Talk:Duke of Sussex

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
WikiProject iconBiography: Peerage and Baronetage
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Peerage and Baronetage (assessed as Low-importance).

[Untitled]

I'm not sure if a tabloid article is the most reliable source. Usually Dukedoms aren't "promised" in that way and since it's been over two years since the article's publication, it think it should be removed. There's also no inkling that Harry even has a serious girlfriend right now, let alone a prospective wife. 74.69.9.224 (talk) 23:20, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think the linkage with Harry is worth reporting, especially with an "it was reported" disclaimer, but I revised the text to remove mention of the queen's alleged promise and the linkage with Harry's future wedding, which are not needed in this context. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 14:13, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Duke of Sussex. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{

Sourcecheck
}}).

This message was posted before February 2018.

regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check
}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

Cheers.—

Talk to my owner:Online 10:36, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Duke of Sussex. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{

Sourcecheck
}}).

This message was posted before February 2018.

regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check
}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:31, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Why were the marriages illegitimate?

The article says without explanation that they contravened the Royal Marriages Act, but doesn't say why. It would be a great addition to say! Thanks. Ender's Shadow Snr (talk) 17:45, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

At the time all descendants of George II, other than those descended from British princesses who married into foreign royal houses, needed the consent of the monarch to marry. Their second option was to wait a year, after the monarch had refused permission, and seek permission from both houses of Parliament. The Duke of Sussex, in question, did not have any permission to marry under this act and so was never legally married. The more recent Succession to the Crown Act has reduced the number who need such permission to the first six in the line of succession and removed the right to appeal to parliament if the monarch refuses consent. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.77.219.0 (talk) 02:04, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Should another page be created for Duchess of Sussex

Hi, I was wondering if another page should be created for the Duchess of Sussex, as this is the case for other titles, i.e Cambridge, Cornwall etc? Wagnerp16 (talk) 17:30, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If so, there should really be a gender independent page for the title and rank by itself, such as Ducal title for Sussex (and the others so mentiond, Ducal title for Cambridge etc) -- 65.94.42.219 (talk) 18:33, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Possibly, as this only covers Prince Harry, not his wife Wagnerp16 (talk) 19:13, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Why for rather than of? —Tamfang (talk) 07:57, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It isn't a fief, unlike Cornwall, which is held by the Duke of Cornwall, or England, held by the Queen of England. -- 65.94.42.219 (talk) 04:48, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No reason why the
Duchess of Sussex was not used before today and it may be the place to describe the other contenders who didnt get the title. MilborneOne (talk) 19:21, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
It's interesting, because
Duchess of Sussex was created on 19th May 2018, not 24 November 1801 like the dukedom title. Wagnerp16 (talk) 06:35, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
It doesn't work like that. The title 'Duchess of Sussex' has not been created. The only title created is the 1st Duke of Sussex of the second creation. The wife of the Duke of Sussex simply takes her husbands title, a separate title is not created for her at the same time.Ds1994 (talk) 19:25, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Succession

Do we have a source on the manner of succession? While it's not unreasonable to assume it will also be "heirs male of the body" as has been standard for centuries, it would be great if we could quote the Gazette or the letters patent on this as, given the number of barriers the Duke and Duchess's marriage has broken, one can't rule out that the BRF will chose to break another and establish gender-equal inheritance ("heirs general") for their titles. --Varavour (talk) 00:26, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Letters Patent probably haven't been issued yet. Prince William was declared to be Duke of Cambridge on 29 April 2011, but was not formally created as such until 26 May following. So maybe at the moment Prince Harry is only styled Duke of Sussex, and is not yet an hereditary peer. Opera hat (talk) 07:01, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This talk page is for discussion of the article, it is isn't a forum for discussing the royal family.
Celia Homeford (talk) 12:12, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I see no reason why an exception may be made to the usual succession terms to this title. It will no doubt be the accepted norm "male heirs lawfully begotten". Ds1994 (talk) 19:28, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It's the first hereditary peerage(s) created since the Perth Agreement, so the terms of succession could signal the Queen's attitude toward the change in the royal succession. —Tamfang (talk) 00:49, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"In accordance with the direction of HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN Letters Patent have passed the Great Seal of the Realm, dated the 16th July 2018 granting unto Her Majesty’s Grandson, His Royal Highness Prince Henry Charles Albert David of Wales, K.C.V.O., and the heirs male of his body lawfully begotten the dignities of Baron Kilkeel, Earl of Dumbarton, and Duke of Sussex. "Garlicplanting (talk) 14:49, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Like Tamfang, I'm surprised that the Perth Agreement hasn't changed the attitude towards succession for royal peerages. The traditional "male heirs" remainder has strange consequences if Harry has a first-born daughter and later a son: the daughter will be in front of the brother in terms of royal succession, but the son will be heir-apparent to the Dukedom. If Harry became King some day, the dukedom would merge to the crown, so the previous heir to the dukedom would then lose his inheritance without recompensation since he's not likely to succeed to the throne. 46.114.1.186 (talk) 12:05, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Conflicting Creation Dates

The infobox says the peerages were created on 16th July 2018 - that being the date given in the Gazette. The main body gives the 19th May 2018 - that being the date of the wedding and the date from which the titles were used.

There are similar conflicts with the dukedom of Cambridge (29th April 2011 vs 26th May 2011), and I notice that the recently created earldom of Forfar has not been mentioned in the gazette either. Can anyone explain why there would be such discrepancies? Robin S. Taylor (talk) 20:18, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Simple its wrong: change it! The only correct date on both articles is the date the Great Seal is affixed to the letters patent. The other dates are an announcement not a creation. (There is an argument one could have that on the date of announcement the Sovereign is giving the person the use of the style & title as a matter of courtesy until the patent is sealed and the title created in law. (This does happen from time to time - wives have very occasionally been granted a style they would have had if their husbands had survived to be created a peer. But they are not peeresses even if they use the style/title) Much in the way that both Princes have worn rank insignia higher than their offical rank and only subsequently is the new rank gazetted. However this is a speculative argument not one you can substantiate) Garlicplanting (talk) 12:07, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Duke_of_Sussex&oldid=1208287564"