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)

CyrilVladisla 11-29-2017 07:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lady Nimue (Post 2044025)
Oooh! I like Carisbrooke, and Launceston is nice. So many possibilities. :flowers:

Where is Carisbrooke?

O-H Anglophile 11-29-2017 07:02 PM

I'm with jacqui27 and Hans-Rickard with this one. I'll be surprised if Windsor happens.

Biri 11-29-2017 07:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hans-Rickard (Post 2044123)
You said what i thought ;)

A new "Duke of Windsor" won't happen in the reign of Queen Elizabeth II and Harry will not reside at Fort Belvedere for the very same reason. But tbh i don't see anything that would make "Duke of Clarence" a bad option. Most titles carries a "past use" with it and i think it's wrong to disqualify them because of what happened to a Duke of a certain title 200-500 years ago. No one really cares about that.

And George Villiers, 1st Duke of Buckingham (known even from "The Three Musketeers") was MURDERED.

Hans-Rickard 11-29-2017 07:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CyrilVladisla (Post 2044128)
Where is Carisbrooke?

It's a castle and a village on Isle of Wight.

Pranter 11-29-2017 07:18 PM

I don't have a problem if they use Windsor. It's just a name. Same with Clarence. All historic titles have something negative about them.

Fort Belvedere is just a property. The man left England in the late 30's and never lived there again. Almost 80 years ago.

Until they do something to replace the negative (new title holder, new owner etc) it will just keep on with the negative.


LaRae

Somebody 11-29-2017 07:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Skippy (Post 2044101)
That is usually the case with Catholic names. There is a full name and a name by which someone is known. As far as I know, Catholic people (almost) never go by their full name.

Also true, but in your exmple the 'calling name' already exists. While in EllieCat's example the 'calling name' is an abbreviation of the existing name.

Not sure that I understand what you are trying to say. I indeed suggested that a nickname is different from an official 'calling name' (for lack of a better word). Some of the (Catholic) shorter versions of a name are 'existing' names, for example Jan for Johannes or Henk for Hendricus (so would be a 'calling name' if announced at birth). So, I agree that it is important to distinguish between nick names and 'calling names' - which was exactly the point I was trying to make.

Quote:

"Rachel Meghan Markle. We call her Meghan."
Yes indeed, so Meghan is not a nickname but a 'calling name' (which can be the same or different than official names).

Quote:

Laurentien's name is a combination of her father and mother's name - completely made up so no form of anything ;)
Well, it is her official second name! Which she asked people to use at a certain point in time instead of Petra.

Quote:

Princess Christina's former 'calling name' of Marijke was possibly a form of Maria, but she went to use her second name.
Of course it was a variation on Maria - but she never went by 'Maria' as Queen Juliana and Prince Bernhard announced from the start that she would be called Marijke.

Quote:

So here we have three different examples of women who don't use their first name (anymore) :lol:
Of which Meghan is the only consistent one - who never changed her name and still some people seem to expect her to change into 'Rachel' which she never used :whistling:

Moreover, in the past several of the British royals didn't go by their first name but by one of their other names or a derivate of one of their names. Queen Victoria (Alexandrina Victoria) comes to mind as someone who used her second name as her regal name. And her daughter-in-law Queen Mary was officially: Victoria Mary Augusta Louise Olga Pauline Claudine Agnes - and known as May. And her only daughter was also a 'Mary' but officially: Victoria Alexandra Alice Mary. So, Meghan is in good company.

Quote:

But this has gone way off-topic and is not about possible Dukedoms any longer. I suggest we move on from this.
Oops, you're right!

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pranter (Post 2044142)
I don't have a problem if they use Windsor. It's just a name. Same with Clarence. All historic titles have something negative about them.

Fort Belvedere is just a property. The man left England in the late 30's and never lived there again. Almost 80 years ago.

Until they do something to replace the negative (new title holder, new owner etc) it will just keep on with the negative.

LaRae

I don't agree. It makes a huge difference whether that 'negative thing' personally impacted you (=the Queen) enormously or that it is truly something of the past. So, I don't really see a problem with using Clarence, but Windsor is a no-go at least for now (that could change in a few generations).

A complication for the Windsor title (also in the future) might be that it is also the name of the House.

