Questions about British Styles and Titles 1: Ending 2022

[GrahamM]

I can think of a perfect example. Lets take The Earl of Wessex and the plan that, in time, he will be created The Duke of Edinburgh. Now, things have to happen before this can occur. 1.) Both HM, The Queen and the present Duke of Edinburgh have to pass away. 2.) When Charles becomes King, all his previous titles, styles and whatever revert to the Crown including the title of Duke of Edinburgh (which he would inherit if his father dies before his mother). He is no longer The Prince Charles, The Duke of Cornwall or the Prince of Wales or any of his previous titles and styles that he now holds. It is Charles' prerogative as the monarch then to created The Duke of Edinburgh title for Edward.

Now all this has been done. Charles decides to abdicate and retire with Camilla to the far reaches of Antarctica to raise Emperor penguins. All his titles and styles he held as King (Duke of Lancaster etc) are inherited by William leaving Charles without anything. It would be up to William to decide just what his father's titles and styles would be. Could be anything William chooses.

The kicker is that when Edward VIII became King, all his princely titles reverted to the Crown. He only held those that a King would have.

At least this is how I understand it.

'When Charles becomes King, all his previous titles, styles and whatever revert to the Crown'

What are your authorities for this? It is true that peerages merge with the Crown, though not the Dukedom of Rothesay for instance (which is a feudal title, not a personal peerage). But I know of nothing which says that all titles, styles and so on will merge with the Crown. More importantly, the Letters Patent of 1864 say that the HRH title will be borne 'at all times'. There is nothing here which says that a person ceases to be an HRH when he succeeds to the throne. The title might be submerged but it is not subsumed. So, we have specific words which say that a person will be an HRH 'at all times'.

 

[Osipi]

'When Charles becomes King, all his previous titles, styles and whatever revert to the Crown'

What are your authorities for this? It is true that peerages merge with the Crown, though not the Dukedom of Rothesay for instance (which is a feudal title, not a personal peerage). But I know of nothing which says that all titles, styles and so on will merge with the Crown. More importantly, the Letters Patent of 1864 say that the HRH title will be borne 'at all times'. There is nothing here which says that a person ceases to be an HRH when he succeeds to the throne. The title might be submerged but it is not subsumed. So, we have specific words which say that a person will be an HRH 'at all times'.

A monarch is "His/Her Majesty" and is not a HRH according to the 1917 LPs of King George V.

This was known as the 1917 Letters Patent and is one of the most quoted letters patent by royal commentators. The exact order of the letters patent exclusively reserved the right of the title of Prince/Princess and the style of Royal Highness to ‘all children of the sovereign, all male-line grandchildren of the sovereign (children born to sons of the Monarch) and the son of the son of the Prince Of Wales.’ – the effect of this order is still felt today and in order to ensure Prince William’s child becomes a Prince/Princess, a special order by Her Majesty The Queen was instituted 2013 Letters Patent, granting the style of Royal Highness and Prince/Princess to all children of Prince William, regardless of gender. Had this not have happened, under the 1917 letters patent, the first son would be a Prince, but any other children would be Lords and Ladies.

History Of Royal Titles: HRH and Prince/Princess – Royal Central

 

[GrahamM]

A monarch is "His/Her Majesty" and is not a HRH according to the 1917 LPs of King George V.

This was known as the 1917 Letters Patent and is one of the most quoted letters patent by royal commentators. The exact order of the letters patent exclusively reserved the right of the title of Prince/Princess and the style of Royal Highness to ‘all children of the sovereign, all male-line grandchildren of the sovereign (children born to sons of the Monarch) and the son of the son of the Prince Of Wales.’ – the effect of this order is still felt today and in order to ensure Prince William’s child becomes a Prince/Princess, a special order by Her Majesty The Queen was instituted 2013 Letters Patent, granting the style of Royal Highness and Prince/Princess to all children of Prince William, regardless of gender. Had this not have happened, under the 1917 letters patent, the first son would be a Prince, but any other children would be Lords and Ladies.

