Possible Dukedom for Harry and Meghan

[Tatiana Maria]

Are there any front runners for the earldom and barony that Prince Harry will probably receive?

Some of the heirs are quite young.

Like I said, the queen may just want to avoid a whole mess. There would be constant talk and possible controversy if she grants that title. Why would she want to pile that on her grandson? While the title has a nice sound, its not the only title out there. And not the only one with historical importance left.

I agree that, for the reasons you gave, the queen will avoid conferring the Dukedom of Albany on Prince Harry, but for the same reasons, the German relatives will likewise avoid pursuing a claim. Since it is not clear if they are legitimate (in the United Kingdom), they also would be confronted with a controversial legal mess if they attempted to claim the title. In any event, I'm not sure German citizens would even be aware that the Titles Deprivation Act allows British titles to be reclaimed.

 

[An Ard Ri]

Do we know when his title will be announced can't remember if Williams was announced the day before or morning of wedding?

 

[O-H Anglophile]

Do we know when his title will be announced can't remember if Williams was announced the day before or morning of wedding?

The morning of the wedding.

 

[Mbruno]

I voted for Duke of Sussex simply because I don't expect Harry to be created an Earl. The latter would have my preference.

It could create precedence. The Monarch could create the Heir to the Throne (or his/her Heir) Duke upon his marriage (or possible Duchess for a female Heiress to the Throne) and the other children (only sons, or possibly sons and daughters) of the Monarch and the Heir to the Monarch can be created Earl (or Countess) upon marriage.

The heir to the throne is already automatically a duke (the Duke of Cornwall) and is often also the Prince of Wales. The innovation would be a female heiress becoming also Princess of Wales and Duchess of Cornwall, in line with the titles for example of Princess of Asturias in Spain and now Princess of Orange in the Netherlands.

As I stated before, my personal preference is to do away with royal dukedoms rather than extending them to princesses too in the name of gender equality. The heir could have a special title such as Prince/Princess of Wales and all other members of the Royal House (i.e. HRHs) should be just "Prince/Princess xxx of the United Kingdom". If they want to keep royal dukedoms, make them personal, life peerages, and not hereditary peerages as they are today.

 

[Gawin]

The heir to the throne is already automatically a duke (the Duke of Cornwall) and is often also the Prince of Wales. The innovation would be a female heiress becoming also Princess of Wales and Duchess of Cornwall, in line with the titles for example of Princess of Asturias in Spain and now Princess of Orange in the Netherlands.

As I stated before, my personal preference is to do away with royal dukedoms rather than extending them to princesses too in the name of gender equality. The heir could have a special title such as Prince/Princess of Wales and all other members of the Royal House (i.e. HRHs) should be just "Prince/Princess xxx of the United Kingdom". If they want to keep royal dukedoms, make them personal, life peerages, and not hereditary peerages as they are today.

That would also be my preference. I think sons and daughters should be treated alike and there's already a shortage of titles for sons, let alone for daughters. So either do away with titles completely or make grant them for life only, so eventually they revert back to the Crown and can be used again.

Veering OT a bit, while the son and heir automatically becomes Duke of Cornwall, legislation would be required to allow a daughter and heir to become Duchess since the original charter restricts the title to sons. Just as Andrew's, William's, and Edward's titles are restricted to sons and Harry's probably will be too.

A Charter of 1337

 

[O-H Anglophile]

That would also be my preference. I think sons and daughters should be treated alike and there's already a shortage of titles for sons, let alone for daughters. So either do away with titles completely or make grant them for life only, so eventually they revert back to the Crown and can be used again.

Veering OT a bit, while the son and heir automatically becomes Duke of Cornwall, legislation would be required to allow a daughter and heir to become Duchess since the original charter restricts the title to sons. Just as Andrew's, William's, and Edward's titles are restricted to sons and Harry's probably will be too.

A Charter of 1337

I think with the eldest child now being the heir, no matter what sex, that eventually the Duke of Cornwall charter will have to be changed to allow for a Duchess of Cornwall (or a female Duke--as the Queen is the Duke of Lancaster.) But not really an issue unless/until George has a girl as his first child. This is a different situation than titles that pass down and eventually are no longer Royal Dukedoms.

 

[Somebody]

I voted for Duke of Sussex simply because I don't expect Harry to be created an Earl. The latter would have my preference.