Osipi 11-29-2017 08:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Somebody (Post 2044154)
Of which Meghan is the only consistent one - who never changed her name and still some people seem to expect her to change into 'Rachel' which she never used :whistling:

This isn't entirely true. For seven years, people knew her and identified her as "Rachel Zane" in Suits. All the more reason to skittle away from using Rachel as her given name after marriage. :biggrin:

Somebody 11-29-2017 08:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Osipi (Post 2044164)
This isn't entirely true. For seven years, people knew her and identified her as "Rachel Zane" in Suits. All the more reason to skittle away from using Rachel as her given name after marriage. :biggrin:

Yes, indeed :lol: . On screen she was known as Rachel... in private she wasn't. So, better to keep that distinction.

jacqui24 11-29-2017 08:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hans-Rickard (Post 2044123)
You said what i thought ;)

A new "Duke of Windsor" won't happen in the reign of Queen Elizabeth II and Harry will not reside at Fort Belvedere for the very same reason. But tbh i don't see anything that would make "Duke of Clarence" a bad option. Most titles carries a "past use" with it and i think it's wrong to disqualify them because of what happened to a Duke of a certain title 200-500 years ago. No one really cares about that.

On top of that, I think the problem with Windsor that's different is that King Edward VIII was exiled and given that title AFTER he abdicated. It's one thing when you are given the title as a happy occasion and then things go wrong. It's another when things have gone sour and you are given a lesser title while being sent into exile.

O-H Anglophile 11-29-2017 09:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Somebody (Post 2044166)
Yes, indeed :lol: . On screen she was known as Rachel... in private she wasn't. So, better to keep that distinction.

And Mike Ross was Rachel Zane's boyfriend.;)

jacqui24 11-29-2017 09:16 PM

Emily Andrews tweeted that they've confirmed with KP she'll be known as Meghan.

https://twitter.com/byEmilyAndrews/s...83716677095426

Somebody 11-29-2017 09:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by O-H Anglophile (Post 2044186)
And Mike Ross was Rachel Zane's boyfriend.;)

That's another reason while Duke and Duchess of Ross - although it somehow seems to fit them - won't be used :biggrin:

Suits made it really hard on them, couldn't they have avoided these issues :whistling:

loonytick 11-30-2017 01:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pranter (Post 2044142)
I don't have a problem if they use Windsor. It's just a name. Same with Clarence. All historic titles have something negative about them.

But those two have a lot negative about them, not just a little something.

And they're not "just names." There'd be no point in reusing the same ones again and again if they were. Ever since these titles stopped being associated with specific grants of property, the primary value attached to them is their history. If that weren't the case, the queen would make up a new name every time she granted one.

Even when she decided not to stick to the standard stable of titles for Edward, she used one that had existed before and that had an interesting history. When her uncle abdicated, it was very important to create Windsor from scratch and not squander a historic title on him. Although perhaps Clarence would have been appropriate...but there was a distinct message being sent by giving him a title which was just a repeat of his family name, and it wasn't a friendly or happy message.

I suspect the sound of the word is not the primary reason why the last couple of monarchs have chosen which title to grant their sons and grandsons. Philip, who so treasured his time at Gordonstoun School in Scotland, was given a Scottish title in Duke of Edinburgh. Sophie and Edward, who are said to be history buffs, got a link to the nation's earliest history of nobility in Wessex. There are some parallels between William and a previous Duke of Cambridge (who held that title for years before becoming Prince of Wales and then King George II). If you're looking for a meaningful reason to choose one title over another, Clarence and Windsor both become quite tricky to the point of distasteful.

Leopoldine 11-30-2017 07:24 PM

Loonytick is spot on, especially concerning the Duke of Windsor title.

I read that an important reason for the former King Edward VIII to be given a ducal title and retain his HRH was so that he would not be tempted to run for a seat in the House of Commons.

If I was a savvy young American woman marrying Harry and HM made us the D and Dss of Windsor, I would be very mad. I'd feel cheapened ...sullied. And I'd know right away that they had the lowest expectations of me and I should just call the Fake Sheikh, show him my (insert body part here) and get the whole inevitable downfall over with.

Hans-Rickard 11-30-2017 09:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by loonytick (Post 2044481)
But those two have a lot negative about them, not just a little something.

And they're not "just names." There'd be no point in reusing the same ones again and again if they were. Ever since these titles stopped being associated with specific grants of property, the primary value attached to them is their history. If that weren't the case, the queen would make up a new name every time she granted one.

Even when she decided not to stick to the standard stable of titles for Edward, she used one that had existed before and that had an interesting history. When her uncle abdicated, it was very important to create Windsor from scratch and not squander a historic title on him. Although perhaps Clarence would have been appropriate...but there was a distinct message being sent by giving him a title which was just a repeat of his family name, and it wasn't a friendly or happy message.

