What Dukedom will Prince Harry get after his/on his wedding :hmm:
what are the titles left will he get to be an earl as well..? :windsor1:
It has long been the custom of British Sovereigns to bestow a Dukedom on their sons and on the sons of their heirs. Over the past century this has come to be associated with the marriage of those various princes.
My guess is Sussex or Clarence.
(Unless Prince Phillip is gone by then, in which case he might get Edinburgh. I know it's been said that Edward will one day get Edinburgh, but I don't see Charles agreeing to that).
i don't think Charles that mean Sussex :hehe:
oh oh oh
Essex, now that piss off his made in Chelsea friends
whats wrong with sussex?
Duke of Essex seems likely ...but it would be too cool if he gets Phil's but it seems Edward will get it...
As Edward's 1999 marriage approached, experts suggested the former royal dukedoms of Cambridge and Sussex as the most likely to be granted to him. Instead, the Palace announced that Prince Edward would eventually succeed to the title Duke of Edinburgh, currently held by his father.[25] In the meantime, in keeping with the tradition of a monarch's son receiving a title upon marriage, but preserving the rank of duke for the future, Prince Edward became the first British prince in centuries to be specifically created an earl, rather than a duke.
Wouldn't Charles have to give the Duke of Edinburgh title to Edward ... if it is to be given to him at all? As Prince Philip's oldest son, traditionally he will inherit the title when Philip passes on. Unless an exception is made. And would there have to be LP for the exception? I think this is probably a question for Windsor.
Cindy
^ @cindy The way that I heard it is that Edward will become Duke of Edinburgh after it reverts back to the crown. Meaning that Charles will get the title when his father passes on and then when he becomes King he will give to title to his brother.
Not to make this about Edward but while everyone wonders why he is Earl and not Duke it seems like I posted that HE asked to be Earl in an extraordinary move plus he was promised Phil's Title and if they promised and always say he WILL get it it means they can pull it off!!!
off topic again id imagine queen would give it to him if Philip dies first.
re the general issue of these titles, previously the royal dukedoms usually reverted to the crown, since people didn't often live to father heirs. The previous Duke of Edinburgh, Alfred, the son of Q Vic had only one son who predeceased him. so his title reverted to the crown and was revived for Pr Philip. But now, the junior royals are much more likely to live to old age and Father heirs and the titles will go to them so the number of royal dukedoms for the children of the monarch will be far less. The Duke of Kent has a son and grandson who will inherit the Kent dukedom, so has the Duke of Gloucester. Andrew has only daughters so his dukedom of York will revert to the Crown and might be revived for Harry or Williams younger son if he has one. but what will happen, in later years? Will sons of the monarch only perhaps get an ordinary title as a mark of "marital status"?
Quote from: cinrit on December 22, 2012, 09:42:29 PM
Wouldn't Charles have to give the Duke of Edinburgh title to Edward ... if it is to be given to him at all? As Prince Philip's oldest son, traditionally he will inherit the title when Philip passes on. Unless an exception is made. And would there have to be LP for the exception? I think this is probably a question for Windsor.
Cindy
It is a tricky situation... The Dukedom of Edinburgh will pass to Prince Charles upon the death of Prince Philip. Since 1999 it has been intended for the Earl of Wessex to be created Duke of Edinburgh but this will have to be done when Prince Charles ascends to the throne and the title reverts back to the Crown.
Windsor, thanks for the explanation. :)
Cindy
Wasn't it pretty much announced he would be Duke Of Sussex ? :windsor1: There is an article here somewhere they said Liz is keeping that for him people will have a lot of fun with it Liz knows what she is doing :hehe:.
I believe the Queen will and can do a lot of things...as she did when she made Edward Earl of Wessex. I just think for the heir's heir she will stay within the confines of history.
i like these lol ...
I'm also fond of Duke of Clarence :happy15: Cornwall, Cambridge, Clarence???
Duke of Buckingham
Duke of Albany
Duke of Oxford{so well with William's title of Duke of Cambridge}
Duke of Aberdeen,
Duke of Inverness, or
Duke of Perth?