It could create precedence. The Monarch could create the Heir to the Throne (or his/her Heir) Duke upon his marriage (or possible Duchess for a female Heiress to the Throne) and the other children (only sons, or possibly sons and daughters) of the Monarch and the Heir to the Monarch can be created Earl (or Countess) upon marriage.

The heir is already the Duke of Cornwall (among other titles), so it doesn't make sense to give the heir another dukedom. Only in some generations it might apply to the heir of the heir (if they wanted to they could even establish one dukedom that will be reserved for this position) if they marry while their grandparent is still monarch - but that's also for a very short while. So, that solution would in practice come down to abolishing royal dukedoms. I'd rather keep the royal dukedoms for the children/siblings of monarchs.

 

[Gawin]

I think with the eldest child now being the heir, no matter what sex, that eventually the Duke of Cornwall charter will have to be changed to allow for a Duchess of Cornwall (or a female Duke--as the Queen is the Duke of Lancaster.) But not really an issue unless/until George has a girl as his first child. This is a different situation than titles that pass down and eventually are no longer Royal Dukedoms.

Yes, but it's another example of a tradition that will need to change. Once Charlotte becomes an adult, or marries, the BRF will have to decide if they want to carry on as before (only sons get titles) or if it's time to begin treating royal children equally regardless of sex.

 

[Stefan]

Yes, but it's another example of a tradition that will need to change. Once Charlotte becomes an adult, or marries, the BRF will have to decide if they want to carry on as before (only sons get titles) or if it's time to begin treating royal children equally regardless of sex.

But if Charlotte remains the only daughter of William they can do as before and she will be created Princess Royal. But i think they and the goverment whoch has to change the Charter should decide if a future female Heiress will also become Duchess of Crownwall etc. and will be created Princess of Wales but probably they will not do this until there will be a female Heiress.

 

[Gawin]

But "Princess Royal" is a style, not a title like Duke of York or Earl of Wessex. So if Charlotte ends up as Princess Royal while her brother Louis is a duke, she still isn't getting equal treatment.

alt.talk.royalty FAQ: British royalty and nobility

 

[Mbruno]

But if Charlotte remains the only daughter of William they can do as before and she will be created Princess Royal. But i think they and the goverment whoch has to change the Charter should decide if a future female Heiress will also become Duchess of Crownwall etc. and will be created Princess of Wales but probably they will not do this until there will be a female Heiress.

The eldest daughter of the monarch usually becomes the Princess Royal (when the the title is available) even if she has younger sisters, so that is pretty much sure for Charlotte at some point.

In addition to the question of dukedoms, it must be noted that, under current rules, Louis' children would be princes/princesses when William is king, but Charlotte's children would not. That made (some) sense under male preference primogeniture, but now Charlotte's children will be higher in the line of succession than Louis'.

I think that the dignity of prince should be now either restricted only to the heir's children (as in current Spanish or Dutch practice), or it should be extended to all grandchildren of the monarch (as in Belgium or in Sweden). The current British practice of extending it to grandchildren in male line only is not consistent with equal primogeniture.

 

[Gawin]

The eldest daughter of the monarch usually becomes the Princess Royal (when the the title is available) even if she has younger sisters, so that is pretty much sure for Charlotte at some point.

In addition to the question of dukedoms, it must be noted that, under current rules, Louis' children would be princes/princesses when William is king, but Charlotte's children would not. That made (some) sense under male preference primogeniture, but now Charlotte's children will be higher in the line of succession than Louis'.

I think that the dignity of prince should be now either restricted only to the heir's children (as in current Spanish or Dutch practice), or it should be extended to all grandchildren of the monarch (as in Belgium or in Sweden). The current British practice of extending it to grandchildren in male line only is not consistent with equal primogeniture.

Because "Princess Royal" is technically a style, not a title, I hope Charlotte receives a dukedom if Louis does. Just as I hope her children are given the style "Prince/Princess" if his children are.

But as you suggest it would be easier to eliminate titles completely and restrict the princely style to the heir's children.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

As I stated before, my personal preference is to do away with royal dukedoms rather than extending them to princesses too in the name of gender equality. The heir could have a special title such as Prince/Princess of Wales and all other members of the Royal House (i.e. HRHs) should be just "Prince/Princess xxx of the United Kingdom". If they want to keep royal dukedoms, make them personal, life peerages, and not hereditary peerages as they are today.