History Of Royal Titles: HRH and Prince/Princess – Royal Central

You say 'A monarch is "His/Her Majesty" and is not a HRH according to the 1917 LPs of King George V' and that the letters patent of 1917 say that the title HRH will be borne by ‘all children of the sovereign, all male-line grandchildren of the sovereign (children born to sons of the Monarch) and the son of the son of the Prince Of Wales.’ So your second statement contradicts your first statement. Edward was a child of the sovereign and was therefore an HRH according to the letters patent of 1917. These letters patent do not say that the title is lost when a person becomes king/queen. The person may also have a higher title but that is another matter. These letters patent of 1917 also say (like the letters patent of 1864) that the HRH title will be borne 'at all times'.

 

[Queen Claude]

A monarch is "His/Her Majesty" and is not a HRH according to the 1917 LPs of King George V.

This was known as the 1917 Letters Patent and is one of the most quoted letters patent by royal commentators. The exact order of the letters patent exclusively reserved the right of the title of Prince/Princess and the style of Royal Highness to ‘all children of the sovereign, all male-line grandchildren of the sovereign (children born to sons of the Monarch) and the son of the son of the Prince Of Wales.’ – the effect of this order is still felt today and in order to ensure Prince William’s child becomes a Prince/Princess, a special order by Her Majesty The Queen was instituted 2013 Letters Patent, granting the style of Royal Highness and Prince/Princess to all children of Prince William, regardless of gender. Had this not have happened, under the 1917 letters patent, the first son would be a Prince, but any other children would be Lords and Ladies.

History Of Royal Titles: HRH and Prince/Princess – Royal Central

Actually that reminds me the following is incorrect.

1. Edward was born an HRH. He did not lose this on his abdication.

Edward and his siblings were not born HRH, they were born HH, they became HRHs when their grandfather became King.

ETA:
Correction, according to Wikipedia Edward and his siblings became HRHs in 1898 via a Letters Patent issued by Queen Victoria, this was three years before their grandfather became King. The three youngest children of George and Mary were born after 1898 and they were born HRHs.

 

[Rudolph]

The Letters Patent of 1937 make it clear that only people in the lineal line of succession are royal highness. The LP of 1864 also make clear it is used by people in the line of succession.

Edward was no longer in the line of succession. Therefore his use of the style had to be granted by the King.

No one is legally entitled to be a royal highness. It comes from the sovereign's will and pleasure. The sovereign is not bound by previous Letters Patent. They serve as a template but can be changed at anytime and for any reason.

No monarch had ever abdicated, so there was nothing either in statute or common law that tells us what becomes of this person.

We can't rewrite history. In 1937 King George VI made his will and pleasure known by Letters Patent that his brother Edward, not withstanding the Act of Abdication, shall enjoy the style of royal highness and neither his wife nor any children could claim through him.

Everything else, although interesting doesn't really matter. And to button this up, Wallis was not a royal highness which is basically all i was trying to say anyway lol

 

[Osipi]

You say 'A monarch is "His/Her Majesty" and is not a HRH according to the 1917 LPs of King George V' and that the letters patent of 1917 say that the title HRH will be borne by ‘all children of the sovereign, all male-line grandchildren of the sovereign (children born to sons of the Monarch) and the son of the son of the Prince Of Wales.’ So your second statement contradicts your first statement. Edward was a child of the sovereign and was therefore an HRH according to the letters patent of 1917. These letters patent do not say that the title is lost when a person becomes king/queen. The person may also have a higher title but that is another matter. These letters patent of 1917 also say (like the letters patent of 1864) that the HRH title will be borne 'at all times'.

OK. One more example taken from the Independent

"HRH stands for His/Her Royal Highness, a style associated with princes and princesses of the United Kingdom – that is to say with the children of sovereigns and the children of the sons of sovereigns. That is the general rule, established by George V, though there are exceptions. Most, but by no means all, of the people you think of as members of the Royal Family are Royal Highnesses. The Queen is not. She is Her Majesty – HM, as in HM Government, HM Revenue and Customs and so on."

Errors & Omissions: HRH? Her Majesty the Queen would not have been amused | Errors & Omissions | News | The Independent

 

[GrahamM]

Edward was an HRH from birth under the letters patent of 1864 whereby the children of the sons of the sovereign were granted the title.

