As Sampiro says, those are identifiers but not titles; they didn’t either inherit or be given them; it’s equivalent to Francisco de Jaso y Azpilcueta being known as Francisco de Javier because he was born in Javier Castle and there were a ton of Franciscos around, a sort of nickname. If there had been a previous Catherine of Aragon (for example one for whom it actually was a title, that is, a queen regnant), she would have been gotten a different label tacked on.
Of course it’s arguable how much it entered into it that after Mary and Anne he was next in line for the throne himself – his mother Mary was Princess Royal of England and Scotland in her own right as eldest daughter of Charles I.
There are an even dozen vacant royal dukedoms which William might be offered. As he’s in line for the Throne right behind his father, I suspect he’ll be made a duke upon marriage rather than an earl, as his uncle Edward was: Royal dukedoms in the United Kingdom - Wikipedia
I highly doubt that he (or any other British royal) will be named “Duke of Ireland,” as the British Crown rules only Northern Ireland now, but Her Majesty has some options there, too: Peerage of Ireland - Wikipedia. Creating a new title for a city or region within Northern Ireland, as “Duke of Belfast,” for instance, might be a nice gesture now that The Troubles seem to be (crossing my fingers here) over, unless that would be a needless irritant to the Irish.
Yikes, that’s a sure fire way to stir up the republican nest.
I’m going to place my bets on ‘Duke of Clarence’ as it’s vacant, and his father’s official London residence is Clarence House. Also, the last Duke of Clarence (actually, Duke of Clarence and Avondale) was the eldest son of Edward VII when he was Prince of Wales (he died young so didn’t inherit the throne).
People are more likely to remember the Duke of Clarence who was a character in Shakespeare’s Richard III, so I wouldn’t think the dukedom likely to be revived. Duke of Cambridge is much safer.
Duke of Derry might work. Or might end British rule in Ireland.
I think that would be a really stunningly bad idea. Or else a good one, because it might well quickly be followed by a final end to the problem.
The last Duke of Clarence (and Avondale) is also remembered for the many unsavory rumors as to his personal life, and even as a suspect in the Jack the Ripper murders (Prince Albert Victor, Duke of Clarence and Avondale - Wikipedia). Probably best to leave that title on the shelf.
As to an Irish dukedom, I will gladly defer to those who advise against it.
Is there such a thing as the Duke of Earl? If so, that would be cool for the Queen to give him that title at the conclusion of the wedding ceremony and then use the tune for the recessional.
The original recipient still holds the title: Gene Chandler - Wikipedia
Dukedoms are named after places, and (as far as I can tell) there’s no place called Earl in the United Kingdom. So no.
If we’re going to go back and check on the good behaviour of all previous recipients of royal titles, I think we’d need to wipe the slate clean and invent a new one.
Any scandals attached to the Duke of Sussex? I think there was only one. The BBC seems to be gunning for the Duke of Cambridge.
There’s an Errol, so that might work.
The Duke of Cumberland is another that won’t get used again.
The other problem with Cumberland is that there are living male-line descendants of the last Duke of Cumberland and Teviotdale. If Britain ever decided that all was forgiven over the Great War, the title could revive.
Yeah, I don’t think Cumberland is forever off-limits. It’s been a long time and the UK and Germany are practically best buddies nowadays.
It’s more the actions of “Butcher” Cumberland during the Jacobite uprising. Lots of Scots would be very pissed off.
He can’t really be “in waiting” for the dukedom of Edinburgh. When Philip dies, the title will revert to the monarch at the time (be it Elizabeth or Charles). At that time, the monarch can choose to recreate the title anew and then grant it to Edward, but it will constitute a new creation, not a continuation of the title currently held by Philip.
I would have though that if Philip dies before HM, then Charles would become Duke of Edinburgh (on top of his two existing Dukedoms that he’s held since February 6, 1952). It’s a normal dukedom, but reverts to the monarch if either:
(1) the monarch inherits the title, or
(2) the current Duke of Edinburgh becomes the monarch.
Yes, that’s what I meant; he’s waiting for it. If I had incorrectly meant he was the heir apparent or presumptive to it, that’s what I would have said.
Asked to comment, Her Majesty the Queen responded