF and has its own thread: https://www.theroyalforums.com/forums...tle-24343.html

The short is: when the DoE dies his title will be inherited by Charles.

When Charles is King, the title will merge with the Crown.

When the title is merged with the Crown, it is intended that Charles will create Edward Duke of Edinburgh.

The stories that are fairly clear on anything other than that timeline of events are wrong about how things work.

The above presumes that the duke predeceases his wife. If it is the other way around, the title will merge directly with the Crown (assuming that Charles, William and/or George are alive at that point in time). However, all of that is indeed extensively discussed in the above mentioned topic.

Isabella E. 11-27-2017 01:01 PM

I have a feeling that it might be Clarence. Something to do with his father's official London home, or the fact that it is close to my last name, Klaren, lol! Whatever it is, I'm sure it will be old and honored, and suit Harry down to the ground.

loonytick 11-27-2017 01:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by wyevale (Post 2041650)
The title was first granted to Lionel of Antwerp, the second son of King Edward III, in 1362. Since he died without sons, the title became extinct. The title was again created in favour of Thomas of Lancaster, the second son of King Henry IV, in 1412. Upon his death, too, the title became extinct. The last creation in the Peerage of England was for George Plantagenet, brother of King Edward IV, in 1461. The Duke forfeited his title in 1478, after he had been convicted of treason against his brother. He allegedly met his end (according to William Shakespeare) by being drowned in a butt of Malmsey.

A fourth creation in England was suggested and planned to take effect; the title of Duke of Clarence was going to be given to Lord Guilford Dudley, husband of Lady Jane Grey, upon her coronation, as she declined to make her husband king consort. However, she was deposed and executed before this could take effect.

Two double dukedoms, of Clarence and St Andrews and of Clarence and Avondale, were later created for British royal princes. The title also took the form of an earldom for Queen Victoria's son Prince Leopold, Duke of Albany, and his son Prince Charles Edward, the Clarence earldom being a subsidiary title. Prince Leopold died of Haemophilia aged 30, and Charles Edward was deprived of his English Titles in 1917, as a result of WW1.

NOT a happy tale..

:previous:

To further clarify, for those who don't know the story, Prince Charles Edward became the reigning Duke of the house of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha when he was just 16. At Kaiser Wilhelm's urging, he left Britain for Germany in 1900. When WWI erupted, he had a chance to choose his side and he chose Germany, even serving briefly in the military during the war. He abdicated his British titles at that time. Later on, he was deposed as Duke, too. He joined the Nazi party rather early on, before they took power, and eventually represented Hitler on visits to the UK and the US.

Between him and the previous Dukes of Clarence, that title has gained a pretty thorough association with treason/turning one's back on the UK, to the point that choosing to create it again would invite questions of whether the decision to opt for "Clarence" were some kind of negative commentary on the recipient.

Mbruno 11-27-2017 01:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by princess carmen (Post 2041595)
Someone correct me if i'm wrong, but didn't Edward turn down a dukedom in favor of being an Earl.

It was decided that, if Charles inherits the title of Duke of Edinburgh from his father and the title merges into the Crown when Charles becomes king, then the title will be re-created for Edward. So, with high probability, Edward will become the next Duke of Edinburgh eventually, while simultaneously retaining his current title of Earl of Wessex.

Buckeye Royal Fan 11-27-2017 01:14 PM

Charles Edward, Duke of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha
 
was the Duke of Albany in the UK peerage, not the Duke of Clarence. He was the posthumous son of Queen Victoria's youngest son, Prince Leopold. The last Duke of Clarence was Prince Albert Victor, oldest child of Edward VII and Alexandra of Denmark. He died unmarried and without heirs in 1892.

loonytick 11-27-2017 01:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Buckeye Royal Fan (Post 2041712)
was the Duke of Albany in the UK peerage, not the Duke of Clarence. He was the posthumous son of Queen Victoria's youngest son, Prince Leopold. The last Duke of Clarence was Prince Albert Victor, oldest child of Edward VII and Alexandra of Denmark. He died unmarried and without heirs in 1892.

Duke of Albany, yes, but also Earl of Clarence

Leopoldine 11-27-2017 01:56 PM

The title "Duchess of Sussex" does not really roll off the tongue.

