Prince Harry Wedding Questions (theadapalooza!)

[Northern_Piper]

So here’s a list of traditional royal dukedoms.

First, those for the monarch and heir:

Duke of Lancaster: dates back to Edward III’s third son in the 14th century; figured largely in the Wars of the Roses in the 15th century; since Henry VII’s accession, has been held by the monarch.

Duke of Cornwall: held by the monarch’s heir, which is why Prince Charles’ wife, Camilla, is referred to as the Duchess of Cornwall. Dates back to the 13th century; first English dukedom.

Duke of Rothesay: Scottish title, awarded to the monarch’s oldest son, so currently held by Prince Charles.

Second, those for younger sons of the monarch:

Duke of York: traditionally awarded to the monarch’s second son; currently held by Prince Andrew; dates back to Edward III in the 14th century who had numerous sons; figured prominently in the Wars of the Roses in the 15th century.

Duke of Edinburgh: currently held by Prince Phillip; will likely go to Prince Edward eventually; first granted to Frederick, Prince of Wales, son of George II and father of George III.

Duke of Cambridge: first granted during the Stuart period in the 17th century; revived for Adolphus, one of George III’s younger sons; revived for Prince William.

Duke of Sussex: first conferred on the sixth son of George III; revived for Prince Harry.

Duke of Gloucester: granted by George V to his third son; currently held by his son, first cousin to the Queen; also dates back to the Edward III and the Wars of the Roses; Richard III was Duke of Gloucester before becoming king.

Duke of Kent: first used as a royal dukedom for Edward, fourth son of George III and father of Queen Victoria; revived for George V’s fourth son, who died in WWII at a young age; currently held by his eldest son, cousin to the Queen.

Third, the ones that aren’t currently in use are :

Duke of Clarence: also dates back to Edward III; created a number of times; William IV, third son of George III was Duke of Clarence before ascending the throne; last created for Prince Edward Albert, the eldest son of Edward VII, who died before his father.

Duke of Albany: a traditional Scottish royal title for sons of the Scottish kings; created several times in Scotland, then in England during the Stuart period, then in Britain during the Hanoverian period. Last held by one of Victoria’s sons, a haemophiliac who died relatively young, without issue.

Duke of Connaught: first awarded to one of Victoria’s sons; extinct; unlikely to be awarded again, since Connaught is now in the Republic of Ireland.

Duke of Cumberland: first conferred on Prince Rupert, cousin to Charles I; later conferred on Prince George of Denmark, husband of Queen Anne; revived during the Hanoverian period, most recently for Ernest, fifth son of George III, who became King of Hanover; suspended by Act of Parliament during WWI, because the then-Duke of Cumberland was fighting for the German Empire; technically, the current Head of the House of Hanover could apply to have it revived, but has shown no interest in doing so.

[Leo_Bloom]

@bob_2

I am losing track of this a bit.

It is *convention *that the Archbishop presides over royal weddings, but he could have stayed home with his feet up if he had wanted, or if he had a serious objection to marrying a divorcee. I doubt that a vicar would be *obliged *to marry anyone, local or not =.

You can’t just walk into a register office and ask to get married either. In England and Wales, 28 days notice must be given to the Register Office before the marriage can take place. Both partners must be resident for seven days in England or Wales before notice is given. (Scotland has different rules)

Oh, no, what I’m doing is bringing it down all the way, now that I know the Archbishop isn’t required. One of the answers was some vicar was required, and my question was based on: I believe in modern England a clergyman is not required for anybody, no? In USA Federal law–I believe as a national statute, which it better be–it can be one or the other or both (and if clergy ultimately filed and approved by the local government).

So Harry and Meghan, both resident for more than seven days, give notice 28 days in advance, etc. etc., can they drive away with just-married cans clacking and bouncing behind their Bentley?
[Extra query: Do Brits do that thing with just-married couples?]

[PatrickLondon]

@bob_2

I doubt that a vicar would be *obliged *to marry anyone, local or not

AIUI, the CofE, being the established church, has to be available, as an institution, for marriages and funerals to anyone who lives in or has a “qualifying connection” with, their parish. If the vicar, as the person responsible for the parish, can’t or for some reason won’t marry given individuals (but I think the legal scope for refusing on principle is pretty limited), then they have to find someone to do it.

But getting a bishop or archbishop to fit someone’s wedding into their busy schedules is a matter of custom and practice, and essentially up to them.

[Northern_Piper]

Three months ago: the Wedding planning.

Meghan: “So who would we get to do the ceremony?”

Harry: “I’ll give the archbishop a ring .” (Pulls out iPhone) “I know I’ve got him in my contact list…”

Meghan: “The Archbishop?”

Harry: (speaking a bit distractedly) “The Archbishop of Canterbury. They’ve been doing the marriages in my family for donkey’s years. Where is his number? Oh, I had it under Canterbury, not Archbishop.” (Boop-boop-boop of phone). “Good, it’s ringing!”

Meghan: “Donkey’s years? How long have they been doing the marriages, Harry?”