Duke of Kendal
Duke of Ross
hope they dont give him sussex........ :thumbsdown: :thumbsdown: :thumbsdown: :thumbsdown:
Essex, Kent, Mercia, East Anglia and Northumbria. Of these seven titles technically only three are currently in use, Wessex, Kent and Northumbria.
A little lengthy I know, but what do you think?
There are many Royal Dukedoms for the Queen to play with. I can very easily see the Queen granting Prince Harry the Dukedom of Clarence or maybe even the Dukedom of Cumberland. :)
Oh great a dukedom that's been held by Edw VII's son... or Ernest Duke of Cumberland.
Edward VII son??
The last Duke of Cumberland had his title suspended in 1919
The last Duke of Clarence was Albert Victor, Edw VII's son, who was mentally slow and dissolute.
True, but all of the titles have been held by people less than heroic....Butcher Cumberland, anyone?
I hope whichever title Harry gets, it doesn't start with a C.
(It's bad enough now, I keep reading Cambridge for Cornwall, etc.)
As for Edward getting the title Duke of Edinburgh, I think if Charles doesn't want him to have it, he can forget it. (It wouldn't surprise me if we hear that he chose to retain his current title.) ;)
@Sandor - I was thinking the same thing. I've been reading for years that the DofE title is to go to Edward. I really hope for his sake that Charles doesn't defy the Queen's wishes....
Does anyone see Harry forgoing the title business for his kids the way Princess Anne did hers? I do.
He has Bea & Eug on one hand and Zara, Peter and Princess Margaret's kids on the other. Of this group the ones w/out titles seem to be better off.... Surely Prince Harry has noticed this?
@dafluffs i like saying your username :P
I dont think either will or harry likes royalty they want to have and enjoy their money who can blame them ? so lucky harry can walk away.
Ann is a woman so her Title can't be passed on ...Harry is a man so his children will be Princes/Princesses ...I am sick of hearing how Ann passed on on her children having Titles because that would have never been possible !!! The only thing that could have been done was for Liz to give a minor Title to her husband and Ann's children having a very minor Title that is why she didn't want it anyway...Harry has nothing to do with that situation his children will have Titles from BIRTH no one will have to give it to them like it had to be done for Ann given that she is a WOMAN (unfair but that is the way things work)...the same for The York girls their father is a male so he could pass on his Title to them ...
@ georgiana996 How can he ''walk away"? And why would he want to? :hmm:
Princess Anne doesn't have any titles to pass on. A title was offered to her husband at the time, Mark Phillips, but he declined ... maybe on the advice (or wish) of Princess Anne. I think maybe what you're thinking of is her children not having titles, which is actually that under the terms of Letters Patent (George V?), they were not eligible to be called Prince or Princess. Had Mark Phillips accepted a title, Peter Phillips would have been eligible to inherit it.
I don't think either of the York girls is eligible to inherit Andrew's title, unless an exception is made.
Cindy
^ Exactly !!! Harry has nothing to do with Ann ...I don't get the "Ann is so humble" thing she just couldn't pass anything to her children period!!! Plus who knows her husband might not have wanted it maybe she had nothing to do with it...
Anne isn't "humble" but she is someone who is not that into the whole Royal thing. She could have had a title for her husband (or herself) which would pass to her son, just as Antony Armstrong Jones was given an earldom.. but she and Mark P chose not to have one. Its reputed that the QUeen really wanted her to have a title to pass to Peter but she and Mark preferred their family to be untitled and make their own way in the world, as they have doen pretty successfully.
Quote from: Sandor on December 29, 2012, 01:26:56 PM
Tr
I As for Edward getting the title Duke of Edinburgh, I think if Charles doesn't want him to have it, he can forget it. (It wouldn't surprise me if we hear that he chose to retain his current title.) ;)
It will be up to Charles, since he will inherit the Dukedom. And I don't see the need for all the male heirs to be royal dukes. So yes I should say he will be happy enough with his current title.