Princess B 11-27-2017 03:17 PM

Though I don't see it happening, I'd really like a Duke of Windsor. It just sounds so connected to the royal house

O-H Anglophile 11-27-2017 03:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Princess B (Post 2041857)
Though I don't see it happening, I'd really like a Duke of Windsor. It just sounds so connected to the royal house

It gives me the heebie jeebies. I can't imagine the Queen bestowing it on her grandson.

wyevale 11-27-2017 03:20 PM

Quote:

It just sounds so connected to the royal house
It certainly does.. but [for us] in a BAD WAY.

Andy T 11-27-2017 03:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mbruno (Post 2041708)
It was decided that, if Charles inherits the title of Duke of Edinburgh from his father and the title merges into the Crown when Charles becomes king, then the title will be re-created for Edward. So, with high probability, Edward will become the next Duke of Edinburgh eventually, while simultaneously retaining his current title of Earl of Wessex.

...and if we're going to have an Eddy Edinburgh, then why not a Harry Clarence!

re children, I can't believe the interviewer asked them about starting a family in their engagement interview. They took it with humour and good grace but frankly it's just plain rude and trashy to ask that personal a question to any couple you don't know.

Somebody 11-27-2017 03:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Andy T (Post 2041874)
...and if we're going to have an Eddy Edinburgh, then why not a Harry Clarence!

re children, I can't believe the interviewer asked them about starting a family in their engagement interview. They took it with humour and good grace but frankly it's just plain rude and trashy to ask that personal a question to any couple you don't know.

Nonetheless, it is quite common in royal engagement or wedding interview. And they were quite clear: 'in the near future' - but first need to get married. Let's hope it turns out that way.

Andy T 11-27-2017 03:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Somebody (Post 2041883)
Nonetheless, it is quite common in royal engagement or wedding interview. And they were quite clear: 'in the near future' - but first need to get married. Let's hope it turns out that way.

I'd rather hope that their family plans go as they want. Beyond that, it's none of my business.

Somebody 11-27-2017 03:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Andy T (Post 2041895)
I'd rather hope that their family plans go as they want. Beyond that, it's none of my business.

Yes, of course. I was trying to express that my hope is they will indeed (be able to) have children as that is not a given and because that is clearly what they want; and it was Harry who had the clear timeline in mind with his 'one step at a time' (only the 'in the near future' was a quote, the second part was a summary of what he also implied). Sorry, if I was confusing and you read something else into my statement as I was just wishing them well. I would hope nobody would wish for them not to have children as they are clear about their desire to start a family - but being realistic: it's not guaranteed, so I hope it turns out the way they hope (i.e., 'that way').

So, I think we actually agree :flowers:

Pranter 11-27-2017 04:05 PM

I predict they will have an announcement by the end of2018


LaRae

Andy T 11-27-2017 04:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Somebody (Post 2041906)
Yes, of course. I was trying to express that my hope is they will indeed (be able to) have children as that is not a given and because that is clearly what they want; and it was Harry who had the clear timeline in mind with his 'one step at a time' (only the 'in the near future' was a quote, the second part was a summary of what he also implied). Sorry, if I was confusing and you read something else into my statement as I was just wishing them well. I would hope nobody would wish for them not to have children as they are clear about their desire to start a family - but being realistic: it's not guaranteed, so I hope it turns out the way they hope (i.e., 'that way').

So, I think we actually agree :flowers:

I think we do. :flowers: I always find speculation over babies a bit uncomfortable as it is such a private decision/matter and, as you say, it is not always possible for couples to have children, in which case questions like the one asked in the interview must be extremely painful to endure.

Clearly, I hope they will have the opportunity to decide when the right moment is based on their respective ages, desire to have some child-free-couple time in their relationship and adjustments to a new (and not so run-of-the mill new) life together, given the family in question, the change of country for Meghan and the change in role & lifestyle. I hope the chattering classes let them get on with their lives.

Buckeye Royal Fan 11-27-2017 04:29 PM

Ah yes...
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by loonytick (Post 2041744)
Duke of Albany, yes, but also Earl of Clarence

I forgot that we historically refer to royals by their subsidiary titles.

