Possible Dukedom for Harry and Meghan

[Duc_et_Pair]

Is there a Nottingham Duchy available? I have been following the official KP acct and it keeps stressing how special Nottingham is to Prince Harry. Just wondering...

I have been in Nottingham once. Sorry to say, there are a lot of shockingly Victorian-looking deprived areas in British cities, but Nottingham really is the worst I have seen.

Any image of the Sheriff of Nottingham, Maid Marian and our hero in a green panty is soon in shatters when you enter grim Nottingham on a cold day. Good heavens... But maybe the Duke of Nottingham can "adopt" this deprived area and lift it up.

But to be fair: it is all theatre. The Duke of York does nothing for York. In Cambridge they are laughing their asses off about a Duke whom even did not study there, let alone has ever lived there. So it is all pretty spielerei. The same as the Queen bestowing another Order on her husband, last week. (The reaction was: "Huh, didn't he had that one already then? Always handy when it is the own wifey to grab another medal!")

When The Prince Henry of Wales indeed becomes Duke of Nottingham, I really hope he wants to be a real Nottinghammer and lift the city up in prosperity and development. For an example to live there, to start with. To hold the Invictus Games in "his" city. Etc. But that hope will be in vain: also Harry will parade around in ermine and lift a ducal coronet of a dukedom which means really nothing but just window-dressing, lift a coronet in the air when Charles becomes King and have a fancy title in the State Gazette.

 

[wyevale]

My partner is a Native of Nottingham, and when he took me to see it i was amazed. Like ALL Cities [with an Industrial past], it has suffered and there are pockets of deprivation, but it has many architectural beauties remaining from its extremely prosperous Victorian heyday. As does Roubaix [the most deprived City in France]. HIDEOUS and bleak on a Grey day, but [doubtless] beloved by many.
Nottingham is a vibrant and living place with MUCH to commend it, no matter that it may suit SOME to denigrate it..

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

Sometimes an outsider is needed to open the eyes. (Not that it is needed, Nottingham has been topping the lists of Most Deprived Cities in several investigations, so others share the same view).

When HRH The Prince Henry, The Duke of Nottingham really can make a difference for "his" city and the good people there, he will only rise and rise in my esteem: what a fantastic dude, real balls that man!

But when it is only meant as "Geesh... the boy needs a title, doesn't he?" and he only swipes the floor with his ducal robes and to lift a crown at the Coronation, and has for the rest nothing to do with Nottingham (as Andrew with York) then this is all pure theatre.

If it means nothing more than that, Harry could do another "rebellious" thing: no dukedom please, I am Harry Wales, thanks.

 

[Gaudete]

One could easily apply that argument to the honours system or to the very idea of the Royal Family itself. Does their work really require them to be Princes and Princesses? It may be little more than ceremonial these days for Harry to have a ducal title but when traditions in general are under constant attack, it’s important to hold firm to such things. Otherwise why are we bothering at all?

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

One could easily apply that argument to the honours system or to the very idea of the Royal Family itself. Does their work really require them to be Princes and Princesses? It may be little more than ceremonial these days for Harry to have a ducal title but when traditions in general are under constant attack, it’s important to hold firm to such things. Otherwise why are we bothering at all?

For me your post would be a nice challenge to proof that a dukedom is not a theatre at all. When Harry really becomes the Duke of Nottingham (or Middlesbrough, or Clacton, or whatever) and he shows commitment to "his" Duchy and "his" people, possibly even lives there and be with "his" residents, then he shows that it has a true meaning indeed.

But when he happens to be "Duke of Nottingham" and has as much to do with Nottingham as any average resident of Kensington & Chelsea, then it only stresses the whole emptiness behind the titulature system.

York is such a wonderful city, a great history, a former Royal House was even named York, but let us be honest: has the current Duke of York anything special with that place? He did not even marry in that magnificent York Cathedral. It is the same as William "getting" Cambridge while did not even attend the world's most famous university there.

We will see. "Call us Harry and Meghan, that will do". I would not be surprised if that will become the couple's way of dealing.

 

[Gaudete]

I can see what you’re saying but at the same time, how has the Duke of Rutland benefited the county outside of his estate? How has Lord Bath improved the lives of the people of that city directly? If we require a sort of personal connection then we either need no peers at all or an extra 5,000.Should we abolish the title of the Prince of Wales too?