[Sorry, my mistake. It seems that Edward did not become an HRH until the death of Queen Victoria, at which point he qualified as a son of the son of the sovereign.]

 

[GrahamM]

OK. One more example taken from the Independent

"HRH stands for His/Her Royal Highness, a style associated with princes and princesses of the United Kingdom – that is to say with the children of sovereigns and the children of the sons of sovereigns. That is the general rule, established by George V, though there are exceptions. Most, but by no means all, of the people you think of as members of the Royal Family are Royal Highnesses. The Queen is not. She is Her Majesty – HM, as in HM Government, HM Revenue and Customs and so on."

Errors & Omissions: HRH? Her Majesty the Queen would not have been amused | Errors & Omissions | News | The Independent

Sorry, it is not enough to just quote someone else's opinion. The Queen is HM (they got that bit right) but she is also an HRH - the letters patent of 1864 and 1917 say so quite specifically; they say that HRHs will bear their title of HRH 'at all times'. As an exercise of the royal prerogative, you will have to find either a later exercise of the royal prerogative cancelling the effect of the 1864 and 1917 letters patent in this respect or an Act of Parliament. You can argue that, logically, a person cannot be an HM and an HRH at the same time but we are not concerned with what we might think is logical; we are concerned with what the law says (the law being the letters patent, which amount to statute law). The letters patent say that Edward was an HRH 'at all times'. You need to find some other law that cancels/over-rides this.

 

[Osipi]

Edward was an HRH from birth under the letters patent of 1864 whereby the children of the sons of the sovereign were granted the title.

As entertaining it has been to go back and forth over all of this HRH stuff and Letters Patent and common law and whatnot, I am by no means a legal eagle or even a UK citizen and what I have stated is just what I have learned from various sources.

One thing I did find is that the back and forth over this generated a lot of discussion back at the time of the abdication also and I happened to find archives of the correspondences regarding the Letters Patent of King George VI in regards to his brother.

Enjoy

The drafting of the letters patent of 1937

The actual verbatim Letters Patent of George VI on May 27, 1937.

http://www.heraldica.org/topics/britain/prince_highness_docs.htm#1937

 

[GrahamM]

The Letters Patent of 1937 make it clear that only people in the lineal line of succession are royal highness. The LP of 1864 also make clear it is used by people in the line of succession.

Edward was no longer in the line of succession. Therefore his use of the style had to be granted by the King.

No one is legally entitled to be a royal highness. It comes from the sovereign's will and pleasure. The sovereign is not bound by previous Letters Patent. They serve as a template but can be changed at anytime and for any reason.

No monarch had ever abdicated, so there was nothing either in statute or common law that tells us what becomes of this person.

We can't rewrite history. In 1937 King George VI made his will and pleasure known by Letters Patent that his brother Edward, not withstanding the Act of Abdication, shall enjoy the style of royal highness and neither his wife nor any children could claim through him.

Everything else, although interesting doesn't really matter. And to button this up, Wallis was not a royal highness which is basically all i was trying to say anyway lol

This is not correct. Neither the letters patent of 1864 or those of 1917 make any reference to the line of succession in the operative words (the words which grant the right); they simply refer to children, sons and so on. The 1864 letters patent refer to the people who currently (in 1864) already enjoyed the title HRH; it then goes on to say what will happen thereafter. Thus, the only reference to those in lineal succession was to WHAT APPLIED IN THE PAST (BEFORE 1864). After 1864 the people specified bore the title HRH whether they were in lineal succession to the throne or not. If you are in any doubt about this, can I refer you to the words iin the 1864 letters patent which say 'henceforth established defined and limited in manner hereinafter declared'. It says 'hereinafter'- the words lineal succession appear before and are therefore not 'hereinafter' and so do not form part of the operative words of the letters patent.

PS 'Lineal' means by right of blood. By right of blood Edward was still in the line of succession; in fact, by right of blood he was and remained King. LEGALLY he was removed from the line of succession but this did not change his status by right of blood (because by right of blood means, in effect, by right of blood alone - not by legal right). The law cannot alter the fact of someone's heredity, only the rights arising from that heredity.