^The rule is they do :shrug:...he picked his current Title, has a great family and is very rich so I bet you Edward is happy with himself :lol:.
It always amazes me that anyone would ever turn down a title!
If nothing else, it will get you a better table in a restaurant.
(Besides, there are all sorts of websites selling fraudulent titles to people; if people didn't want to have titles, these sites would quickly go out of business. So a lot of people must want to have them).
Anne is far too high in the social scale to need an extra title, and I think that Mark Philips whatever his faults, has tried ot make his way in the world without unduly depending on his wife's connections. I think that Zara and Peter P are a sensible young pair as well.. who clearly don't feel the need of being Lord Gatcombe and Lady Zara.
Quote from: Eri on December 29, 2012, 09:18:49 PM
^The rule is they do :shrug:...he picked his current Title, has a great family and is very rich so I bet you Edward is happy with himself :lol:.
i agree and people should give it a rest about edward/ harry charles /andrew/9 William being wealthy in his own right. Every cent they have is due to their family line of royalty and/or aristocracy benefiting from centuries of royal patronage.
Actually, since the passing of the new succession laws before Prince George's birth, it's all changed.
Prince Harry will probably get Sussex or Clarence. Many are saying Sussex. I'm convinced it will be Clarence. When that title wasn't given to William, I felt that it was because they were reserving it for Harry since William will soon be Prince of Wales. The last Duke of Clarence was Prince Eddy, eldest son of Edward VII. The holder before that was one of the sons of George III. Sussex isn't as grand a title as Clarence. The only reason I could see him getting Sussex is if Prince Eddy's reputation kind of ruined Clarence for others.
Prince Edward will inherit the Dukedom of Edinburgh. If that announcement was made, then Prince Charles and the Queen have already agreed to it. It's a done deal. The royals don't make those kind of announcements lightly. It they said he's going to inherit, then he's going to inherit.
With the changes brought by the Succession law changes before Prince George's birth, Princess Beatrice can and will inherit the Dukedom of York. A woman can inherit the crown and I don't see modern monarchs saying a woman can't inherit a royal Dukedom if she can inherit the crown. If Charles were to try to take it away, I see William returning it to the family.
Hi and welcome, windsorbrides,
Harry's title may be Clarence. I have a feeling though that it may well be Sussex. The Dukedom of Clarence is indeed prestigious but it has a sad history with two Dukes coming to very unexpected premature ends, notably Albert Victor of Wales, Duke of Clarence and Avondale.
Prince Eddy's death may well have been a relief for the nation but it traumatised his family. It's notable that none of his brother, George V's sons, were given the Clarence Dukedom. Nor was Edward of Wessex. It's true that Edward may have been marked out to receive Edinburgh, but if the Dukedom of Clarence was that beloved in the family, then it surely would have been considered. In fact the BRF are remarkably superstitious, as in the name John not figuring largely in the forenames of senior royals in later generations after the death of Prince John, King George and Queen Mary's disabled son.
Maybe in the future Beatrice may become Duchess of York. I don't know. However, she is not in line to inherit it now. The Succession Law changes you mention pertain to the succession to the throne of GB in the future by an eldest child, whether boy or girl. It has nothing to do with Royal Dukedoms.
Royal dukedoms are part of the peerage of Great Britain. Parliament has examined in Committee the possibilities of female inheritance of peerages but it has never moved further than the debate stage (in the Lords.) Nothing has passed into law and things remain the same as they always have regarding male heirs to peerages (whether Royal or 'ordinary') and until the law changes, if it does, then Beatrice will remain a princess not a Duchess in her own right.
and I see no reason for Beat to be Duchess of York. If she was doing royal duties, it might given her an added cachet which would be useful if she was doing the normal charity etc work, but she's not.. so no reason for it. Re the inheritance of the throne.. yes, Curryong you're right in saying that the law that applies to this.. is not the same as the law that applies to peerages.
and in any case women have always been able to inherit the throrne here, there was never any Salic Law.