I suspect the sound of the word is not the primary reason why the last couple of monarchs have chosen which title to grant their sons and grandsons. Philip, who so treasured his time at Gordonstoun School in Scotland, was given a Scottish title in Duke of Edinburgh. Sophie and Edward, who are said to be history buffs, got a link to the nation's earliest history of nobility in Wessex. There are some parallels between William and a previous Duke of Cambridge (who held that title for years before becoming Prince of Wales and then King George II). If you're looking for a meaningful reason to choose one title over another, Clarence and Windsor both become quite tricky to the point of distasteful.


I don't see any serious problems in creating Harry Duke of Clarence. If we look further back. Lionel of Antwerp (1338-1368) who was the first to be created Duke of Clarence ever died without male issue. Not a scandal. The next one to be created was Thomas of Lancaster (1388-1421) brother of King Henry V. He died in war on the battlefield. Not exactly uncommon during that time. He had no male issue. The 3:rd one to be created Duke of Clarence was George Plantagenet (1449-1478), brother of King Edward IV and Richard III. He was imprisoned in the Tower of London and put on trial for treason against his brother Edward IV. He was convicted and executed. Here is a scandal. He had also murdered. But this is 539 years ago.

And that Queen Victorias uncle King William IV (Duke of Clarence and St Andrews) would die without legitimate heirs or that the eldest son of King Edward VII Prince Albert Victor (Duke of Clarence and Avondale) who was expected to become King would pass away early due to illness isn't something you can predict, nor is it scandalous in any form. And there is no evidence he was Jack The Ripper or involved in the Cleveland Street scandal.....

I don't think this "history" would harm Harry and Meghan in 2018. Most people will call them Prince Harry and Princess Meghan anyway (even though she will likely never be a Princess). The only Duke of Sussex so far, Queen Victoria's uncle Prince Augustus Frederick married twice without consent of the Crown, as required by Royal Marriages Act 1772, thus both his marriages and children was illegitimate. I don't think we should read too much in the titles "past" (except Duke of Windsor). If we really wants to find a scandal, we can find one almost everywhere so there is no idea in searching for the "scandal free title".

Iluvbertie 11-30-2017 09:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hans-Rickard (Post 2044675)
I don't think this "history" would harm Harry and Meghan in 2018. Most people will call them Prince Harry and Princess Meghan anyway (even though she will likely never be a Princess).

Some Americans might call her 'Princess Meghan' because they don't want to learn the British way of doing things.

She will be a Princess the instant she is married to Harry - as the wife of a Prince of the UK she will be a Princess of the UK.

If the Queen doesn't give Harry a peerage then she will be HRH Princess Henry of Wales as soon as they are married and on Charles' accession HRH The Princess Henry. She will always have those titles but if, as we assume, Harry is promoted from commoner to peer of the realm on his wedding day she will use the style associated with being the wife of a peer e.g. Duchess, Countess etc.

Hans-Rickard 11-30-2017 09:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Iluvbertie (Post 2044679)
Americans might call her 'Princess Meghan' because they don't want to learn the British way of doing things.

She will be a Princess the instant she is married to Harry - as the wife of a Prince of the UK she will be a Princess of the UK.

If the Queen doesn't give Harry a peerage then she will be HRH Princess Henry of Wales as soon as they are married and on Charles' accession HRH The Princess Henry. She will always have those titles but if, as we assume, Harry is promoted from commoner to peer of the realm on his wedding day she will use the style associated with being the wife of a peer e.g. Duchess, Countess etc.

True that Harry must be given a title, unless they will be Prince and Princess Henry of Wales (then she will be compared to Princess Michael of Kent :-D hahaha)

Most people outside UK, not only in US, will call her Princess Meghan or just Meghan even if her correct title is H.R.H The Duchess of ...... Like Princess Diana was always Diana or Princess Diana, though her correct title was H.R.H The Princess of Wales. Kate is only called H.R.H The Duchess of Cambridge formally at her work, by the media and by us who are following the reports and has an interest in royal families and monarchy. For the rest, she is just Kate or Princess Kate.

Leopoldine 11-30-2017 09:37 PM

Duke of Clarence sounds sort of desperate. Eddy died yelling Helene's name, and now you want to saddle this engaging young man with such an unappealing back story?

TLLK 11-30-2017 09:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by wyevale (Post 2043960)
If it were [Heaven forfend] we'd likely end up with Dukey McDukeface...

:lol::lol::lol:

Pranter 11-30-2017 09:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Leopoldine (Post 2044688)
Duke of Clarence sounds sort of desperate. Eddy died yelling Helene's name, and now you want to saddle this engaging young man with such an unappealing back story?

They all have unappealing back stories. Especially the older titles.


LaRae


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 04:57 AM.

Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2021
Jelsoft Enterprises