Hans-Rickard 11-27-2017 04:44 PM

I'm rather hoping for Duke of Clarence than Duke of Sussex.

Or why not Duke of Buckingham ;) Yes i know he would be the first royal to hold that title but whatever. Someone has to be the first ;)

sophie25 11-27-2017 04:47 PM

I was thinking the same thing. Duchess and Sussex tend to run into each other so I hope they get something else.

evolvingdoors 11-27-2017 05:43 PM

He can always get a dukedom in Scotland, i believe there’s a couple of them open, and an earldom in England. Like Edward, when he’ll eventually get the duke of Edinburgh title.

Hans-Rickard 11-27-2017 07:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by evolvingdoors (Post 2042018)
He can always get a dukedom in Scotland, i believe there’s a couple of them open, and an earldom in England. Like Edward, when he’ll eventually get the duke of Edinburgh title.

And like his paternal grandfather Prince Philip who is The Duke of Edinburgh (scottish title), Earl of Merioneth (welch title) and Baron Greenwich (british title).

Duke of Ross is available. Was created twice a long ago for younger sons of the King of Scotland. Though it would feel a little bit strange if Scotland would vote themselves away from UK and both Harry and Edward would be known by Scottish titles.....

AdmirerUS 11-27-2017 08:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sophie25 (Post 2041963)
I was thinking the same thing. Duchess and Sussex tend to run into each other so I hope they get something else.

Same as with Countess and Wessex, and it seems to work.

Somebody 11-27-2017 08:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hans-Rickard (Post 2042100)
And like his paternal grandfather Prince Philip who is The Duke of Edinburgh (scottish title), Earl of Merioneth (welch title) and Baron Greenwich (british title).

Duke of Ross is available. Was created twice a long ago for younger sons of the King of Scotland. Though it would feel a little bit strange if Scotland would vote themselves away from UK and both Harry and Edward would be known by Scottish titles.....

As far as I know both Wales and Scotland are also part of Britain; I am sure you meant to say English title :biggrin:

Westfield Bakery 11-27-2017 09:26 PM

Either Duke of Sussex or Duke of Brandon would be good titles. (Is there a Dukedom of Brandon?)

Nico 11-27-2017 09:35 PM

- Sussex is too easy for a nasty joke
- Clarence sounds nice but bad memories

What about Connaught ?

Princess Larisa 11-27-2017 09:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nico (Post 2042214)
-

What about Connaught ?

Connaught is in Ireland, not the UK.

Nico 11-27-2017 09:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Princess Larisa (Post 2042225)
Connaught is in Ireland, not the UK.

I pretty know that, but it's a royal dukedom available.

O-H Anglophile 11-27-2017 10:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nico (Post 2042237)
I pretty know that, but it's a royal dukedom available.

Not really--the part of Ireland that Connaught is in, is not part of the United Kingdom--it is part of the Republic of Ireland.

Princess Larisa 11-27-2017 10:06 PM

They would never use an Irish place name for a prince of the UK. Even Scotland is not that likely for Harry, even though I wish it was.

Iluvbertie 11-27-2017 10:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nico (Post 2042237)
I pretty know that, but it's a royal dukedom available.

If it was in the six counties yes but not in the republic so Connaught it out due to its geographical location in Eire.

A title in Northern Ireland is possible but not outside the UK itself.

LadyRohan 11-27-2017 10:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Iluvbertie (Post 2042256)
If it was in the six counties yes but not in the republic so Connaught it out due to its geographical location in Eire.

A title in Northern Ireland is possible but not outside the UK itself.

Despite knowing it won't happen, I can't stop hoping the subsidiary titles of royals would include a title in each of the realms, to tie the Royal Family closer to every realm, and not just the U.K.

I must confess, I don't think Sussex is a good choice linguistically, but hopefully, that is not the consideration H.M has on her mind when designating titles :)

O-H Anglophile 11-27-2017 10:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyRohan (Post 2042280)
Despite knowing it won't happen, I can't stop hoping the subsidiary titles of royals would include a title in each of the realms, to tie the Royal Family closer to every realm, and not just the U.K.

I must confess, I don't think Sussex is a good choice linguistically, but hopefully, that is not the consideration H.M has on her mind when designating titles :)

I don't understand "would include a title in each of the realms, to tie the Royal Family closer to every realm, and not just the U.K." What realms?
The United Kingdom is England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. Do you mean you wish they got 4 titles?

