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.
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 :D

Suits made it really hard on them, couldn't they have avoided these issues :whistling:
 
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.
 
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.
 
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".
 
Last edited:
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.
 
Last edited:
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.
 
Last edited:
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?
 
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
 
Duke and Duchess of Kendal sounds quite nice to me, athough I realize it's not a likely choice. If I had to choose between Clarence and Sussex, I guess I would go with Clarence but neither exactly excites me.
 
The more I consider the Duke of Clarence and the Duchess of Clarence, the Duke and Duchess of Clarence :flowers: sounds very classy. I really like it. (it's also inching up on Sussex in the poll). But I think they will be the Duke and Duchess of Sussex. Something predictable and (maybe) comforting about the predictable.
 
Last edited:
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 agree and disagree here.

I think saying you can’t use Duke of Clarence because of William IV and Albert Victor’s histories is a bit silly - as you’ve said in another post, all titles have history and much of it isn’t good. The title Duke of Clarence has been created 3 times; some of its holders were decent (for their time) men, others not; some were controversial (for their time), others not.

Duke of Windsor is a bit different though. It doesn’t have a lot of history; it was created once, for one person, under very negative circumstance. The title is very clearly associated with that one person and the circumstance under which it was created - and it is one that, in the grand scheme of the British monarchy, is still fairly recent. If you add in the parallels that can be made between Meghan and Wallis (both American, both divorcees with living husbands, both unusual royal brides), recreating that title for Harry and Meghan would send a very wrong, very negative message. It’s just a name to some extent, but names still hold meaning and symbolism.
 
I agree Sussex seems to be the most likely choice but perhaps the Queen will surprise us. That would be nice, depending on what she would ultimately choose of course. :lol:
 
Harry could be the first in 7 generations of males. I think they want to keep Windsor closer to the crown. If George were to marry under Charles’ reign, Windsor could work. Reassigning it is the only way to clean up a google search. That is the world we currently live in.
 
I agree Sussex seems to be the most likely choice but perhaps the Queen will surprise us. That would be nice, depending on what she would ultimately choose of course. :lol:

I've been told that the Queen does not confer a title without consultation with the conferees. :flowers: Whatever is announced will have been agreed to by Harry and Meghan. Maybe Harry and Meghan (and the Queen) will surprise us.

That would be fun! ;)
 
I've been told that the Queen does not confer a title without consultation with the conferees. :flowers: Whatever is announced will have been agreed to by Harry and Meghan. Maybe Harry and Meghan (and the Queen) will surprise us.

That would be fun! ;)

Oh, for sure but ultimately she does the choosing and even if Meghan and Harry agree, there is no guarantee that I will like it. That is what I was getting at. ;) I doubt it would be anything really out there or unappealing, so I'm not really worried...just being a bit facetious.
 
Oh, for sure but ultimately she does the choosing and even if Meghan and Harry agree, there is no guarantee that I will like it. That is what I was getting at. ;) I doubt it would be anything really out there or unappealing, so I'm not really worried...just being a bit facetious.

Understood. ;) ?

So many things to look forward to: the dress, the title, the house, the first born's name. :cool:
 
Yes, it's a very exciting time. Looking forward to it all. ?
 
I don't think Clarence is so poisoned as to be unusable again, but I'm not sure it's a good idea for Harry to get it. I'm afraid there would be comparisons to William IV and Mrs. Jordan. (Maybe I'm overestimating the public appetite for early 19th century intrigue.)
 
:previous: I don't think that too many people would think about William IV and Mrs Jordan. Unless they are real history buffs, even then. William was certainly not the first or last king to have a lover, and not even the only one to have a mistress who was an actress.

As far as 'bad history' (all old titles have some less then perfect history) Clarence is pretty tame. The only real bad history is the brother of Edward IV and Richard III. For many Clarence would just summon thoughts of Edward VII's eldest son who died before he became king.
 
I don't think Clarence is so poisoned as to be unusable again, but I'm not sure it's a good idea for Harry to get it. I'm afraid there would be comparisons to William IV and Mrs. Jordan. (Maybe I'm overestimating the public appetite for early 19th century intrigue.)

I think so. :flowers: In this few would be biased in that way, I think. ;) JMO.
 
I've always been thinking (hoping) that either William or Harry would get Clarence, so that's the one I'm rooting for. It is, in my opinion, one of the most aesthetically pleasing dukedoms, and Cambridge and Clarence just go well together. I hope it won't be either Ross, Sussex and Suffolk – nothing personal, mainly for aesthetic reasons, I think all of them sound less than aesthetic with a "Duke/Duchess of" attached (especially the latter two clash with the S's of Duchess). I think what annoys me more than anything else is that they can't use Connaught. Man, that was a great dukedom.
 
Last edited:
I agree that Sussex is going to sound a bit sibilant.. but I don't think that Windsor, is an option. Clarence does have a couple of "bad history" problems, Albert Victors sad death and his problems.. and there's the Duke Of Clarence drowned In the Butt of Malmesy. Besides WIlliam IV was a bit of an idiot.
 
Sussex really sounds so harsh.
I do not think, The Windsor is an option yet.... (let´s wait another generation).

I also voted for Clarence. I this case we would have Cornwall, Cambridge, Clarence - the Triple C rocks!

BYe Bine
 
Although I have voted for "Sussex" I also could imagine that they also could be "Duke and Duchess of Nottingham" as the place for their first visit is Nottingham and they are living in Nottingham Cottage.

And yes I know that there are connections with Robin Hood. ;-)
 
My vote is for the Duke of Clarence, it has a nice ring to it. And all dukedoms have baggage, history that no one likes and approves of so time to turn a new page on these dukedoms and start fresh....so The Duke and Duchess of Clarence ..........a nice new fresh start for this young couple.
 
That's True M Paytion, it is possible that given the few names avaialable, they will decide to ignore the Clarnece history.
 
As there is an existing Earl of Nottingham it is highly unlikely that HM would also create a Duke. The Earl of Winshilsea is also the Earl of Nottingham - current holder Daniel James Haftield Finch-Hatton born 1967 with an heir apparent born in 1998.
 
WIlliam IV was a bit of an idiot.

Really NOT.. he steered 'the Great Reform Act' through a resistant Parliament, thus defusing the VERY real possibility of a revolution here, at a time when they were toppling thrones [or threatening to do so] ALL over Europe.
He 'toned' down a VERY extravagant Monarchy inherited from his profligate Brother, and handed a much more popular and stable throne to his niece Victoria all set for a very glorious reign. His Queen [Adelaide] did much to 'round him out', and was popular too.
On balance I think he was GOOD.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom