The particular name is the particular ducal title. You can’t call someone “Duke of Sussex” without mentioning the name “Sussex” and, if you mention a different name, well, you have yourself a whole different ducal title.
If the question is, why is Harry Duke of Sussex and not, say, Duke of Clarence, well, no reason. Somebody just liked “Sussex” more. Yes, as you suggested in a previous post, there’s a grab-bag of titles from which they can choose one to award to a member of the Royal family. The decision lies ultimately with the monarch, but presumably the wishes of the recipient carry some weight.
Note that the list of titles available for award to to royalty is not closed. A title may cease to be available if it descends to non-royals - e.g. if Harry has a son who has a son who has a son, etc, eventually this title will descend to someone who is not considered to be a member of the royal family. This is likely to happen to the current royal dukedoms of Gloucester and Kent, since the heirs to those titles are not considered royal. Or, they may come up with new titles. When Edward VIII abdicated, for instance, they made him Duke of Windsor; that title had not been used before.
Yes, Kent and Gloucester are well on the way to becoming cadet lines to the Crown. It’s amazing that there seem to be hardly any extant despite several previous monarchs having multiple younger sons who had issue.
The Duke of York is the oddest one. Ever since it began to be given to the monarch’s second son, it has never been handed down to a son. The Dukes of York have all died without male issue, or become king themselves.
Well, George III had a slew of sons who all got their own hereditary titles, but they nearly all made loveless dynastic marriages that produced little in the way of legitimate offspring, so in the end there was only one grandchild who (a) was legitimate and (b) survived - and she, of course, was a girl. The titles created for George III’s two eldest sons merged into the crown when they became, respectively, George IV and William IV; the titles created for his younger sons all became extinct for want of legitimate male heirs.
Victoria also spawned a mighty brood, but five of them were girls, so no hereditary titles there. Of her sons:
the titles created for her eldest sone merged into the crown when he succeeded her as Edward VIII;
the titles created for her second son became extinct when he died without surviving male issue;
the titles created for her third xson descended to his son, who almost immediately died unmarried; and
the titles created for her fourth son were suspended when his son found himself on the wrong side in the Great Quarrel of 1914-18.
• Earnest, Duke of Cumberland, had a son who followed him as Duke and also King of Hanover. That line still exists, with the senior member of the House of Hanover currently married to Princess Caroline of Monaco. The title is in limbo under the 1917 Act.
• Adolphus, Duke of Cambridge, had a son who succeeded him as Duke, but the second Duke married for love without permission under the Royal Marriage Act. His three sons were therefore illegitimate and his titles died with him.
Still, the point is valid: only four adult legitimate grandchildren (counting Charlotte of Wales, who died an adult, in childbirth), from seven adult, randy sons is a remarkable record (and a testament to the debilitating effect of the Royal Marriage Act).
If the Royal Family’s attitude to abdication changes, and after Elizabeth if they start to retire by abdication, I could see Duke of Windsor being used for retired monarchs.
Time heals all wounds. Few were more disreputable in contemporary eyes than Hugh le Despenser the elder, created Earl of Winchester( 2nd creation, first was for the Quincy family ). But after his execution the title was resurrected for a Flemish noble under Edward IV and then again as a marquisate for the Paulet family under Henry VIII, who still hold it to this day.
…and they are still up to their bad habits, the current one is Chairman of the Richard III Society.
I suspect that if abdication in old age becomes a normal thing, it’ll get formalized in statute and the former monarch will be permitted to keep the title.
Or they could follow the Belgian & Spanish (& Papal) examples and allow abdicated monarchs to retain their regal rank as a courtesy title. I don’t see the attitude to abdication changing until King William V enters old age though.
Strictly speaking, there is no separate class of “royal duke” titles. A royal duke is simply someone who is (a) royal (as in, sufficiently closely related to the monarch to be considered a member of the royal family) and (b) a duke. By convention, when a dukedom is awarded to a royal, they are commonly given a territorial designation that has previously been awarded to other royals, but is not currently in use. (And there are a few refinements to the convention, e.g. the title “Duke of York” goes to the sovereign’s second son.)
But there is no requirement that these conventsions should always be followed. If they give somebody a previously-unused territorial designation (as they did for the Duke of Windsor) well, now we have a new royal ducal title. This can happen at any time.
Not Saxons, but the Angles landed to the north the East Saxons - the North Folk and the South Folk (Norfolk and Suffolk)
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
