Titles and Styles of Harry, his Future Wife and Children

[Princess BellyFlop]

I belive that Charles wants to reduce the RF so I doubt that he will create Harry a Duke before Harry marries. I would even go to say that Harry might even not get any royal Dukedom at all. In my book there is nothing wrong with staying a prince and having a princess Harry. I just don't know how the little red ones (let me dream) would be called.

 

[Excalibur]

I belive that Charles wants to reduce the RF so I doubt that he will create Harry a Duke before Harry marries. I would even go to say that Harry might even not get any royal Dukedom at all. In my book there is nothing wrong with staying a prince and having a princess Harry. I just don't know how the little red ones (let me dream) would be called.

Regardless of whether Harry gets an additional title, the Letters Patent of 1917 stipulate that his children will be called Lord/Lady X Mountbatten-Windsor if they are born while HM The Queen is on the throne. Grandchildren of the monarch (except for the eldest son of the Prince of Wales) cannot pass on HRH or princely status.

Once Charles ascends to the throne (or if they are born while Charles is King), they would then be called Prince/Princess X of Wales, since Harry would then be the son of the monarch.

If Harry has no children until after William becomes King, then they would be Lord/Lady X Mountbatten-Windsor, since he would no longer be a descendant of the monarch.

Timing is everything.

 

[NGalitzine]

They would still be male line grandchildren of King Charles III, so unless there are changes to the 1917 Letters Patent they would be entitled to be HRH and Prince or Princess even if born after the accession of King William V. Their situation would be the same as Princess Alexandra of Kent, Prince Michael of Kent, Prince William of Gloucester and Prince Richard of Gloucester who were all born after the death of their grandfather George V but were still male line grandchildren of a monarch.
.

 

[NGalitzine]

Once Charles ascends to the throne (or if they are born while Charles is King), they would then be called Prince/Princess X of Wales, since Harry would then be the son of the monarch.

Once Charles succeeds to the throne Harry ceases to be HRH Prince Henry of Wales and automatically becomes HRH The Prince Henry since his father would no longer have the title of Prince of Wales so any children Harry has will not be "of Wales". That designation would fall to any children of HRH The Duke of Cornwall & Cambridge once he is created Prince of Wales by his father King Charles III.

 

[Iluvbertie]

Iluvbertie, I agree with you...Edward is getting the title after Phillips passing...

There was ONE large stipulation - that the title has to merge with the Crown - that means that the King and the Duke are the same person. If that scenario doesn't happen then the title isn't available for regrant to anyone.

It wouldn't be an insult to Edward if Harry ended up with Edinburgh while Harry's yet to be born niece became the monarch,.

 

[Excalibur]

They would still be male line grandchildren of King Charles III, so...they would be entitled to be HRH and Prince or Princess...

I had assumed Letters Patent referred to the present Sovereign, but in reading the exact verbiage, I now see it refers to any Sovereign. Thanks for the correction!

Once Charles succeeds to the throne Harry ceases to be HRH Prince Henry of Wales and automatically becomes HRH The Prince Henry.

Thanks, I wasn't entirely sure of the "of Wales" part. Could this possibly be a reason then for the Queen (or Charles) to grant him an additional title? So that his children would have a place designation?

 

[Iluvbertie]

Yes - if Harry remains simply Prince Harry (or officially Prince Henry) then his children will be Lord/Lady Mountbatten-Windsor if born in the present reign or once Charles becomes King simply HRH Prince/ess xxxx but of nowhere special (of the UK of course but nowhere else).

 

[Jenafran]

There was ONE large stipulation - that the title has to merge with the Crown - that means that the King and the Duke are the same person. If that scenario doesn't happen then the title isn't available for regrant to anyone.

It wouldn't be an insult to Edward if Harry ended up with Edinburgh while Harry's yet to be born niece became the monarch,.

I didn't realize that it had to merge with the crown. Where can I read more about that? Can you point me in the right direction? Thanks!

Also, don't understand your second comment.

 

[Iluvbertie]

I don't know where to find something specific about titles merging with the Crown but I can give you two recent examples.