I agree about the Clarence title. I think that the RF who think back a longish way, by most people's standards, still associate the title with Eddy and his not being a great asset to the monarchy.. so I think that its not likely to be used this generation.
On a partially related corollary to that, I was always curious why Harry had the name "David" added to his word salad of names, considering the fate of the last person to have that name in the RF.... :xmas6:
the queen mother's favourite brother was called David....
But also Edward VIII was known as David as well...
Quote from: Duch_Luver_4ever on December 07, 2017, 12:23:36 AM
But also Edward VIII was known as David as well...
yes he had 7 names, most of which are used in the RF
Thank you
@amabel-I'd forgotten that connection to the name. IMO royal watchers tend to focus only upon the names typically used by a particular dynasty rather than the ones from their other non-royal parent.
Quote from: TLLK on December 07, 2017, 11:59:46 PM
Thank you @amabel-I'd forgotten that connection to the name. IMO royal watchers tend to focus only upon the names typically used by a particular dynasty rather than the ones from their other non-royal parent.
I think that is the origin of David Snowdon's being called David, certainly not form the DOW. But the Royals are limited In the names they usualy choose so mostly even if a Royal has 6 names they will all be ones that his cousins have as well.. the DOW was called Edward Albert Christian and then the 4 saints of the British isles, David, Patrick, Andrew and George. I'm not sure why Harry ad the name David but possibly it was a favourite of the Q Moter's and Charles was devoted ot his grandmother..
Harry may have been given the name of the Patron Saint of Wales because Charles was Prince of Wales.
Possibly yes Charles wanted to have a Welsh connextion in his name..and it was also a name that was dear to his grandmother. I've wondered about William and K, that they sicne they lvied in Wales for some time, could have shown a Welsh connextion with say George's name. by putting in something like David...
Could Prince Harry be given the title of Duke of Canterbury?
@LouisFerdinand -AFAIK there has never been a Duke of Canterbury or a Duchy of that name in England or the United Kingdom. From what I understand HM would need to use an existing royal dukedom ie: Clarence or Sussex to confer upon her grandson.
Royal Dukedoms- Royal dukedoms in the United Kingdom - Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_dukedoms_in_the_United_Kingdom)
List of dukes in the peerages of Britain and Ireland | Familypedia | FANDOM powered by Wikia (http://familypedia.wikia.com/wiki/List_of_dukes_in_the_peerages_of_Britain_and_Ireland)
The way things stand now once the current Dukes of Kent and Gloucester pass these will cease to become Royal Dukedoms.
Yes
@Trudie. While the Dukes of Gloucester and Kent each have heirs and heirs-of their-heirs, they'll cease to be royal dukedoms upon their deaths.
It is confusing to me.
Who does not have a title in their BRF?
PBea and Eug were wrongly, prematurely named. QEII did not and TPTB did not think ahead 20 years after the girls birth.Too many P and P without a country.
Too many dukedoms.
I do not think PH children need P and P . Lady and Lord. His grandchildren will not be P and Pwhere does the titled lines end? Bea and Eug are titled, P. Their husbands and children will not, should not be titled. Edwards children are titled, Lady and Viscount, but their children should not be titled.
Should Viscount Severn ! James children titled? Does he inherit a dukedom from his father, PE, Dukeof W?
PM of Kent children Lady and Lord, are not P and P. their children have no titles, correct?Does Lord Frerderick W inherit POfKent?
PMic of Kent was grandchild of sovereign , it that was a long time ago. 60 plus years. World has changed.
PW will be KofEngland. His daughter will be Princess Royal. George gets the boatload of titles. New baby will be P or P.
So many P and P without a country so to speak.
QuoteShould Viscount Severn ! James children titled? Does he inherit a dukedom from his father, PE, Dukeof W?
PM of Kent children Lady and Lord, are not P and P. their children have no titles, correct?Does Lord Frerderick W inherit POfKent?
PMic of Kent was grandchild of sovereign , it that was a long time ago. 60 plus years. World has changed.
