Possible Dukedom for Harry and Meghan


If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.

What Dukedom will Prince Harry receive upon marriage?

  • Duke of Clarence

    Votes: 63 25.7%
  • Duke of Sussex

    Votes: 112 45.7%
  • Duke of Kendal

    Votes: 8 3.3%
  • Duke of Ross

    Votes: 8 3.3%
  • Duke of Hereford

    Votes: 6 2.4%
  • Duke of Windsor

    Votes: 13 5.3%
  • Duke of Buckingham

    Votes: 8 3.3%
  • Something 'New' (Please specify)

    Votes: 8 3.3%
  • An Earldom (Please specify)

    Votes: 4 1.6%
  • Nothing - he and Meghan will remain Prince and Princess Henry of Wales

    Votes: 9 3.7%
  • Other (Please specify)

    Votes: 6 2.4%

  • Total voters
    245
Status
Not open for further replies.
The Duke and Duchess of Albany is my current favorite. :flowers: One can live with Sussex but Albany is very classy sounding.
 
I like it too and it's much older than Sussex which wasn't associated with the BRF until 1801 when George III created his son Augustus Duke of Sussex. Albany was used as a ducal title by the Scottish royal family since 1398 and by the English royal family since 1604 when James I/VI gave it to his son Charles.

But because of the legal questions - the Saxe-Coburg-Gothas might have a claim - I don't think it's gonna happen. :sad:
 
The Duke and Duchess of Albany is my current favorite. :flowers: One can live with Sussex but Albany is very classy sounding.

I would pick it too if it were available, but, unfortunately, as we have beeen discussing for the past two pages, it is not.

Personally, I think Parliament should impose a "statute of limitations" on claims under the Titles Deprivation Act. Never mind whether the Saxe-Coburg descendants are legitimate or not under British law; if a claim in a specific context like that has not been made in 100 years or so, the right to petition should expire.
 
Last edited:
I would pick it too if it were available, but, unfortunately, as we have beeen discussing for the past two pages, it is not.

Personally, I think Parliament should impose a "statute of limitations" on claims under the Titles Deprivation Act. Never mind whether the Saxe-Coburg descendants are legitimate or not under British law; if a claim in a specific context like that has not been made in 100 years or so, the right to petition should expire.

That would be a very sensible solution.
 
I would hope that the British Parliament would have more important matters to attend to than passing legislature that would allow for a handful of titles to be used again, particularly given as hereditary titles are only granted to male members of the BRF.
 
I would hope that the British Parliament would have more important matters to attend to than passing legislature that would allow for a handful of titles to be used again, particularly given as hereditary titles are only granted to male members of the BRF.

They don't have to do that only for the Titles Deprivation Act specifically. In the past, the UK parliament used, from time to time, to pass "Statute Law Revision Acts" where a whole bunch of statutory laws that had become obsolete or unnecessary were repealed in bloc. Section 2 of the British North America Act, 1867 (now the Constitution Act, 1867) for example was repealed by one such act in 1893 (that was the section that said that the provisions of the BNA referring to HM The Queen also extended to Queen Victoria's heirs and successors in the United Kingdom).
 
Last edited:
Granting hereditary titles to males is the practice now but in the future that could change. It would seem odd if a younger son was given a title while his older sisters who preceded him in the succession weren't.

But it's also possible royal titles will be granted for life only (not hereditary). And of course it's also possible they won't be granted at all.
 
Still hoping for Clarence!!!


LaRae
 
Still hoping for Clarence!!!


LaRae


I also hope theys will use Clarence. It is much older and historic than Sussex. Of course there are Title Holders who don't have the best reputation but that was long ago and is is also the case with Gloucester and George V. choose it anyway for one of his sons. I found it always strange that he did not choose the Dukedom of his late older brother who was also the fiancee of Queen Mary for one of his sons.
 
Last edited:
I think most all of the existing options have had former holders with not so savory reputations so not sure I'd use that to determine what title to use! But no one is asking me either LOL

Seems like Bertie or someone here pointed out a couple months ago that Clarence (along with Cambridge) were part of the same region or territory or something, historically speaking.