George V was created Duke of York by his grandmother Queen Victoria. He then automatically added the titles Duke of Cornwall, Duke of Rothesay etc the instant Victoria died. So for most of 1901 he was known as Duke of Cornwall and York. When his father created him Prince of Wales in November 1901 he was still the Dukes of Cornwall, Rothesay and York. When Edward VII died he instantly became King. The Cornwall and Rothesay titles instantly went to his eldest son and heir apparent - the future Edward VIII. Both the titles Prince of Wales and Duke of York ceased to exist - they had merged with the Crown as the title holder had become King and were thus both available for regrant. George V created his own eldest son and heir PoW fairly quickly but waited over a decade before recreating the Duke of York title for his own second son. As George V had been the holder of the title the only way that he could recreate it for his second son was if the title had ceased to exist when he became King - when it had 'merged with the Crown'. The title then merged again in 1936 when George VI became King and was thus available for The Queen to use in 1986 for Andrew.

My second comment is in relation to the idea that it would be insulting to Edward if he (Edward) didn't get the Edinburgh title but I don't see how that could be the case if that title had passed by inheritance to someone with a better claim to the Edinburgh title than Edward - e.g. Harry (who is currently 3rd in line to the title).

 

[Jenafran]

Thanks Bertie, appreciate the info.

 

[branchg]

I belive that Charles wants to reduce the RF so I doubt that he will create Harry a Duke before Harry marries. I would even go to say that Harry might even not get any royal Dukedom at all. In my book there is nothing wrong with staying a prince and having a princess Harry. I just don't know how the little red ones (let me dream) would be called.

Harry will undoubtedly be created a Duke upon marriage, whether by The Queen or his father, as he will be a son of The Sovereign in due course.

His children, however, may remain styled by courtesy as Lord/Lady Windsor, similar to Louise and James, if William has children by the time he marries. The intent is to eventually downsize the number of HRHs and Harry's children are unlikely to ever inherit the throne.

 

[LauraS3514]

There is no need for "intent" to downsize the number of HRHs. Under the 1917 Letters patent, of all the Queen's grandchildren only William and Harry can pass the HRH to their children, and then, as has been pointed out, only when their father becomes king -with the exception of William's oldest son. With the modern tendency to smaller families, the number of HRHs in Britain will drop considerably in the next half-century by natural attrition.
.

 

[jacii11]

I think Prince harry will be granted the dukeon of connaught. see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duke_Of_Connaught

 

[NGalitzine]

^^^^^
Highly unlikely since Connaught is in Ireland. Sussex might be a possibility since it hasnt been used for more than 100 years.

 

[Furienna]

Highly unlikely since Connaught is in Ireland.

Exactly. There was a duchy of Connaught once (our current king's grandmother, Crown princess Margareth, was orginally a princess of said duchy), but that was before Ireland (except North Ireland) severed its ties with the British crown and became a republic.

 

[Artemisia]

As far as Harry's future title goes, how does "His Imperial Majesty Henry I, Emperor and Autocrat of All Russians" sound?
Check out this post to understand what I mean; honestly, that's not the worst scenario should Monarchy in Russia ever be reinstated.

 

[EIIR]

This may be impossible, but I'd like to see the Queen create a Northern Irish dukedom. Could she do that? We've got Edinburgh, York, Kent, Cambridge and, of course, a Prince of Wales. Why not throw a little bit of love our way?

We're the forgotten part of the UK, none of the royals come here very often or spend any significant time here (I know there are legitimate reasons for it).

 

[Kataryn]

This may be impossible, but I'd like to see the Queen create a Northern Irish dukedom. Could she do that? We've got Edinburgh, York, Kent, Cambridge and, of course, a Prince of Wales. Why not throw a little bit of love our way?

We're the forgotten part of the UK, none of the royals come here very often or spend any significant time here (I know there are legitimate reasons for it).

I guess it would be the government of Northern Ireland (sorry, I don't know who is politically responsible for Northern Ireland as part of the UK) who, in case it could be politically possible to do so, could ask HM to create such a dukedom for Harry. I don't think HM will do that on her own and I guess it is not in the interest of the UK's government in London to do so. But if there was a political will behind the idea in Northern Ireland, I am sure HM would be happy to comply or at least happy to hear of that wish.

 

[Furienna]

I think it also wouldn't be impossible to have a duchy of Canada, Australia or other countries in the commonwealth. Or would it?

 

[Kataryn]

I think it also wouldn't be impossible to have a duchy of Canada, Australia or other countries in the commonwealth. Or would it?

I don't think so, as these countries don't acknowledge the BRF as "their" RF. Only the souverain of the UK is the souverain of these countries and when members of the BRF visit these countries, they are there in representation of the souverain queen of Canada, Australia etc. But they're not prince/princess of Australia, Canada etc. Thus Harry has no connection in his own right to these countries, it's just that he is a close relative of the Head of State.

