Dukedom of Sussex has been gazetted

[Graham]

https://www.thegazette.co.uk/notice/3071743 - "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." So does this mean that technically he only became Duke of Sussex on 16th July?

The remainder is to "the heirs male of his body lawfully begotten" - so if the Sussexes have a daughter she will not be in remainder to the dukedom, even if she is the firstborn. Despite the Succession to the Crown Act 2013. And NB that this is of more practical relevance to Sussex than to Cambridge, which will in the normal course of events merge in the Crown, as e.g. the Dukedom of York did in 1910.

[Maltagenealogy.com]

Interesting stuff !! So no modernisation of titles, so York is likely to be the same as well.

[Lori]

Just out of curiosity, if the first born male was physically or mentally handicapped, would he still inherit, especially if he had no brothers? Asking with regards to any peerage title, not just the Sussex one.

[o***@gmail.com]

Yes, he would. Physical or mental disability has no bearing on inheritance of peerage titles.

[Graham]

Post by Maltagenealogy.com
Interesting stuff !! So no modernisation of titles, so York is likely to be the same as well.

And Prince Louis is 58 years younger than his great-uncle Andrew. So if the latter outlives Prince Charles and then dies before the former marries, we may well see the continuation of the tradition of York for the second son of the monarch. And we (or future members of atr (;-) may then see whether Louis can break the cycle by passing it to his heir (or heiress, depending on the remainder of the hypothetical creation for him).

[Louis Epstein]

https://www.thegazette.co.uk/notice/3071743 - "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." So does this mean that technically he only became Duke of Sussex on 16th July?
The remainder is to "the heirs male of his body lawfully begotten" - so
if the Sussexes have a daughter she will not be in remainder to the
dukedom, even if she is the firstborn. Despite the Succession to the
Crown Act 2013. And NB that this is of more practical relevance to
Sussex than to Cambridge, which will in the normal course of events
merge in the Crown, as e.g. the Dukedom of York did in 1910.

Disappointing.
It's important to be willing to acknowledge that heirs-male remainders
are obsolete,as a defense against any claim that hereditary creations
as a whole are obsolete.

-=-=-
The World Trade Center towers MUST rise again,
at least as tall as before...or terror has triumphed.

[Windemere]

Post by Graham
https://www.thegazette.co.uk/notice/3071743 - "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." So does this mean that technically he only became Duke of Sussex on 16th July?
The remainder is to "the heirs male of his body lawfully begotten" - so if the Sussexes have a daughter she will not be in remainder to the dukedom, even if she is the firstborn. Despite the Succession to the Crown Act 2013. And NB that this is of more practical relevance to Sussex than to Cambridge, which will in the normal course of events merge in the Crown, as e.g. the Dukedom of York did in 1910.

Shouldn't the Sussex remainder only refer to "...the (eldest surviving) heir male....." The way it's written, it sounds as though it applies to all heirs male.

[Graham]

Post by Windemere

Post by Graham
https://www.thegazette.co.uk/notice/3071743 - "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." So does this mean that technically he only became Duke of Sussex on 16th July?
The remainder is to "the heirs male of his body lawfully begotten" - so if the Sussexes have a daughter she will not be in remainder to the dukedom, even if she is the firstborn. Despite the Succession to the Crown Act 2013. And NB that this is of more practical relevance to Sussex than to Cambridge, which will in the normal course of events merge in the Crown, as e.g. the Dukedom of York did in 1910.

Shouldn't the Sussex remainder only refer to "...the (eldest surviving) heir male....." The way it's written, it sounds as though it applies to all heirs male.

See https://instruct.uwo.ca/law/425-002/LAND/Inheritance.htm re land as opposed to a peerage - "To A and his heir. As a result of this grant A acquired only a life estate. Leaving out the "s" in the word heirs had serious implications." I think that the point is that the title will last as long as Harry's male line does - e.g. the Dukedom of Norfolk has lasted for 535 years and 18 holders.

[Al]

Post by Windemere

Post by Graham
https://www.thegazette.co.uk/notice/3071743 - "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." So does this mean that technically he only became Duke of Sussex on 16th July?
The remainder is to "the heirs male of his body lawfully begotten" - so if the Sussexes have a daughter she will not be in remainder to the dukedom, even if she is the firstborn. Despite the Succession to the Crown Act 2013. And NB that this is of more practical relevance to Sussex than to Cambridge, which will in the normal course of events merge in the Crown, as e.g. the Dukedom of York did in 1910.

Shouldn't the Sussex remainder only refer to "...the (eldest surviving) heir male....." The way it's written, it sounds as though it applies to all heirs male.

'heirs male of his body lawfully begotten' is the standard modern remainder for titles (with one exception). Since male primogeniture is based upon the eldest direct heir there is no need to distinguish between all the other heirs in the patent (as there would be for daughters).

[Louis Epstein]

Post by Windemere

https://www.thegazette.co.uk/notice/3071743 - "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." So does this mean that technically he only became Duke of Sussex on 16th July?
The remainder is to "the heirs male of his body lawfully begotten" - so if the Sussexes have a daughter she will not be in remainder to the dukedom, even if she is the firstborn. Despite the Succession to the Crown Act 2013. And NB that this is of more practical relevance to Sussex than to Cambridge, which will in the normal course of events merge in the Crown, as e.g. the Dukedom of York did in 1910.

Shouldn't the Sussex remainder only refer to "...the (eldest surviving)
heir male....." The way it's written, it sounds as though it
applies to all heirs male.

Only one person at a time is the heir male of a grantee.

-=-=-
The World Trade Center towers MUST rise again,
at least as tall as before...or terror has triumphed.

[r***@gmail.com]

The way I see it, it would mean that no daughter could [ever] inherit the Dukedom indeed because of the precise wording of the Letters Patent. There are other options available to have different hereditary systems which are already used. For example, I know that in some Scottish peerages the form of "heirs general" is used. This indicates that both male and female heirs could inherit, rather than just male ones.

[Al]

Baring primary legislation or the interference of the courts (who these days seem ever closer to a legislative branch of government)

Post by r***@gmail.com
The way I see it, it would mean that no daughter could [ever] inherit the Dukedom indeed because of the precise wording of the Letters Patent. There are other options available to have different hereditary systems which are already used. For example, I know that in some Scottish peerages the form of "heirs general" is used. This indicates that both male and female heirs could inherit, rather than just male ones.

[Graham]

Post by r***@gmail.com
The way I see it, it would mean that no daughter could [ever] inherit the Dukedom indeed because of the precise wording of the Letters Patent. There are other options available to have different hereditary systems which are already used. For example, I know that in some Scottish peerages the form of "heirs general" is used. This indicates that both male and female heirs could inherit, rather than just male ones.

https://www.college-of-arms.gov.uk/GuidanceNotes2.pdf par 17 - male issue are preferred before female (depending on method of creation).