I just read today’s New York Times freebie version, and there were two stories about her, both calling her the Duchess of Sussex in the head lines.
Didn’t I read stories just a few weeks ago that King Charles had named some other royal to be the DofS – can there be two at once? Or should newsfolk figure out some other way of referring to Meghan?
She is still the Duchess of Sussex. What you’re probably remembering is all the news about Meghan’s son, Archie. They wanted him to be styled as Master despite being entitled to go as Earl of Dumbarton. Regardless, he automatically became “prince” and “Royal Highness” once he became the grandson of the monarch. As a great-grandson, he wasn’t entitled to it. Anyway, so there was talk about that whole thing. Or, perhaps you’re confusing when King Charles named Prince Edward the new Duke of Edinburgh.
Quite so, as far as the royal ducal titles are concerned the only one I can see that C3 reassigned, besides the ones that had been vested on him as heir and were then passed to William as new heir, was the Duke of Edinburgh title last held by his late father, and which went to his brother Edward.
The monarch can amend or revoke royal styles by letters patent, but peerages can only be revoked by an act of parliament.
She is, unless Harry is stripped of the title (which would take an Act of Parliament) or disclaims it. It would not be possible for the King to grant the same title to someone else again, but it would be possible for the King to create a new legally different but similar-sounding peerage. An example for this is the Earl of Oxford and Earl Mortimer, which, despite the odd form, was one title, and it was created because a title of Earl of Oxford already existed. To complicate things further, yet another peerage, the Earl of Oxford and Asquith, was also created at a later time. So presumably, the King could create a new title of Duke of Sussex and Somethingsomething, arguing that it’s distinct from Duke of Sussex. But it would probably be seen as cheeky.
I’m splitting hairs here, but strictly speaking, Charles did not reassign the Duke of Edinburgh title; he created it anew. When a peerage merges with the Crown in the same person, it is extinguished. This happened when Charles succeeded to the throne: For about a year between the death of Philip and that of Elizabeth, Charles was, in fact, Duke of Edinburgh, having inherited this peerage from his father. He would not use the title because he would use Prince of Wales instead, but the peerage was his. When Elizabeth died, the title coincided with the Crown in one person, so it was extinguished. That made Edinburgh available for a new creation, which Charles bestowed on Edward, but legally the Duke of Edinburgh peerage that Philip and Charles held was different from the Duke of Edinburgh peerage that Edward holds - they’re two different “creations” of titles using the same words.
Similarly, William became Prince of Wales because his father, after his accession to the throne, made him Prince of Wales; there is no automaticity that the heir apparent is by that reason alone Prince of Wales (but I think such automaticity exists for other titles traditionally held by the Prince of Wales, such as Duke of Rothesay).
I don’t think Harry can disclaim it. Doesn’t disclaimer have to be done within one year of receiving the peerage?
Under the Peerage Act 1963 that’s the case, but that act applies only to people who succeed to a hereditary peerage. Harry’s title as Duke of Sussex is indeed hereditary, but he didn’t succeed to it - it was created for him. Whether that means he cannot disclaim it at all, or whether he can disclaim it without the restrictions of the act, I don’t know.
Was there an official investiture as Prince of Wales, or did the title fall immediately, and then an investiture later, or no formal investiture?
Maybe there is confusion because Harry stopped being called His Royal Highness when he stepped away? Still the Duke and Duchess but no longer HRH.
This is why the Scottish peerage has two Earldoms of Mar; the original one, created in 1404, is the oldest peerage in the UK, and is currently held by Margaret, Countess of Mar.
Then there’s the Earldom of Mar and Kellie, which dates to 1565; that one is held by James Erskine.
He came upon the title as soon as the King made it so. Charles himself was made Prince of Wales while still a minor by his mother the Queen. A formal ceremony exists, and was used for the future Edward VIII in 1911 and for Charles in 1969, but there seem to be no plans to dust it off again for William.
(Wiki tells me that Eddie8 pinched his and his father George V’s Prince of Wales coronet when he got run out of town, so they had to make a new one for Charles)
Okay, so clearly I was confused. I did some googling, and apparently what I read was an article entitled “New Title! Zara Tindall in shock as King Charles gives her New Title to replace Prince Harry” on some site (? or publication?) called Royal Coffee.
On actually reading through it, it’s just speculation, and doesn’t even say what title she’d be given, I just assumed the Duchess of Sussex given they were saying she was to be a replacement for Harry.
So…nevermind, as Ms. Litella used to say.
Yeah, sounds like that’s more about filling a spot in the now short-handed “working royals” line-up – i.e. taking over things the Sussexes are no longer doing, and if it involves giving her some sort of title of her own to do so.
He can’t disclaim it at all. The purpose of the 1963 act was to create an out for people who involuntarily received a peerage by inheritance but wished to preserve their eligibility to sit in the House of Commons instead. It was enacted soon after Tony Benn lost his seat when his father (a viscount) died; he won his seat again in the by-election, but a court annulled the results and installed the loser on the grounds that the voters knew they were casting invalid votes. If disclaimer had been possible, the whole situation could have been avoided.
Life peers have been able to resign from the House of Lords since 2014, but even then, they don’t lose their titles.
AFAICT Zara still has no titles. She and Mike have been prominent at the Cheltenham Festival this week and I am sure someone might have mentioned it if true.
Talking of the Sussexes, has anyone else noticed the launch of their latest venture, American Riviera Orchard in a glitzy social media video last night, with the ‘word salad’ business set to flog homeware products and high-end food including jam, butter and coffee?
AIUI, William became Prince of Wales when his father, in his first televised speech as King after Elizabeth’s death, announced that he was making William Prince of Wales; that announcement was enough to vest the title. It would be possible to have a formal investiture at a later point, but it would be declaratory - the title is already his.
There was zero public appetite for an investiture AFAIK, and in any case those were really more like coming-of-age ceremonies (Charles was about to turn 21, Edward was 17 and had just gone into the Royal Navy). William was a 40 year old married man with three children.