MPs make changes to every day life. Royalty doesn’t. It supports, it encourages, it inspires. It upholds, it represents, it comforts. But it never makes changes. It can’t unless it becomes a political tool and as soon as it does that, we have no need of it at all.

 

[wyevale]

Duc_et_Pair- You continue to 'harp on' about a connection between an individual/Family and a Title [even between the name of a 'seat' and a Title]. but I repeat [in our history] no link exists, nor has ever existed.
The same as in France... The Orléans, didn't reside in Orléans..but at St-Cloud.

 

[Gaudete]

Being made a royal Duke has more to do with rank and precedence than it does the territorial designation. The “Duke” part is what’s important, not the name of a place. Which is true for any peer come to that.

 

[O-H Anglophile]

When The Prince Henry of Wales indeed becomes Duke of Nottingham, I really hope he wants to be a real Nottinghammer and lift the city up in prosperity and development. For an example to live there, to start with. To hold the Invictus Games in "his" city. Etc. But that hope will be in vain: also Harry will parade around in ermine and lift a ducal coronet of a dukedom which means really nothing but just window-dressing, lift a coronet in the air when Charles becomes King and have a fancy title in the State Gazette.

This is a perfect example of someone who hasn't thought through the ramifications of what they are suggesting. To say the Invictus Games should be held in a place without the necessary infrastructure to hold the events and the attendees is ridiculous. To build all that would be necessary would cost too much and in the long run be detrimental. There is a reason the IG have been held in major cities with the necessary venues already in existence.
Your post is very theatrical but not practical.
Apparently, from what I have been reading, Harry has been working in Nottingham in practical, useful ways already and the people there are benefitting.

 

[Osipi]

Also, to anchor the Invictus Games to one location kind of detracts from the global aspect of the games. It would be like anchoring the Olympics solely to Athens. The round robin of host cities make it special and there is never a set "home" team.

 

[Gaudete]

Ultimately it’s an approach that would lead to the end of political impartiality. What happens if two out of the three MPs of the Duchy oppose Harry’s schemes or priorities? What about the people who live in the Duchy? Do they vote on what Harry does or does not do for them and for the area as a whole? What if Sussex does better than York? Can another member of the Royal Family replace a Duke who isn’t doing his fair share? What responsibilities, duties, rights and obligations does a royal Duke have over his Duchy? What budget? And who decides it all? Does each Duchy have its own constitution?

I cannot see how demanding that a peer (especially a royal one) must dedicate every effort to improving their Duchy would end in anything other than resentment, division and chaos.

 

[Dman]

I’m in major favor of the titles of TRH The Duke and Duchess of Clarence.

 

[lady of hay]

Clarence gets my vote as well.

 

[Pranter]

That's my pick too Dman.


LaRae

 

[Dman]

It’s the pick I had for the Cambridge’s as well. I just think the Duke and Duchess of Clarence have a nice ring to it. Or even the Earl and Countess of Clarence.

 

[Pranter]

I have to say I do like Cambridge. I say keep the C theme going!!! lol


LaRae

 

[lady of hay]

I have to say I do like Cambridge. I say keep the C theme going!!! lol


LaRae

Earl and Countess of Cambridge ??

 

[Pranter]

No I mean we have the Cambridges...now add the Clarences!


LaRae

 

[Dman]

Cambridge fitted very well with William and Catherine. I think Clarence would fit very well with Harry and Meghan. Of course the couple will work with The Queen on their future titles ahead of the wedding.

 

[lady of hay]

No I mean we have the Cambridges...now add the Clarences!


LaRae

That's me being a bit daft .
Might not be the right thread , but what about a coat of arms ? Catherine used her fathers with Williams, I understand.

 

[Pranter]

That's me being a bit daft .
Might not be the right thread , but what about a coat of arms ? Catherine used her fathers with Williams, I understand.

Ha we all have daft moments!

I'm not sure how they will do it...they'd have to create a coat of arms for Meghan. Will be interesting to see what they do.


LaRae

 

[Countessmeout]

I can find no information on any current Earl of Windsor or on one extant during the life of the Duke of that name? Altho' there is a Viscount Windsor, a subsidiary Title of the Earls of Plymouth...

HMQ [as fount of Honours] can create Harry Duke of Nottingham IF she so chooses , but I suspect Lord Nottingham and Winchelsea might be a bit peeved as he is the eighth Earl of that name [in its current creation]!