Harry: (Distractedly to Meghan while his phone rings). “About a thousand years. Oh, Archbishop - thanks for picking up! It’s me, Harry Wales. Sir, I don’t know if you’ve heard the news, but I’m just wondering if you’ve got room in your calendar …”

[GreenWyvern]

Like a lot of things in Britain, it’s down to tradition and convention, not law.

Basically, the idea is very simple. If a clergyman has to officiate at a big, important royal occasion, the most senior and important clergyman should do it.

In theory any clergyman could do it, but if the Archbishop of Canterbury wasn’t asked then it would be a personal snub to him. If he turned it down without good reason, it would be a snub to the royal family.

[Leo_Bloom]

Sorry to be a noodge to all three of you, but I think my question is still open: yes, the CoE has to be available. But legally, could (could’ve) Harry and Meghan skipped it entirely. Just the civil ceremony at the Registrar sans clergy whatsoever, which I believe is the right of every Englishman?

[Baron_Greenback]

@Leo_Bloom

Just the civil ceremony at the Registrar sans clergy whatsoever

Yes, of course.

[ctnguy]

Charles and Camilla’s wedding was a civil ceremony (although it was followed by a blessing service). There appear to have been some questions about the legality of civil marriages for the royal family, but the government seems to have taken the position that they’re valid.

[D_Anconia]

@Leo_Bloom

In USA Federal law–I believe as a national statute, which it better be–it can be one or the other or both (and if clergy ultimately filed and approved by the local government)

Which federal law are you referring to? Please provide a cite.

[Beckdawrek]

Well, I think I have seen just about enough of the wedding coverage. It was delightful. Now for the waiting game to see how fast they reproduce.

[Lord_Feldon]

@Leo_Bloom

Sorry to be a noodge to all three of you, but I think my question is still open: yes, the CoE has to be available. But legally, could (could’ve) Harry and Meghan skipped it entirely. Just the civil ceremony at the Registrar sans clergy whatsoever, which I believe is the right of every Englishman?

Probably. The government’s position in 2005 was: “Civil marriages were introduced in England by the Marriage Act 1836. Section 45 said that the act ‘shall not extend to the marriage of any of the Royal Family’. But the provisions on civil marriage in the 1836 act were repealed by the Marriage Act 1949.”

[Leo_Bloom]

@D_Anconia

Which federal law are you referring to? Please provide a cite.

Don’t have one. All I said was “there better be.”

[Leo_Bloom]

Bump:

@Leo_Bloom

…

[Extra query: Do Brits do that thing with just-married couples?]

The cans tied to the back of the limo with the Just Married banner in the rear window. You’ve seen it in movies, right?

[Leo_Bloom]

@Northern_Piper

So here’s a list of traditional royal dukedoms. [snip]

These things come and go, as kids appear or not, among other things. Got it.

But why did HRH decide that what Harry needed, besides the customary fish slice, a revived Earldom of Dumbarton, and then, as if that didn’t cover it, throw in a brand new peerage as Baron Kilkeel? A pissant peerage?

[Northern_Piper]

Nit pick: “HM”, not “HRH”. She’s “Her Majesty”, not “Her Royal Highness.”

Two reasons for the subsidiary titles:

1. Subsidiary titles are used as “courtesy titles” by the eldest son of the Duke. So if Harry and Meghan have a son, he’ll be referred to as “Earl Dumbarton.” If the Earl in turn has a son while Harry is still Duke, that grandson will be “Baron Kilkeel”.

2. The subsidiary titles refer to Scotland (Dumbarton is a Scottish town) and Northern Ireland (Kilkeel is in Northern Ireland). Those are two of the other countries that make up the United Kingdom.

[D_Anconia]

@Leo_Bloom

Don’t have one. All I said was “there better be.”

I thought this was the forum for factual answers, not opinions. :dubious:

[Malden_Capell]

@Leo_Bloom

These things come and go, as kids appear or not, among other things. Got it.

But why did HRH decide that what Harry needed, besides the customary fish slice, a revived Earldom of Dumbarton, and then, as if that didn’t cover it, throw in a brand new peerage as Baron Kilkeel? A pissant peerage?

As northern piper said, they’re titles in Scotland and Northern Ireland. It’s to show he’s a British prince, not merely English.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Guinastasia]

@Northern_Piper

Duke of Albany: a traditional Scottish royal title for sons of the Scottish kings; created several times in Scotland, then in England during the Stuart period, then in Britain during the Hanoverian period. Last held by one of Victoria’s sons, a haemophiliac who died relatively young, without issue.

Nitpick: Prince Leopold did die young, but he had two children: a daughter, Princess Alice and a son, Prince Charles Edward, born four months after his father’s death.

[Rick_Kitchen]

I had to laugh at the picture of the couple in their reception clothes. Harry wearing a tux with brown loafers.

[Northern_Piper]

Whoops. That’s more than a nitpick - mistake on my part. Thanks for pointing it out. I obviously misread his wiki bio.

His son, the second Duke of Albany, was also deprived of his title under the 1917 Act. That means Albany as a title is in the same limbo as Cumberland.