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)

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 ;)


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 05:21 AM.

Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2021
Jelsoft Enterprises