There is an earl. The Marquess of Bute uses Earl of Windsor as a subsidiary title. The 1st earl of Plymouth had a younger son, Baron Mountjoy. When the Baron's son died, his title was extinct, but his estate was inherited by a daughter. The daughter's husband was made Marquess of Bute, Earl of Windsor in honor of her father's family.

The difference I think is that Windsor was simply a subsidiary title, one already overly used in forms. Creating a Duke of Windsor wouldn't cause much of a stir as the holders of Earl/Viscount Windsor had more senior titles to go by.

Nottingham is another matter as it is the senior title.

There are Earldoms and Dukedoms in existence for the same place. An earldom of Windsor exists - and existed during the life of the Duke of Windsor. The titles of Earl and Duke of Northumberland - and Devonshire - exist and are held by the same person.

There is a reason that Northumberland and Devonshire titles are held by the same person. It happened with other titles along the way as well. Its because an Earl of Northumberland was raised to the peerage of a duke. Instead of simply eliminating his original title, they became Duke of Devonshire, Earl of Devonshire. The current Northumberland line was elevated to Duke in 1766 and have held both since.

Different situation then granting the title to someone unrelated.

 

[jacqui24]

I don’t know why people would still bring the Dukedom of Windsor other than as a sly to the couple. It’s not going to happen.

 

[Countessmeout]

I don’t know why people would still bring the Dukedom of Windsor other than as a sly to the couple. It’s not going to happen.

Exactly. In the lifetime of anyone who knew Edward, the title is not going to be used. And most certainly not for a couple who are already drawing parallels by people to Edward and Wallis. There are too many memories for the queen.

 

[CSENYC]

I vote for "Duke and Duchess of Washington".

Washington, DC WAS a territory ruled by the Royal Family, and nobody is currently claiming the title. Giving a duchy in North America, particularly a place where often-loathed US presidents live, would be a sign of hope for all of us that there is a better way out there.

Washington is an English name, and so it doesn't have to be read as being Washington, DC, although it could be. Even if it is read as being Washington, DC, plenty of European royal titles mention lands that the relevant Royal Family no longer controls.

If certain people in Washington, DC get offended, they should note that giving this title is no more offensive than a powerful American tweeting British fascist websites. It's a fair comeuppance.

 

[lady of hay]

Ha we all have daft moments!

I'm not sure how they will do it...they'd have to create a coat of arms for Meghan. Will be interesting to see what they do.


LaRae

Ha Ha , what people refer to as a Blonde moment ,eek: not even blonde !!
I am interested in what they will do for Meghan's arms.

 

[lady of hay]

I vote for "Duke and Duchess of Washington".

Washington, DC WAS a territory ruled by the Royal Family, and nobody is currently claiming the title. Giving a duchy in North America, particularly a place where often-loathed US presidents live, would be a sign of hope for all of us that there is a better way out there.

Washington is an English name, and so it doesn't have to be read as being Washington, DC, although it could be. Even if it is read as being Washington, DC, plenty of European royal titles mention lands that the relevant Royal Family no longer controls.

I think there is a Washington in County Durham. But it may be part of the Dukedom of Northumberland.

 

[Gaudete]

If I remember correctly, a coat of arms is usually awarded to the father of the bride which the bride then uses as her own. But as the bride’s father is American, it may not be possible for the College of Arms to make a grant to someone who isn’t a British subject. I could be mistaken on this one but whether they can or they can’t, the easiest approach is just to give Meghan a coat of arms in her own right. Which I’m sure they will do if they can’t make a grant to her father.

 

[O-H Anglophile]

I vote for "Duke and Duchess of Washington".

Washington, DC WAS a territory ruled by the Royal Family, and nobody is currently claiming the title. Giving a duchy in North America, particularly a place where often-loathed US presidents live, would be a sign of hope for all of us that there is a better way out there.

Washington is an English name, and so it doesn't have to be read as being Washington, DC, although it could be. Even if it is read as being Washington, DC, plenty of European royal titles mention lands that the relevant Royal Family no longer controls.

If certain people in Washington, DC get offended, they should note that giving this title is no more offensive than a powerful American tweeting British fascist websites. It's a fair comeuppance.

Not gonna happen. It would offend Britain more than the US methinks.

 

[lady of hay]

I can't quite remember the rules . There are things like "Heraldic Heirs" , not that Meghan would be one.
Presumably the Heralds will be doing what some of the media have been doing , and tracing Meghan's descent , so there may be things there they can use . I can't remember just at the moment who it is who gives a "Grant of Arms" , it may be the Queen.