PW will be KofEngland. His daughter will be Princess Royal. George gets the boatload of titles. New baby will be P or P.
Unless things change regarding the titles, Viscount James' children will inherit titles in the future. There is much speculation that Edward will eventually be the future HRH the Duke of Edinburgh. Unless there has been a new specific Letters Patent then AFAIK technically Louise and James are like the York girls, HRH Princess Louise and HRH Prince James since they're the grandchildren of a monarch through the male line. (Their parents choose not to use those titles though.)
It is possible though that the next monarch might take steps to limit the HRH titles to an even more limited group of family members and opt to have them be Lord/Lady Windsor/ Mountbatten-Windsor.
Quote from: TLLK on January 17, 2018, 10:52:28 PM
Yes @Trudie. While the Dukes of Gloucester and Kent each have heirs and heirs-of their-heirs, they'll cease to be royal dukedoms upon their deaths.
@TLLK, How is this possible? Who made this decision and when? Did Queen Elizabeth II decree this?
It's always been so, just that historically Royal Dukes didn't tend to have long lines of surviving descendants so the Dukedoms remained in the family. The Dukes of Kent and Gloucester are grandsons of a sovereign, King George V in the male line, and so were Princes and their Royal Highnesses at birth. Their sons and grandsons arent. Royal status in the form of HRHs don't go on for ever.
@LouisFerdinand-Here is the Letters Patent issued by King George V in 1917 that more or less explains who is a HRH.
Royal Styles and Titles of Great Britain: Documents (http://www.heraldica.org/topics/britain/prince_highness_docs.htm#1917_2)
GingerNutmeg @Harklestan
QuoteAs per Royal Forums, some more extinct titles.
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DUGbTjvXkAEX2de.jpg
A Dukedom for Harry and Meghan? | The Court Jeweller (http://www.thecourtjeweller.com/2018/02/a-dukedom-for-harry-and-meghan.html)
Earl and Countess? Or they could opt for not having any stuffy titles but congratulations to Mr. and Mrs. whateverthelastnameis. :lol: Ooh! The suspense! *grabs popcorn* :lol:
It's been reported at around the time of the engagement that Harry told everybody that would listen that he doesn't want a Dukedom. However it's doubtful that he would have told his darling grandmother that little gem. And, considering that he can't be 'de-princed' and if he doesn't get a title his wife will become and remain Princess Harry, I think the odds are that he will be the Duke of S on May 19th.
It was also said at the time of his engagement that William told TPTB that he thought that the title Duke and Duchess made the recipients sound as if they were about 80 years old, and that he would rather remain Prince William and have Kate become Princess Catherine. Apparently he was soon told that would be impossible. So neither brother is likely to get what they want.
Oh for goodness skae, neither of them said they didn't want to be dukes. Tis is just to make them seem more "regular guys". they bohth know that royal protocol is that hey get royal dukedoms as marks of status when they are mature./get married. they know that and unless they are complete idiots they are not going to jib at it.
I know that game. Super privileged brat starts crying about how hard it is being them. Then William talking about Duke making them sound 80 is not only an ageist comment but actually if we are talking about premature ageing, he would be the last person to comment on that.
Quote from: royalanthropologist on February 10, 2018, 01:31:46 PM
I know that game. Super privileged brat starts crying about how hard it is being them. Then William talking about Duke making them sound 80 is not only an ageist comment but actually if we are talking about premature ageing, he would be the last person to comment on that.
it is all nonsense. the same stories were put out about William before his marriage.. that he didn't want to be a royal duek.. or that he wanted Kate to be a princess in her own right. All nonsense.
How would it be possible for Catherine to be a princess in her own right? Her father is neither a King or a Prince.
@LouisFerdinand -Not in the United Kingdom, but in other European monarchies the fiancee sometimes was created a princess in her own right ie: Belgium- Mathilde and the Netherlands-Maxima were both created princesses in their own right the day before they were married.