 

[GrahamM]

As entertaining it has been to go back and forth over all of this HRH stuff and Letters Patent and common law and whatnot, I am by no means a legal eagle or even a UK citizen and what I have stated is just what I have learned from various sources.

One thing I did find is that the back and forth over this generated a lot of discussion back at the time of the abdication also and I happened to find archives of the correspondences regarding the Letters Patent of King George VI in regards to his brother.

Enjoy

The drafting of the letters patent of 1937

The actual verbatim Letters Patent of George VI on May 27, 1937.

Royal Styles and Titles of Great Britain: Documents

Thanks for that. We know exactly what happened. The powers that be were determined to deny Wallis Simpson the title of HRH. They only way they could do this was to lie about what the law said - and so they did. I have no axe to grind either way, although it does get up my nose when people lie in order to deprive someone of something they are entitled to. It wasn't right and that's it. I don't care whether the person doing the wrong happened to be the King, although, in my book, it makes it worse when people abuse a position of power in this way - and with their own brother!!! 'Nothing is settled until it is settled right.' (Rudyard Kipling)

 

[Spheno]

Let's not forget that the Succession to the Crown Act says that the monarch's consent to marriages of the first six persons in line to the throne must be declared in a meeting of the Privy Council, meaning it has to be ratified in practice by the government. If the government opposed the marriage, then my understanding is that the Queen would be forced to deny consent.

In any case, Harry could still marry without consent. The only legal effect would be that he and his descendants from the marriage would be excluded from the line of succession to the throne. In principle, unlike in Sweden, Denmark or the Netherlands, I believe the the exclusion from the line of succession would not affect his royal titles and styles. Prince Michael of Kent for example was disqualified from succeeding to the Crown when he married Marie Christine (who is Catholic); nevertheless, he never lost his HRH status as a grandson of a British sovereign in male line.

I think this is very interesting question.


This situation didn't exist before the Succession to the Crown Act 2013.
Prince Michael of Kent was disqualified from succeeding to the Crown when he married a Catholic, but his children still were in the line of succesion.

But now marriage without consent means that a royal and his/her all descendants (not only from the marriage) would be excluded from the line of succession to the throne. In this case the royal would be dead from the succession point of view.

And we have Edward VIII case:

On 14 April 1937, Attorney General Sir Donald Somervell submitted to Home Secretary Sir John Simon a memorandum summarising the views of Lord Advocate T. M. Cooper, Parliamentary Counsel Sir Granville Ram, and himself:
1.We incline to the view that on his abdication the Duke of Windsor could not have claimed the right to be described as a Royal Highness. In other words, no reasonable objection could have been taken if the King had decided that his exclusion from the lineal succession excluded him from the right to this title as conferred by the existing Letters Patent.

After abdication Edward became "dead" from the succession point of view and lost all his titles.

I believe that nobody in government discussed this situation.

 

[cepe]

I think this is very interesting question.


This situation didn't exist before the Succession to the Crown Act 2013.
Prince Michael of Kent was disqualified from succeeding to the Crown when he married a Catholic, but his children still were in the line of succesion.

But now marriage without consent means that a royal and his/her all descendants (not only from the marriage) would be excluded from the line of succession to the throne. In this case the royal would be dead from the succession point of view.

And we have Edward VIII case:
After abdication Edward became "dead" from the succession point of view and lost all his titles.

I believe that nobody in government discussed this situation.

He only had one title to lose - that of King. All titles are returned to the crown when heir becomes king.

This is the mechanism by which, when Charles becomes king, Edward can be made Duke of Edinburgh (new creation)

 

[Iluvbertie]

Just an addition to the last point - Charles can only create Edward Duke of Edinburgh if he himself has inherited the title first and so both The Queen and Philip have to be dead. It is therefore possible for Charles to be King and not be able to create Edward as DoE if Philip is still alive.

 

[padams2359]

That is correct. Charles will only be the DoE if his father dies before his mother, and will only be the DoE until her death.

 

[Spheno]

He only had one title to lose - that of King. All titles are returned to the crown when heir becomes king.

