What Dukedom will Prince Harry get ?

Started by georgiana996, December 22, 2012, 03:58:58 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Kritter

GingerNutmeg @Harklestan

QuoteAs per Royal Forums, some more extinct titles.
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DUGbTjvXkAEX2de.jpg


Izabella

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:

Curryong

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.

amabel

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.

royalanthropologist

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.
"In the past, people were born royal. Nowadays, royalty comes from what you do"...Gianni Versace

amabel

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.

LouisFerdinand

How would it be possible for Catherine to be a princess in her own right? Her father is neither a King or a Prince.


TLLK

@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.

amabel

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.

wannable

@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

amabel

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.

amabel

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?

Curryong

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

amabel

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...