Somebody 11-27-2017 10:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by O-H Anglophile (Post 2042284)
I don't understand "would include a title in each of the realms, to tie the Royal Family closer to every realm, and not just the U.K." What realms?
The United Kingdom is England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. Do you mean you wish they got 4 titles?

Maybe all other 'realms' within the Commonwealth of which the Queen is the Head of State - but they would result in quite a list. Three seems fine from a user perspective. That covers three generation; sometimes there is a fourth generation but by the time they come of age most likely the titles have passed down.

Ish 11-27-2017 11:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyRohan (Post 2042280)
Despite knowing it won't happen, I can't stop hoping the subsidiary titles of royals would include a title in each of the realms, to tie the Royal Family closer to every realm, and not just the U.K.

I must confess, I don't think Sussex is a good choice linguistically, but hopefully, that is not the consideration H.M has on her mind when designating titles :)


Most of the other Realms don’t have a title system though, so it wouldn’t really be appropriate. You’re also likely to run into backlash from the more republican Realms (ie Australia, the Bahamas, etc), and even feed into republicanism in the less republican Realms.

Quote:

Originally Posted by O-H Anglophile (Post 2042284)
I don't understand "would include a title in each of the realms, to tie the Royal Family closer to every realm, and not just the U.K." What realms?
The United Kingdom is England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. Do you mean you wish they got 4 titles?

England, Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland are not individual Realms. England (with Wales), Scotland, and Northern Ireland each form a kingdom within the Realm of the United Kingdom. HM is monarch of 16 Realms in total, of which the UK is only one - Canada, Australia, New Zealand, etc, make up the other 15.

O-H Anglophile 11-27-2017 11:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ish (Post 2042317)


England, Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland are not individual Realms. England (with Wales), Scotland, and Northern Ireland each form a kingdom within the Realm of the United Kingdom. HM is monarch of 16 Realms in total, of which the UK is only one - Canada, Australia, New Zealand, etc, make up the other 15.

Thanks for the geographical lesson, but I was trying to get LadyRohan to explain what she meant with her original post--that's why I quoted her in my question to her.;)

Ish 11-27-2017 11:15 PM

Which I explained... you’ve misunderstood what “Realm” means.

O-H Anglophile 11-27-2017 11:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ish (Post 2042327)
Which I explained... you’ve misunderstood what “Realm” means.

Last comment but no I didn't. I was trying to clarify what the original poster meant-you misunderstood what was mine and what I quoted of hers in my question to her. All the realm stuff was originally hers. See quotation marks. I didn't think she actually meant they should get 15 or so titles so...

Lady Nimue 11-27-2017 11:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Somebody (Post 2041906)
Yes, of course. I was trying to express that my hope is they will indeed (be able to) have children as that is not a given and because that is clearly what they want; and it was Harry who had the clear timeline in mind with his 'one step at a time' (only the 'in the near future' was a quote, the second part was a summary of what he also implied). Sorry, if I was confusing and you read something else into my statement as I was just wishing them well. I would hope nobody would wish for them not to have children as they are clear about their desire to start a family - but being realistic: it's not guaranteed, so I hope it turns out the way they hope (i.e., 'that way').

That type of question is a waste of interview time imo, because after all, the answer is a given. :huh: Though Harry made a delightful witticism ('Not currently', or something like that), did I detect a slight annoyance? Slight? Understandable, because as the interviewee one is trapped into giving the rote answer. Annoying. Imagine if the interviewee proclaims 'Heck no, we despise children. They are okay on walk-abouts, but up-close-and-personal, no thank you!' :tongue: Besides, Harry already answered that question years ago. It's on the record, he wants a family. Why ask?


Quote:

Originally Posted by Hans-Rickard (Post 2041958)
I'm rather hoping for Duke of Clarence than Duke of Sussex.

Or why not Duke of Buckingham ;) Yes i know he would be the first royal to hold that title but whatever. Someone has to be the first ;)

I am starting to agree about Sussex. I liked it lots once but I'm now wondering if there is something else. However, what would be a real issue (for me) is the fact that the title name becomes the family name (ex: George Cambridge, Louise Wessex). That being the case, Sussex re-enters the list of contenders.