That would also be my preference. I think sons and daughters should be treated alike and there's already a shortage of titles for sons, let alone for daughters. So either do away with titles completely or make grant them for life only, so eventually they revert back to the Crown and can be used again.

I would also like to see British royal dukedoms become for life only, as it would assure that titles that have gained importance in royal history, such as the Dukedom of York, will not be lost to the royal family. However, European monarchies seem to believe that male-line descendants who are not royal ought to still have hereditary titles.

Sweden – Countess/Count Bernadotte af Wisborg
Netherlands – Countess/Count of Orange-Nassau van Amsberg
Denmark – Countess/Count of Rosenborg/Monpezat
Belgium – Princess/Prince (a style or rank) with different hereditary titles and surnames
Luxembourg – Princess/Prince of Nassau

Spain historically also bestowed titles of nobility on non-royal descendants in both male and female line, but the custom has been terminated and the children of King Juan Carlos's uncle, aunts, sisters and daughters have no Spanish titles.

Veering OT a bit, while the son and heir automatically becomes Duke of Cornwall, legislation would be required to allow a daughter and heir to become Duchess since the original charter restricts the title to sons. Just as Andrew's, William's, and Edward's titles are restricted to sons and Harry's probably will be too.

A Charter of 1337

I think with the eldest child now being the heir, no matter what sex, that eventually the Duke of Cornwall charter will have to be changed to allow for a Duchess of Cornwall (or a female Duke--as the Queen is the Duke of Lancaster.) But not really an issue unless/until George has a girl as his first child. This is a different situation than titles that pass down and eventually are no longer Royal Dukedoms.

I have difficulty understanding even the translation of the Charter, but it seems to say that the king of England's eldest son will inherit the duchy of Cornwall, which will raise issues if Prince George's first child is a girl and his second or third child is a boy.

 

[Iluvbertie]

Not only is it the eldest son but they also have to be the heir apparent.

e.g. if Charles were to predecease the Queen then Andrew would be the eldest living son but ... he wouldn't be heir apparent and so wouldn't be Duke of Cornwall. Likewise William would become heir apparent but not be the eldest living son of the monarch and again he wouldn't be the Duke of Cornwall (or Rothesay, and all the other titles, in Scotland).

This has happened in the past where the eldest son of the monarch died and the grandson became heir apparent but not Duke of Cornwall - George III is the most recent example. From the death of George III's father until the birth of George IV there was no Duke of Cornwall as the heir apparent wasn't the eldest living son of the monarch.

Neither Queen Victoria nor Queen Elizabeth were ever heirs apparent as they could both have been replaced in the line of succession - however unlikely.

 

[Princess Robijn]

The heir to the throne is already automatically a duke (the Duke of Cornwall) and is often also the Prince of Wales. The innovation would be a female heiress becoming also Princess of Wales and Duchess of Cornwall, in line with the titles for example of Princess of Asturias in Spain and now Princess of Orange in the Netherlands.

As I stated before, my personal preference is to do away with royal dukedoms rather than extending them to princesses too in the name of gender equality. The heir could have a special title such as Prince/Princess of Wales and all other members of the Royal House (i.e. HRHs) should be just "Prince/Princess xxx of the United Kingdom". If they want to keep royal dukedoms, make them personal, life peerages, and not hereditary peerages as they are today.

I mostly meant a situation like there is now, an adult Heir to the Prince of Wales.

 

[Ish]

Let’s move on. The future titles of the Cambridge children or their children, and the future of the rules regarding the Duke of Cornwall and Prince of Wales titles have nothing to do with the possible Dukedom for Harry and Meghan.

 

[Andy T]

Highly unlikely to happen but.....

Part of me feels that it would be more appropriate for Harry to become the Duke of Edinburgh than Edward. The reasons are that the Duke of Edinburgh's Award Scheme would continue to be more tightly associated with the core of the Royal Family for longer if Harry became its figurehead and that Harry's profile corresponds extremely well to the characteristics of the scheme. Prince Edward and Viscount Severn, even more so, are only going to become more peripheral members of 'the firm' with the passing of time, whereas Harry's likely to be a leading member for the next 30 years.

 

[Marchesina]

Highly unlikely to happen but.....