After recent wave of abdication in Europe we see two main scenarios:
1) Albert II and Juan Carlos have retained, by courtesy, the title and style of King;
2) Beatrix reverted to her title before her inauguration - a princess.

But Edward lost his king's title. And he lost Royal Highness style as king's son. It was 3rd way.

 

[Iluvbertie]

Edward remained HRH The Prince Edward after his abdication adding the title of Duke of Windsor to that. The HRH was denied to Wallis but Edward did retain it.

 

[Spheno]

Edward remained HRH The Prince Edward after his abdication adding the title of Duke of Windsor to that. The HRH was denied to Wallis but Edward did retain it.

It was discussed. As a result George re-conferred the "title, style, or attribute of Royal Highness" upon the Duke of Windsor.

Royal Styles and Titles of Great Britain: Documents

 

[Iluvbertie]

He didn't 'reconfer' but confirmed that Edward always held those titles.

 

[Mbruno]

I think this is very interesting question.


This situation didn't exist before the Succession to the Crown Act 2013.
Prince Michael of Kent was disqualified from succeeding to the Crown when he married a Catholic, but his children still were in the line of succesion.

But now marriage without consent means that a royal and his/her all descendants (not only from the marriage) would be excluded from the line of succession to the throne. In this case the royal would be dead from the succession point of view.

And we have Edward VIII case:
After abdication Edward became "dead" from the succession point of view and lost all his titles.

I believe that nobody in government discussed this situation.

Not really, Edward VIII ceased to be King, which is an office more so then a title, but he remained an HRH after his abdication. So he was still a royal even ithough his descendants had no succession rights.

 

[Skippyboo]

Questions about British Styles and Titles

With the Royal Marriage Act if you married someone without consent, the marriage was invalid so any children would be illegitimate. That scenario neither the parter or children could hold a royal title.

Now, with the new law. The marriage is valid but the Royal and his/her descendants are out of the succession.

So let's say Harry in Vegas goes horribly wrong and gets married to a Hooters waitress while partying in a drive thru wedding chapel. He is out of the line of succession now. However in theory, Hooters waitress is now HRH Princess Henry of Wales.

The Queen could issue LPs taking the HRH Prince from Harry leaving the couple Mr and Mrs Harry Mountbatten Windsor. Because of U.K. Common law where the wife takes the husband title, she can't take Princess Henry without Harry also losing his Prince.

Prince Michael's children still had succession rights when their father didn't because they were Anglican. If Michael is treated as "dead" when he marries a Catholic his children should not have any succession rights even if they are Anglican. So out of the succession does seem like totally dead.

So if every someone goes against the royal consent in the top 6, it's new ground and who knows if they keep or lose titles. They kept the requirement in for a reason.

 

[Rudolph]

It was discussed. As a result George re-conferred the "title, style, or attribute of Royal Highness" upon the Duke of Windsor.

Royal Styles and Titles of Great Britain: Documents

I agree. It's clear from the discussions between the king's private secretary and the various government officials that Edward ceased to be royal be virtue of his abdication.

The Home Secretary writes

As the style and title of Royal Highness has hitherto invariably attached to members of the Royal Family who were within the line of succession, or their wives, there would be a remarkable anomaly if persons outside the succession equally enjoyed it. Even if the Duke, in view of his former position, retained the title by express direction from the King as the fountain of honour, it is presumably within the legal powers of the Sovereign to direct that no other person shall derive such style and title from the Duke, whether by tie of marriage or descent.

The Lord Chamberlain asked the question whether on abdication the Duke became “Prince Edward” or “Edward Windsor”.

The Attorney General said that there were different views on this point, but he himself was inclined to the view that the effect of the abdication was that the Duke was turned into a private citizen.

The Home Secretary writes to the Prime Minister

I attach a draft of Letters Patent which, if issued by The King, would have the effect of securing that, upon the marriage of Mrs. Simpson to the Duke of Windsor, the new Duchess would not become "Her Royal Highness". You will see that the document is so drawn as to confirm, or reaffirm, the right of the Duke to be a Royal Highness; the effect of his abdication was to remove him from the line of Royal succession and, therefore, he might have been regarded as himself losing the title. The King in this document formally authorises the title so far as His Brother is concerned and, at the same time, expressly directs that it will not be enjoyed by anyone claiming through him.