Am I correct that whatever title name then becomes Harry's family name down through the generations of his family? If that is the case, one needs to choose carefully.

Sussex is okay. Buckingham is interesting. Someone mentioned the Duke of Ross. I like that (we were watching Poldark this last weekend). ;)

BTW what were the list of possible names when William got married? Anyone know?

FashionMaven 11-27-2017 11:34 PM

Ya'll I have been trying to say The Duchess of Sussex without tripping over my tongue for 10 minutes now.

Ish 11-27-2017 11:34 PM

Titles and Styles of Harry, his Future Wife and Children
 
Does Louise use “Wessex” or “Windsor” though? James may use “Severn” as a surname, but I suspect Louise simply uses “Windsor” - she isn’t “of Wessex” in any way.

Likewise, what name is used for Harry’s future children’s surnames is going to really depend on who’s reigning when their starting school (and if it’s intended for them to ever be HRH Prince/Princess). They might very well go the Windsor route.

I’d add, Harry’s descendants’ family name is going to be “Mountbatten-Windsor” regardless of what his title is. His male-line grandchildren will all use that, and his children (if born in the Queen’s lifetime) will all be born with that.

HRHHermione 11-27-2017 11:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lady Nimue (Post 2042336)
That type of question is a waste of interview time imo, because after all, the answer is a given. :huh: Though Harry made a delightful witticism ('Not currently', or something like that), did I detect a slight annoyance? Slight? Understandable, because as the interviewee one is trapped into giving the rote answer. Annoying. Imagine if the interviewee proclaims 'Heck no, we despise children. They are okay on walk-abouts, but up-close-and-personal, no thank you!' :tongue: Besides, Harry already answered that question years ago. It's on the record, he wants a family. Why ask?




I am starting to agree about Sussex. I liked it lots once but I'm now wondering if there is something else. However, what would be a real issue (for me) is the fact that the title name becomes the family name (ex: George Cambridge, Louise Wessex). That being the case, Sussex re-enters the list of contenders.

Am I correct that whatever title name then becomes Harry's family name down through the generations of his family? If that is the case, one needs to choose carefully.

Sussex is okay. Buckingham is interesting. Someone mentioned the Duke of Ross. I like that (we were watching Poldark this last weekend). ;)



That's not the case- title will not be the last name for Harry's descendants- (Cambridge and Wessex are used as place holders for those who have titles/courtesy titles. Louise is actually Lady Louise Windsor)

All of Harry's descendants who don't have titles will be Mountbatten-Windsors per the letters patent from 1960.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mountbatten-Windsor

O-H Anglophile 11-27-2017 11:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lady Nimue (Post 2042336)

I am starting to agree about Sussex. I liked it lots once but I'm now wondering if there is something else. However, what would be a real issue (for me) is the fact that the title name becomes the family name (ex: George Cambridge, Louise Wessex). That being the case, Sussex re-enters the list of contenders.

Am I correct that whatever title name then becomes Harry's family name down through the generations of his family? If that is the case, one needs to choose carefully.

Sussex is okay. Buckingham is interesting. Someone mentioned the Duke of Ross. I like that (we were watching Poldark this last weekend). ;)

George is called George Cambridge because he is Prince George. His father's title is just used as his last name just as William and Harry used Wales. But when William filed the lawsuit in France over the long lens photographs of his wife he used William Mountbatten-Windsor.

Louise is not Louise Wessex, she is Lady Louise Mountbatten-Windsor.

Lady Nimue 11-28-2017 12:46 AM

Thank you all for the explanations. :flowers: Not that I understand nor have retained any of it. :tongue: Methinks all this is on the order of that old stand-by, the 'need-to-know'. I don't really need to know all this so it doesn't stick at all. Of course, it could also be mother-brain in operation. Yes. :huh:

sndral 11-28-2017 01:31 AM

What about Exeter, Hereford or Kendal?

Lady Nimue 11-28-2017 01:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sndral (Post 2042429)
What about Exeter, Hereford or Kendal?

Oooh! :flowers: I like Exeter!

Countessmeout 11-28-2017 02:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sndral (Post 2042429)
What about Exeter, Hereford or Kendal?