Part of me feels that it would be more appropriate for Harry to become the Duke of Edinburgh than Edward. The reasons are that the Duke of Edinburgh's Award Scheme would continue to be more tightly associated with the core of the Royal Family for longer if Harry became its figurehead and that Harry's profile corresponds extremely well to the characteristics of the scheme. Prince Edward and Viscount Severn, even more so, are only going to become more peripheral members of 'the firm' with the passing of time, whereas Harry's likely to be a leading member for the next 30 years.

I have to agree with that.

 

[O-H Anglophile]

Highly unlikely to happen but.....

Part of me feels that it would be more appropriate for Harry to become the Duke of Edinburgh than Edward. The reasons are that the Duke of Edinburgh's Award Scheme would continue to be more tightly associated with the core of the Royal Family for longer if Harry became its figurehead and that Harry's profile corresponds extremely well to the characteristics of the scheme. Prince Edward and Viscount Severn, even more so, are only going to become more peripheral members of 'the firm' with the passing of time, whereas Harry's likely to be a leading member for the next 30 years.

I disagree-Edward and the Edinburgh title was a decision made nearly 20 years ago. And Edward and Sophie have done a huge amount of work with the Duke of Edinburgh's Award over the years-more than figureheads. Harry has his own initiatives and is not involved in his grandfather's programme.

 

[CyrilVladisla]

Do you believe that Prince Harry will be given the title of an earldom instead of a dukedom?

 

[O-H Anglophile]

Do you believe that Prince Harry will be given the title of an earldom instead of a dukedom?

I doubt it. Prince Edward was a unique cirumstance in receiving an earldom. I fully expect a royal dukedom

 

[Countessmeout]

Do you believe that Prince Harry will be given the title of an earldom instead of a dukedom?

No. Why would he? The tradition is for the prince to be given a duchy on marriage.

The exception is Edward. And we know the reason. He is intended to be a duke one day, his duchy is simply not free to be used. That isn't the case with Harry, there is no duchy he is in waiting for.

 

[O-H Anglophile]

I thought it was the morning of the wedding as well, but apparently it was the day before.

Tweet from Clarence House on April 28, 2011, 7:59 PM UK Time.

Clarence House
‏Verified account @ClarenceHouse
28 Apr 2011
After their marriage, Prince William and Catherine Middleton will become The Duke and Duchess of Cambridge #rw2011 #royalwedding

Can you tell us where you found this? All references I can find indicate BP announced this news the morning of the wedding and a mod indicated they were waiting that morning for the announcement to create the new thread with the new title.

 

[Gem7]

Can you tell us where you found this? All references I can find indicate BP announced this news the morning of the wedding and a mod indicated they were waiting that morning for the announcement to create the new thread with the new title.

I responded to you in the Harry and Meghan: Wedding Suggestions and Musings. You are correct, it was announced the morning of the wedding. I had the time wrong on the Clarence House Twitter post. ?

 

[O-H Anglophile]

I responded to you in the Harry and Meghan: Wedding Suggestions and Musings. You are correct, it was announced the morning of the wedding. I had the time wrong on the Clarence House Twitter post. ?

Ah, I see that now. Thanks for the update and clarification of 11:59 pm PDT

 

[angieuk]

https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/9...-prince-harry-royal-wedding-duchess-connaught

 

[Pranter]

Maybe before they get all in an uproar they should wait to see what title they actually get.


LaRae

 

[Osipi]

Leave it to the Express to have their writers starting to imbibe celebrating the royal wedding too far in advance and as a consequence wrote absolute drivel that has no backbone to it.

Its been discussed here previously and there is no way that HM, The Queen would bestow a duchy on Harry that she has no right to even endow seeing as Connaght is in the Republic of Ireland. It makes about as much sense as HM, The Queen endowing Harry with the grandiose title of The Duke of The Bronx or The Duke of The Upper Peninsula of Michigan. Not going to happen.

 

[Gawin]

https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/9...-prince-harry-royal-wedding-duchess-connaught

The Daily Express must be desperate for news stories.

This same issue was brought up in another newspaper a month ago:
https://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/...-set-to-be-duchess-of-connaught-36804874.html

I really don't think the Queen would be foolish enough to use a title that originated in a country that left the UK almost a century ago.

 

[Ista]

https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/9...-prince-harry-royal-wedding-duchess-connaught

Having a hard time believing that the Queen would do any such thing. She's been doing this Queen gig for a long time and has to know that "Connaught" would not go over well. Sounds like an attempt to get people whipped up into a frenzy,with no actual substance.