True, TLLK, but on this forum there was stuff back before Will got married that he "wanted Kate to be made a princess" or alternatively that he "didn't want a big royal wedding" and "didn't want a royal dukedom." Same stuff now beign said about Harry.. and IMO this is all nonsense. he knows how the system works.. and unless he is very stupid, he will go along with what is the usual practice.
@LouisFerdinand and ladies
@amabel @TLLK Prince William filled out the birth certificate of Prince George, and he did place Catherine (his wife) Princess of the United Kingdom.
http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2013/08/02/article-2383616-1B1DE0B1000005DC-985_964x1000.jpg
yes she's a princess but by marriage, not a princess in her own right... As TLLK has said, other women marrying into other European royal families were granted the rank of "princess in their own right.!" But that isn't the British tradtion.
Quote from: Curryong on January 18, 2018, 08:49:50 PM
It's always been so, just that historically Royal Dukes didn't tend to have long lines of surviving descendants so the Dukedoms remained in the family. The Dukes of Kent and Gloucester are grandsons of a sovereign, King George V in the male line, and so were Princes and their Royal Highnesses at birth. Their sons and grandsons arent. Royal status in the form of HRHs don't go on for ever.
That was only due to the decision of George V wasn't it? He wanted to sort things out so that the titles and HRH's didn't go on in perpetuity. So only the grandsons of a monarch, in the male lien, were entitlted to be HRH. So the children of P Michael of Kent, who was the grandson of Geo V, were simple lord Fred and Lady Gabriella Windsor.....which is IMO a sensible decision.
Double post auto-merged: September 02, 2018, 09:36:51 AM
Quote from: TLLK on February 10, 2018, 11:37:16 PM
@LouisFerdinand -Not in the United Kingdom, but in other European monarchies the fiancee sometimes was created a princess in her own right ie: Belgium- Mathilde and the Netherlands-Maxima were both created princesses in their own right the day before they were married.
@TLLK, does anyone know why that was? surely it means that if a woman marries a prince in Belgium, and is made Princess in her own right, if she ends up divorced, will she sitll have that Princess title as it was given in her own right?
Quote from: amabel on September 02, 2018, 09:35:38 AM
That was only due to the decision of George V wasn't it? He wanted to sort things out so that the titles and HRH's didn't go on in perpetuity. So only the grandsons of a monarch, in the male lien, were entitlted to be HRH. So the children of P Michael of Kent, who was the grandson of Geo V, were simple lord Fred and Lady Gabriella Windsor.....which is IMO a sensible decision.
Double post auto-merged: September 02, 2018, 09:36:51 AM
@TLLK, does anyone know why that was? surely it means that if a woman marries a prince in Belgium, and is made Princess in her own right, if she ends up divorced, will she sitll have that Princess title as it was given in her own right?
According to this article it is traditional for some monarchies to make fiancees Princesses very shortly before their wedding. It is the British system that is out of step as it adopted the German method from Hanover of the wife taking the styling of the husband. (Of course in those days women who married Princes in 'equal' not morganatic marriages in those petty German states were almost always Princesses by birth anyway.)
In monarchies like the Belgian, Dutch and Danish in more modern times they have kept to the tradition of the country that a woman becomes a princess in her own right just before marriage. We don't know what would happen to Maxima or Mathilde's titles if they were divorced, as they are still married. I suspect that if such a thing were to occur they would keep their title of Princess in their own right as they are mothers of heirs to the Throne.
However, as we know, Alexandra, Prince Joachim's wife, became a Countess after her divorce, as her children were only heirs until Prince Christian was born. And Tessy of Luxembourg has lost her title as well, though she was known as Princess Tessy. So it seems that a lot of this, especially after a divorce, is at the will of the sovereign at the time.
Who is entitled to a Princess title? ? Royal Central (http://royalcentral.co.uk/blogs/insight/who-is-entitled-to-a-princess-title-13976)
well precisely.. so while one wouldn't want to anticpate divorce, it seems to me that by making someone a Princess in her own right, its just setting up a possible problem in the future...