The only one that is possible really would be Kendal. While not as a duchy, the other two are used currently in other forms.

There is a Marquis of Exeter.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marquess_of_Exeter

And a Viscount Hereford
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viscount_Hereford


I notice that the media is quite sure that it will be Duke of Sussex. With William, there seemed to be three options being suggested. DM has been printing Sussex like its a given.:ermm:

Lady Nimue 11-28-2017 03:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Countessmeout (Post 2042446)
I notice that the media is quite sure that it will be Duke of Sussex. With William, there seemed to be three options being suggested. DM has been printing Sussex like its a given.:ermm:

Do you recall the three? :flowers:

Sunnystar 11-28-2017 03:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lady Nimue (Post 2042474)
Do you recall the three? :flowers:

I know Sussex was, along with Cambridge, two of the three. Can't recall the third.

Iluvbertie 11-28-2017 03:34 AM

The third was Clarence.

Countessmeout 11-28-2017 03:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lady Nimue (Post 2042474)
Do you recall the three? :flowers:

Cambridge (as it had supposedly been considered for Edward), Sussex and Suffolk were the three main ones.

Clarence, Kendal and Connaught all were thrown out there as well.

Lady Nimue 11-28-2017 03:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Countessmeout (Post 2042488)
Cambridge (as it had supposedly been considered for Edward), Sussex and Suffolk were the three main ones.

Clarence, Kendal and Connaught all were thrown out there as well.

Okay, then I've got it! :flowers: Suffolk! Yes! That's the one! Now I can go to bed. All sorted.

P.S. Though I'm getting a sense that maybe Connaught is the one. It has a certain class and uniqueness.

Iluvbertie 11-28-2017 04:08 AM

Connaught isn't possible as it is in the Republic of Ireland and there is no way the Queen (or the PM for that matter) would attempt to create a title that relates to a place in a republic.

Whatever place is chosen it will be in the UK and not outside it.

The Republic of Ireland isn't even in the Commonwealth so it is a real no no.

Countessmeout 11-28-2017 04:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lady Nimue (Post 2042494)
Okay, then I've got it! :flowers: Suffolk! Yes! That's the one! Now I can go to bed. All sorted.

P.S. Though I'm getting a sense that maybe Connaught is the one. It has a certain class and uniqueness.

Connaught wont be used. While it was suggested, it wasn't one that would have been considered. Connaught is part of the Republic of Ireland. Though they often get an Irish title, William's Carrickfergus, the titles come from northern Ireland which is still a realm.

Lady Nimue 11-28-2017 04:10 AM

Is it Harry that will choose from a selection of names given to him by the Queen? Is that how it goes? :ermm:

Osipi 11-28-2017 04:11 AM

Oh! I like Suffolk. It would be especially fitting if Harry and Meghan decide to have a country home near Sandringham as I believe Suffolk is actually in that geographical area.

Lady Nimue 11-28-2017 04:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Osipi (Post 2042507)
Oh! I like Suffolk. It would be especially fitting if Harry and Meghan decide to have a country home near Sandringham as I believe Suffolk is actually in that geographical area.

But I'm wagering that they pick a house in the West Country. :flowers: In the vicinity of Highgrove or thereabouts.

Sunnystar 11-28-2017 04:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lady Nimue (Post 2042511)
But I'm wagering that they pick a house in the West Country. :flowers: In the vicinity of Highgrove or thereabouts.

Same here. But, having said that, I do like Suffolk better than Sussex. I can be on board with TRH The Duke and Duchess of Suffolk!

Countessmeout 11-28-2017 04:22 AM

Fortunately their title is not based on their country residence (no longer the days when you were lord of the land). Neither Andrew or Edward live in York or the area Wessex once was. So I wouldn't rule out Suffolk even if they have a home near high grove.

Quote:

Is it Harry that will choose from a selection of names given to him by the Queen? Is that how it goes?
We have no idea. The decision is made by the queen and announced. If that is made, by her choosing a few and offering Harry a choice, we will never know. What titles are up for consideration is speculation.

evolvingdoors 11-28-2017 04:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sndral (Post 2042429)
What about Exeter, Hereford or Kendal?