LaRae
 
I also hope theys will use Calrece. It is muc older and historic than Sussex. Of course there are Title Holders who don't have the best rreputation but that was long ago and is is also the case with Gloucester and George V. choose it anyway for one of his sons. I found it always strange that he did not choose the Dukedom of his late older brother who was also the fiancee of Queen Mary for one of his sons.

I'm guessing his older brother was still a painful memory & King George couldn't bring himself to see another person with the title. Giving it to a son would result in all sorts of newspaper articles about previous holders, including Eddy. But that's only my guess.
 
This is a re-post of my prediction back in December and now that we are less than 3 weeks away from the wedding, I thought this was a good time to reintroduce my theory.


First, let me say it is strongly believed that Prince Harry and Meghan Markel will be granted the titles of Duke and Duchess of Sussex just before their marriage in May. However, I would like to make the case that the Duke of Clarence should be strongly considered and is my personal preference.

Royal Dukedoms have generally followed one of two patterns:

1) From the "original list of 5" dukedoms established by King Edward III; Cornwall, Clarence, Lancaster, York & Gloucester.

2) Dukedoms or Earldoms from the geographic names of the Heptarchy (the 7 Anglo-Saxon Kingdoms of England prior to the unification under King Egbert); Northumbria, Kent, Wessex, Sussex, Essex, East Anglia & Mercia. Two of these larger kingdoms have been broken down into smaller geographic subdivisions. For example, East Anglia now encompasses the titles of Norfolk, Suffolk and Cambridge. Mercia now encompasses Gloucester among others.

When evaluating the "original list of 5" from above, all are in use by a member of the current House of Windsor, except Clarence which is vacant. When evaluating the list from the Heptarchy, nearly all are in use. Kent and Wessex by the House of Windsor, Northumria by the House of Percy, Essex by the House of Capell, East Anglia and its geographic subdivisions are held by the Houses of Howard or Windsor. Mercia, the largest of the former kingdoms, it's geographic subdivisions are already tied up in dukedom or earldom titles, and finally Sussex which is vacant.

At this point, the choice between Clarence and Sussex is a toss-up. Some would (and do) argue that Clarence should not be chosen due to some of the negative character associations connected to this title. However, we have recently learned that Prince Harry and Meghan Markel share common royal ancestry, both descending from Lionel of Antwerp, the 1st Duke of Clarence, the second son of King Edward III (according to American Ancestors by the New England Historic Genealogical Society) View this link https://www.americanancestors.org/up...rkle-chart.pdf This shared common ancestry back to the original Duke of Clarence would seem to make this a very logical choice? In addition, Prince William Henry of Wales was Duke of Clarence before he became King William IV so there are some very positive traits associated with the title as well. For those that still argue against the title of Clarence, I would suggest, what better couple could change the perception of the Clarence title in a more positive light than Prince Harry and Meghan?

As mentioned above, I do believe Sussex is going to be the more likely choice, however, there is an opportunity for the House of Windsor to grant and hold the final title from the “original list of 5” all within the current royal family.

We now wait and see.
 
I’m really hoping it’s not Sussex, just because everyone is taking it for granted that it will be Sussex.
I’m contrary that way:ROFLMAO:
 
Last edited:
I’m really hoping it’s not Sussex, just because everyone is taking it for granted that it will be Sussex. I’m contrary that way. 🤣

Not only you but Harry! ;) He likes to do the unexpected, so we shall see!
 
Thank you! I was trying to remember this post the other day! Makes perfect sense. And you will have the Wales branch of the family with all the 'C' dukedoms - Cornwall, Cambridge and Clarence.

Can you all imagine....Camilla, Kate and Meghan on an engagement together.....the Duchesses of Cornwall, Cambridge and Clarence. Nice ring to it.
 
Last edited:
This is a re-post of my prediction back in December and now that we are less than 3 weeks away from the wedding, I thought this was a good time to reintroduce my theory.