Geoffrey Ellis, Counsel to the Crown in Peerage and Honours, writes

The abdication of King Edward VIII and the Act confirming the same (1 Ed. 8. c.3.) removes the ex-King, as if dead, from the line of succession, and moreover declares his children also, if any, cut out of the succession. The ex-King is, therefore, simply a private subject of the Crown, who by implication has also lost the right to style himself H.R.H. His children, if any, being expressly excluded from the succession would not be entitled to the style and title of H.R.H. [added: It may be noted that the original letters patent of Q. Victoria show the royal intent to be for "certain members of the Royal Family being in lineal succession to the Crown."]

In the end I think it's clear that Edward didn't automatically 'downgrade' to HRH upon abdication but only enjoyed the use of the style by direct expression from the king.

 

[Rudolph]

With the Royal Marriage Act if you married someone without consent, the marriage was invalid so any children would be illegitimate. That scenario neither the parter or children could hold a royal title.

Now, with the new law. The marriage is valid but the Royal and his/her descendants are out of the succession.

So let's say Harry in Vegas goes horribly wrong and gets married to a Hooters waitress while partying in a drive thru wedding chapel. He is out of the line of succession now. However in theory, Hooters waitress is now HRH Princess Henry of Wales.

The Queen could issue LPs taking the HRH Prince from Harry leaving the couple Mr and Mrs Harry Mountbatten Windsor. Because of U.K. Common law where the wife takes the husband title, she can't take Princess Henry without Harry also losing his Prince.

Prince Michael's children still had succession rights when their father didn't because they were Anglican. If Michael is treated as "dead" when he marries a Catholic his children should not have any succession rights even if they are Anglican. So out of the succession does seem like totally dead.

So if every someone goes against the royal consent in the top 6, it's new ground and who knows if they keep or lose titles. They kept the requirement in for a reason.

Was consent required to marry a roman catholic? Prince Micheal remained a royal highness, so being removed from the succession, at least in his case did not remove his HRH. Was it because he had permission to marry?

 

[Mbruno]

Was consent required to marry a roman catholic? Prince Micheal remained a royal highness, so being removed from the succession, at least in his case did not remove his HRH. Was it because he had permission to marry?

Prince Michael's case was different. He had consent from the Queen to get married (othewise his marriage under the old Royal Marriages Act would have been invalid and his children would have been illegitimate in the UK). He was removed from the line of succession because the Act of Settlement said that any person in the line of succession who married a Catholic could not succeed to the Crown. That provision has been repealed retroactively BTW by the Succession to the Crown Act and Prince Michael is now back in the line of succession.

 

[Skippyboo]

But what is unclear is what happens when a royal marries without consent. Harry keeping his HRH Prince, his wife becoming a HRH Princess, kids becoming in time HRHs Prince/Princess while remaining out of the line of succession seems doesn't really seem likely a punishment for going around the consent law. Especially since Harry and his descendants were likely never going to be on the throne. The Queen could issue LPs taking Harry's royal status and titles away.

 

[Ish]

The Queen can't issue LPs stripping Harry (or any other person) of his titles. Only Parliament can do that.

If Harry were to marry without consent of the monarch now, he would be removed from the Succession and his children would never be in the Succession by law. That same law says nothing about titles, therefore Harry would remain HRH Prince Henry of Wales and his wife HRH Princess Henry of Wales unless Parliament chose to strip him of his titles. Their children would be styled as the children of a Prince, as per the 1917 LPs; so Lord/Lady Xxx Mountbatten-Windsor during the Queen's reign and Prince/Princess Xxx during Charles', William's, and George's reigns.

Charles could make it known that the children of Prince and Princess Henry of Wales will remain styled as the children of a Prince, instead of as Princes/Princesses themselves, at the start of his reign, but even then it would be hard to say that the children don't have the titles if they were born during the Queen's reign; the difference her between these hypothetical children and the Wessex children is that with the Wessex's the statement was made by the monarch long before the children were born. That's a bit harder to do with Harry's hypothetical children.