Haa! Kendal, that’s the one I was thinking about earlier. Personally I like it better than Sussex, I feel it is a better fit, or Ross. Easy on the tongue.

Osipi 11-28-2017 04:54 AM

I'm weird but the first thing that came to mind for me with Kendal is "Ken Doll".
:eek:

Denville 11-28-2017 04:56 AM

I think it is very likely to be Sussex. There aren't many historical titles left that are not now in use. or in a dispute situation lik Albany. Kendal was used I tink in the time of Charles II. I quite like it....

evolvingdoors 11-28-2017 05:45 AM

This was probably asked but: can a new title be created?
I mean the duke of Windsor title was a brand new when it was created, if I am not mistaken.

JR76 11-28-2017 05:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by evolvingdoors (Post 2042551)
This was probably asked but: can a new title be created?
I mean the duke of Windsor title was a brand new when it was created, if I am not mistaken.

Yes, there's nothing stopping new titles from being created. The Queen could name Harry the Duke of Croydon if she wanted to.

Osipi 11-28-2017 05:53 AM

:previous: Or Hogwarts! :whistling:

Denville 11-28-2017 06:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by evolvingdoors (Post 2042551)
This was probably asked but: can a new title be created?
I mean the duke of Windsor title was a brand new when it was created, if I am not mistaken.

yes it was, but it had a historic connextion, WIndsor Castle etc and its being the name of the Royal house. Its possible I suppose that the queen might give Harry an earldom, and then when Andrew passes away the DUke of York title would be vacant?

evolvingdoors 11-28-2017 06:16 AM

Than perhaps they’ll get a brand new name, or maybe the queen will upgrade an earldom to a dukedom.

wbenson 11-28-2017 06:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Denville (Post 2042557)
Its possible I suppose that the queen might give Harry an earldom, and then when Andrew passes away the DUke of York title would be vacant?

I doubt this would happen. The Duke of York is only 57, compared to the Duke of Edinburgh being 78 in 1999. And given the twelve year age difference between Charles and Andrew, there's a high likelihood that that wouldn't happen until Harry was the second son of the last king, and depending on what happens next spring (or after that?), William might have his own second son.

Andy T 11-28-2017 08:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by wbenson (Post 2042561)
I doubt this would happen. The Duke of York is only 57, compared to the Duke of Edinburgh being 78 in 1999. And given the twelve year age difference between Charles and Andrew, there's a high likelihood that that wouldn't happen until Harry was the second son of the last king, and depending on what happens next spring (or after that?), William might have his own second son.

I agree. York may be next used for a second son of William & Kate, if they have one. Andrew was born in 1960, so he'll be 58 next year. If W&K have a son in 2018, and if that son marries in his mid thirties (he'd be 32 in 2050), Andrew's title may be vacant. He will be in his 90s, if he's still alive.

wyevale 11-28-2017 08:11 AM

Dukes of Chandos [extinct since the 18th century], Ancaster and Kesteven [1809], Portland [1990], Greenwich [1743], Bridgewater [1843], Cumberland [1765], Montagu [1790].

And yes, a new title CAN be created HMQ being 'the fount of Honours'.

Spheno 11-28-2017 08:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lady Nimue (Post 2042494)
Okay, then I've got it! :flowers: Suffolk! Yes! That's the one! Now I can go to bed. All sorted.

P.S. Though I'm getting a sense that maybe Connaught is the one. It has a certain class and uniqueness.

Suffolk is not available: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michae...arl_of_Suffolk

O-H Anglophile 11-28-2017 08:22 AM

All I can think of when I see Ross is Mike Ross, Rachel Zane's (Meghan's character on Suits) love interest.

Biri 11-28-2017 08:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by wyevale (Post 2042597)
Inverness [extinct since 1873]

One of Prince Andrew's titles is Earl of Inverness.

wyevale 11-28-2017 08:37 AM

^ Oops.. amended accordingly !

jacqui24 11-28-2017 09:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Andy T (Post 2042593)
I agree. York may be next used for a second son of William & Kate, if they have one. Andrew was born in 1960, so he'll be 58 next year. If W&K have a son in 2018, and if that son marries in his mid thirties (he'd be 32 in 2050), Andrew's title may be vacant. He will be in his 90s, if he's still alive.