First, let me say it is strongly believed that Prince Harry and Meghan Markel will be granted the titles of Duke and Duchess of Sussex just before their marriage in May. However, I would like to make the case that the Duke of Clarence should be strongly considered and is my personal preference.

Royal Dukedoms have generally followed one of two patterns:

1) From the "original list of 5" dukedoms established by King Edward III; Cornwall, Clarence, Lancaster, York & Gloucester.

2) Dukedoms or Earldoms from the geographic names of the Heptarchy (the 7 Anglo-Saxon Kingdoms of England prior to the unification under King Egbert); Northumbria, Kent, Wessex, Sussex, Essex, East Anglia & Mercia. Two of these larger kingdoms have been broken down into smaller geographic subdivisions. For example, East Anglia now encompasses the titles of Norfolk, Suffolk and Cambridge. Mercia now encompasses Gloucester among others.

When evaluating the "original list of 5" from above, all are in use by a member of the current House of Windsor, except Clarence which is vacant. When evaluating the list from the Heptarchy, nearly all are in use. Kent and Wessex by the House of Windsor, Northumria by the House of Percy, Essex by the House of Capell, East Anglia and its geographic subdivisions are held by the Houses of Howard or Windsor. Mercia, the largest of the former kingdoms, it's geographic subdivisions are already tied up in dukedom or earldom titles, and finally Sussex which is vacant.

At this point, the choice between Clarence and Sussex is a toss-up. Some would (and do) argue that Clarence should not be chosen due to some of the negative character associations connected to this title. However, we have recently learned that Prince Harry and Meghan Markel share common royal ancestry, both descending from Lionel of Antwerp, the 1st Duke of Clarence, the second son of King Edward III (according to American Ancestors by the New England Historic Genealogical Society) View this link https://www.americanancestors.org/up...rkle-chart.pdf This shared common ancestry back to the original Duke of Clarence would seem to make this a very logical choice? In addition, Prince William Henry of Wales was Duke of Clarence before he became King William IV so there are some very positive traits associated with the title as well. For those that still argue against the title of Clarence, I would suggest, what better couple could change the perception of the Clarence title in a more positive light than Prince Harry and Meghan?

As mentioned above, I do believe Sussex is going to be the more likely choice, however, there is an opportunity for the House of Windsor to grant and hold the final title from the “original list of 5” all within the current royal family.

We now wait and see.


Can I 'steal' this for a conversation elsewhere?


LaRae
 
I like Clarence too and agree it shouldn't be eliminated due do any previous associations. As cmsteepy points out it's one of the original ducal titles and has been associated with the Royal Family since the 14th century. Sussex didn't become a royal title until 1801.

One possible reason why Clarence might not be an option: Queen Victoria's son Leopold was created Duke of Albany, Earl of Clarence, and Baron Arklow in 1881. That's why the Queen gave her grandson Albert Victor a double title - Duke of Clarence and Avondale - when he was made a duke in 1890. It was considered necessary to avoid having both a Duke of Clarence and an Earl of Clarence.

As discussed earlier, Leopold's son Charles Edward, the 2nd Duke of Albany (and Earl of Clarence) lost his British titles due to the Titles Deprivation Act but his descendants may have the right to request a reinstatement. I don't think this would ever happen, but it's the reason Albany will probably be off-limits for Harry, and possibly Clarence too.
 
I like Clarence too and agree it shouldn't be eliminated due do any previous associations. As cmsteepy points out it's one of the original ducal titles and has been associated with the Royal Family since the 14th century. Sussex didn't become a royal title until 1801.

One possible reason why Clarence might not be an option: Queen Victoria's son Leopold was created Duke of Albany, Earl of Clarence, and Baron Arklow in 1881. That's why the Queen gave her grandson Albert Victor a double title - Duke of Clarence and Avondale - when he was made a duke in 1890. It was considered necessary to avoid having both a Duke of Clarence and an Earl of Clarence.