Was consent required to marry a roman catholic? Prince Micheal remained a royal highness, so being removed from the succession, at least in his case did not remove his HRH. Was it because he had permission to marry?

At the time of Prince Michael's wedding, consent was required for all marriages to be valid, regardless of whether or not the person marrying would remain in the succession.

There has never been a link between being an HRH and being in the line of succession; many people are not HRHs and are in the line of succession. Fewer people are HRHs and are not in the succession, and I actually believe up until his restoration Michael was the only person in the family to be an HRH and not be in the succession. Princess Michael was not the only Catholic HRH, as the Duchess of Kent converted to Catholicism after her marriage.

If Prince and Princess Michael hadn't had permission to marry, their marriage wouldn't have been valid; Michael wouldn't have been stripped of any titles or his place in the succession, but his wife wouldn't have legally been his wife, and his children would have been illegitimate. This is what happened with the "wives" of the children of George III.

 

[Mbruno]

The Queen can't issue LPs stripping Harry (or any other person) of his titles. Only Parliament can do that.

If Harry were to marry without consent of the monarch now, he would be removed from the Succession and his children would never be in the Succession by law. That same law says nothing about titles, therefore Harry would remain HRH Prince Henry of Wales and his wife HRH Princess Henry of Wales unless Parliament chose to strip him of his titles. Their children would be styled as the children of a Prince, as per the 1917 LPs; so Lord/Lady Xxx Mountbatten-Windsor during the Queen's reign and Prince/Princess Xxx during Charles', William's, and George's reigns.

Charles could make it known that the children of Prince and Princess Henry of Wales will remain styled as the children of a Prince, instead of as Princes/Princesses themselves, at the start of his reign, but even then it would be hard to say that the children don't have the titles if they were born during the Queen's reign; the difference her between these hypothetical children and the Wessex children is that with the Wessex's the statement was made by the monarch long before the children were born. That's a bit harder to do with Harry's hypothetical children.

If, however, Charles never became king, Harry's children would be only Lord/Lady [name] Mountbatten-Windsor forever , unless they got some other title later, wouldn't they ? In other words, they would be great-grandchildren of a former sovereign (Queen Elizabeth II), but they wouldn't be grandchildren of any sovereign (as Elizabeth's successor would be their uncle William instead of their grandfather).

 

[duke of poliganc]

If, however, Charles never became king, Harry's children would be only Lord/Lady [name] Mountbatten-Windsor forever , unless they got some other title later, wouldn't they ? In other words, they would be great-grandchildren of a former sovereign (Queen Elizabeth II), but they wouldn't be grandchildren of any sovereign (as Elizabeth's successor would be their uncle William instead of their grandfather).

in that case i would think the situation would be handled like the children of peers who the queen gave them the style they would get if their father succeed the title .

 

[Spheno]

The Queen can't issue LPs stripping Harry (or any other person) of his titles. Only Parliament can do that.
.

The queen can't issue LP stripping a person of his peerage or baronetage title, but she can strip of the style and title of Royal Highness. It's her right (see Sarah, Duchess of York).

 

[Rudolph]

The Queen can't issue LPs stripping Harry (or any other person) of his titles. Only Parliament can do that.

If Harry were to marry without consent of the monarch now, he would be removed from the Succession and his children would never be in the Succession by law. That same law says nothing about titles

Of course she can. She is the only person in the realm with the authority to do so.

You're maybe conflating peerages with royal styles and titles. Peerages require an act of parliament to 'strip' someone but not HRH/prince/ss

When it comes to royal styles, 'The Queen can giveth and The Queen can taketh away'

What some have been discussing is if Harry for whatever reason didn't seek/get permission to marry and marries anyway. Would there be some sort of 'punishment' for lack of better word.

By statute he would be excluded from the line of succession but titles are the prerogative of the sovereign.

Although a different set of circumstances, Edward VIII's abdication made him in the words of Geoffrey Ellis 'A Private citizen of the crown, who by implication has also lost the right to style himself H.R.H.'


Would Harry's exclusion from the line of succession be viewed as him becoming a 'private citizen of the crown and therefore not entitled to style himself HRH'

Ultimately it would be up to the Queen (or Charles) to decide.