Don’t they usually keep it vacant longer since the York Princess will always be princesses of York during their lifetimes?

Curryong 11-28-2017 09:45 AM

Beatrice and Eugenie will probably be long married by then and using their husbands' titles or terms of address. Only if they remain single will they be 'of York'.

Somebody 11-28-2017 10:20 AM

Just highlighting and editing my previous post about possible titles for Harry:

From my perspective the options (all used as royal dukedom before) are:
* Clarence (with the issues of previous title holders)
* Sussex (the most mentioned but also rather dull option)
* Avondale (Scottish; was used in combination with Clarence but as it was the second title it doesn't have a very clear link to previous holders)
* Kendal (was considered for the husband of Princess Charlotte of Wales; the one who would have been queen instead of Victoria had she not died at a relatively young age)
* Ross (Scottish)

The first two are most likely, however, a surprise would be nice. Personally, I really like 'Duke of Ross' for Harry. It has a nice sound to it and seems to fit his personality (as far as a title fits with specific personalities). Avondale also has a nice ring to it but not necessarily for Harry.

Somebody 11-28-2017 10:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lady Nimue (Post 2042411)
Thank you all for the explanations. :flowers: Not that I understand nor have retained any of it. :tongue: Methinks all this is on the order of that old stand-by, the 'need-to-know'. I don't really need to know all this so it doesn't stick at all. Of course, it could also be mother-brain in operation. Yes. :huh:

Let's imagine that Harry is created Duke of Highgrove, Earl of Balmoral, Baron Enniskillen (to not pick likely contenders) on his wedding day.

During the Queen's reign:
Harry and Meghan will be The Duke and Duchess of Highgrove
As male-line great-grandchildren of the monarch (Elizabeth) their children will not be styled as princess, but as children of a Duke.
So, their eldest son will use Harry's secondary title and will be known as the Earl of Balmoral
Other sons would be: Lord X Mountbatten-Windsor
Daughters would be: Lady X Mountbatten-Windsor

During Charles' reign and afterwards (under the condition that the current Letters' Patent are not somehow changed). Harry and Meghan will remain The Duke and Duchess of Highgrove, but as male-line grandchildren of the (former) monarch (Charles) their children will be styled as princes and princesses 'of Highgrove'.
Harry & Meghan's male-line grandchildren will be male-line great-grandchildren of a monarch (Charles), so the above applies again. The eldest son of their eldest son (the line in which the title will be passed on) will be the Earl of Balmoral - if he would have a son, the eldest son would be known as Baron Enniskillen. All others are Lord/Lady Mountbatten-Windsor. They, however, will never become princes and princesses. Only the title of the heir will change at some point to take over Harry's title as Duke and then the secondary titles also pass down one generation.
H&M's female-line grandchildren will be Miss/Mister 'Surname of their father'.

H&M's eldest son (if they have one) will most likely at some point become HRH The Duke of Highgrove (unless LPs' are changed); his children will be Lord's and Lady's, his male-line grandchildren by his eldest son as well - but by other sons and daughters any grandchildren would just by Miss/Mister Mountbatten-Windsor (for male-line), Surname of their father (for female-line). His eldest son (a great-grandson of Charles) will be known as Earl of Balmoral until he become the Duke of Highgrove - when he takes over the Duke title, he will not be a Royal Highness but a His Grace as the title ceases to be a Royal Dukedom (as we will see in the next decades with the Duke of Kent and Duke of Gloucester titles).

Hmm, don't think it is much clear now, actually. Most important is that:
1) Only children and male-line children of the monarch are prince(ss) with the 'territory' of Harry's Dukedom.
2) Children of titled descendants (who are not prince(sse)s are Lord / Lady Mountbatten-Windsor, except for the direct (male-line heirs) who will use the secondary title(s).
3) The Dukedom ceases to be royal (HRH --> HG; also has implications for order of precedence) when it is passed on to someone who is not a son or a male-line grandson of a monarch.

Lumutqueen 11-28-2017 11:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Osipi (Post 2042536)
I'm weird but the first thing that came to mind for me with Kendal is "Ken Doll".

:eek:



He’d be the Duke of Kendal Mint Cake! Hehehe


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 05:06 AM.

Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2021
Jelsoft Enterprises