As discussed earlier, Leopold's son Charles Edward, the 2nd Duke of Albany (and Earl of Clarence) lost his British titles due to the Titles Deprivation Act but his descendants may have the right to request a reinstatement. I don't think this would ever happen, but it's the reason Albany will probably be off-limits for Harry, and possibly Clarence too.

I don’t see a problem with a dukedom and an earldom sharing the same territorial designation. There are other examples like that in the British peerage.

Also, double territorial designations for royal peerages ( like Cletence and Avondale ) were not unusual in the Victorian and Edwardian ages. The Duke of Connaught for example was also Duke of Strathearn, and there is also an earldom of Strathearn now held by Prince William BTW.
 
I would pick it too if it were available, but, unfortunately, as we have beeen discussing for the past two pages, it is not.

Personally, I think Parliament should impose a "statute of limitations" on claims under the Titles Deprivation Act. Never mind whether the Saxe-Coburg descendants are legitimate or not under British law; if a claim in a specific context like that has not been made in 100 years or so, the right to petition should expire.
Plus they are Germans and Germany does not recognize titles, not even foreign ones as a means to make a difference to "normal" citizens. So why should anyone apply to get a title they have no use of, because AFAIK Britain does not recognize noble titles when the holder is not British. Or do they?
 
Plus they are Germans and Germany does not recognize titles, not even foreign ones as a means to make a difference to "normal" citizens. So why should anyone apply to get a title they have no use of, because AFAIK Britain does not recognize noble titles when the holder is not British. Or do they?

The UK does not incorporate foreign titles as Belgium or the Netherlands do, but. a non-UK citizen can hold a British peerage.. There are a few Americans for example who have peerages even though the US properly does not recognize titles of nobility.
 
Last edited:
It was seen as a problem when Albert Victor was created a Duke, hence the double title:

"The Dukedom of Avondale, a Scottish title held by George II before he became Prince of Wales, had been added on the advice of the Garter King-of-Arms because the Earldom of Clarence was already a subsidiary title of the Duke of Albany."

Source: James Pope-Hennessy, Queen Mary, 1867-1953 (George Allen and Unwin, 1959), p. 194.

British peers do not share the same territorial designation. When the former Edward VIII was created Duke of Windsor, the Earl of Plymouth already held the subsidiary title Viscount Windsor but that was based on a family surname (Windsor), not a territorial designation.

Prince William was able to become Earl of Strathearn because the last Duke of Connaught and Strathearn died in 1943. Otherwise that territorial designation would have been off-limits.

Given the dearth of available titles with royal associations the Queen might be more flexible when it comes to suspended subsidiary titles. I'd rather see the Queen reuse Clarence for Harry than come up with a "new" title like Wessex. I also agree with other forum members: with the media already assuming Harry will get Sussex, it would be funny to see the Queen tweak their noses by giving him Clarence instead. 😄
 
Last edited:
Where does the media come up with this anyway? Do they think Sussex the only title available?


LaRae
 
Where does the media come up with this anyway? Do they think Sussex the only title available?


LaRae

Maybe they're doing the same speculation we are and thinking it's the only good one left?

I'm still hoping really hard for Clarence.

Will Harry get any other titles other than Duke? Like Count, etc.?
 
Maybe they're doing the same speculation we are and thinking it's the only good one left?

I'm still hoping really hard for Clarence.

Will Harry get any other titles other than Duke? Like Count, etc.?

Likely also an earldom and barony.
 
Like Count, etc.?

There are no 'Counts' in Britain, the anglicised version of that rank is Earl [illustrated by the fact that an Earls wife is a Countess...]
Harry will get an Earldom, and barony too.. the first so his potential eldest Son has a title to use, and the second so his eldest Grandson does too.
 
Maybe they're doing the same speculation we are and thinking it's the only good one left?

I'm still hoping really hard for Clarence.

Will Harry get any other titles other than Duke? Like Count, etc.?


Me too...been a fan for Clarence since day one...and even more when I read about the history posted above (previous page)!

Yes he could get other titles as well.


LaRae
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom