Territorial designations are beautiful. I love it. Yes, I do stand by my comment that this is the 21st century, and the royal style rules should be changed.
Had Diana be Princess Charles of Edinburgh, I wonder what would have happened--if Charles had turned down a peerage. I do believe that Harry should turn down a peerage--if he wants. He may want his wife to be Princess Henry of Wales--in honor of his mother and father, the Waleses.
It's a good discussion however. Extremely important.
Charles didn't get the chance to 'turn down' a peerage as the Cornwall and Rothesay titles are automatic to him as the heir apparent to the throne and he has held them both since 6th February, 1952. The instant his mother became Queen he became HRH The Prince Charles Philip Arthur George, Duke of Cornwall, Duke of Rothesay, Duke of Cornwall, Duke of Rothesay, Earl of Carrick, Baron of Renfrew, Lord of the Isles, Prince and Great Steward of Scotland. He ceased to be 'of Edinburgh' as he took his styles and titles from his mother who was senior to his father as monarch to his father's mere peer of the realm.
As a 9 year old he may have been able to ask the Queen to delay the Prince of Wales, Earl of Chester but as he already had the English and Scottish titles for the heir apparent why not accept the Welsh one as well.
It should be noted that Prince Harry will cease to be 'of Wales' the instant his father becomes King so why have his wife use a style that she would only be entitled for a few years.
Harry's wife - if he has no peerage - will be Princess Henry of Wales and then The Princess Henry as Harry will lose the 'of Wales' designation when his father ceases to be Prince of Wales.
The York girls will stop using the 'of York' designation on marriage just as Princess Alexandra of Kent stopped using the 'of Kent' designation when she married. She is now 'HRH Princess Alexandra, the Honourable Lady Oglivy. That is because like every other woman she gave up the identity related to her father and took on the identity of her husband.
That means that Beatrice will go from HRH Princess Beatrice of York to HRH Princess Beatrice, Mrs xxxxx and Eugenie from HRH Princess Eugenie of York to HRH Princess Eugenie, Mrs xxxxx.
The territorial designations are really simply to identify the royal line from which the children come. In the days of Queen Victoria she had numerous grandchildren named Prince Albert or Princess Victoria so the 'of Wales', 'of Edinburgh', 'of Prussia/Germany' 'of Hesse' made sense to say which Prince Albert or Princess Victoria they were referring to.
I agree the royal rules should change. I would change HRH to:
1. The spouse of the monarch
2. The children of the monarch
3. The spouse of the heir apparent regardless of gender (currently the husband of a princess isn't automatic)
4. The children of the heir apparent
5. The spouse of the heir apparent's heir apparent
No one else - so in my system the following wouldn't be HRHs:
George, Charlotte (great-grandchildren of the monarch so one generation to far for me), Beatrice, Eugenie, Sophie, Richard, Birgitte, Edward of Kent, Katherine of Kent, Michael, Marie-Christine and Alexandra.
George and Charlotte would gain HRHs only on the accession of Charles but Harry's wife and children wouldn't ever get it. That would also lessen the negative stories about his girlfriends based on the perceived idea that she would have to give up her own career to be royal. If the spouses of younger siblings aren't getting HRHs then they would be able to continue their own lives and careers. Why should the wives have to give up their jobs while the husbands of princesses aren't expected to do so e.g. Tony Armstrong-Jones, Mark Phillips, and even Prince Philip didn't have to end their careers on marriage into the royal family (Phillip had to do so eventually but the plan was that that was supposed to be more into the late 60s rather than the early 50s).