 

[Myself1995]

A bit off topic but has there ever been a Duke of London? If not, why not? I'd love to see Harry be that!

 

[NGalitzine]

I read somewhere that it was the title offered to Winston Churchill, but he of course declined a dukedom. I don't believe it has ever been used as a title, since the older dukedoms usually took their names from counties and not cities in England.

 

[Iluvbertie]

I read somewhere that it was the title offered to Winston Churchill, but he of course declined a dukedom. I don't believe it has ever been used as a title, since the older dukedoms usually took their names from counties and not cities in England.

At least three of the oldest dukedoms are named after cities e.g.

York - first created 1385
Lancaster - first created 1351
Gloucester - first created 1385

 

[Jenafran]

Maybe a Scottish dukedom???

 

[Myself1995]

As far as Harry's future title goes, how does "His Imperial Majesty Henry I, Emperor and Autocrat of All Russians" sound?
Check out this post to understand what I mean; honestly, that's not the worst scenario should Monarchy in Russia ever be reinstated.

Oh, don't do it Harry - look what they did to their last royal family!

 

[cepe]

Maybe a Scottish dukedom???

A scottish title is usually included somewhere - examples include:

Prince William: Duke of Cambridge, Earl of Strathearn (Scottish), Baron Carrickfergus (N Ireland)
Prince Andrew: Duke of York, Earl of Inverness (Scottish), Baron Killyleagh(N Ireland)
Prince Edward: Duke of Kent, Earl of St Andrews (Scottish), and Baron Downpatrick (N Ireland)
and for Scottish Dukedom...
Prince Philip: Duke of Edinburgh, Earl of Merioneth and Baron Greenwich

With the current political climate regarding devolution, I'm not sure whether a Scottish title as the main title would be considered. I like the idea.

 

[Stefan]

Oh, don't do it Harry - look what they did to their last royal family!

Edinburgh will go to Edward as new creation after the death of both his parents and the other scottish Dukedom would be Albany but it's also not avalible

 

[cepe]

Edinburgh will go to Edward as new creation after the death of both his parents and the other scottish Dukedom would be Albany but it's also not avalible

I thought Albany was available because the last holder, the 2nd Duke (1884-1954) who was the posthumous only son of the 1st Duke, had his British honours suspended in 1919 for fighting against this country.

None of the descendents of the 2nd Duke have asked for the Dukedom to be restored, and any claims became extinct on the death of Freidrich of S-C-G in 1998.

If its not available then who is the Duke of Albany?

 

[Lumutqueen]

If its not available then who is the Duke of Albany?

According to wiki, there is a potential claimant to the title which is possibly why it cannot be given to a royal.
Duke of Connaught and Strathearn would provide a good Irish title. Edinburgh is very likely to go to Edward however, it is not certain from my understand it has to go through a few "channels" first.

 

[Artemisia]

I thought Albany was available because the last holder, the 2nd Duke (1884-1954) who was the posthumous only son of the 1st Duke, had his British honours suspended in 1919 for fighting against this country.
None of the descendents of the 2nd Duke have asked for the Dukedom to be restored, and any claims became extinct on the death of Freidrich of S-C-G in 1998. If its not available then who is the Duke of Albany?

You are absolutely correct in your assumption. However, remember that suspension means just that; the Titles Deprivation Act 1917 suspended but did not actually deprive royals and nobles (who had taken arms against Britain) of their titles.

Thus, while the current pretender to the title - Hubertus von Sachsen-Cobrug and Gotha (great grandson of the last de-facto holder of the title, Charles Edward, Duke of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha) - doesn't hold the title, he is still legally the heir to it. Should he petition for a restoration, it is likely to be restored in his favour. If he (or his heirs) doesn't do that, then the title will remain in suspension until it is either restored to the rightful heir of the time, or further Acts of Parliament are passed deciding the future of the titles suspended by the 1917 Act.

In all, four royals and nobles were deprived of their British titles and styles:
- HRH Charles Edward, Duke of Albany, Earl of Clarence and Baron Arklow
- HRH Ernest Augustus, Duke of Cumberland and Teviotdale, Earl of Armagh
- HRH Ernest Augustus, Duke of Brunswick
- Henry, Viscount Taaffe of Corren, Baron of Ballymote

None of the titles belonging to the people above can be re-created for anyone until the heirs of the four petition for restoration, or further Acts are passed on the future of those titles.