A Potential Wife for Prince Harry


If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Status
Not open for further replies.
What do you think about Lady Viola Georgina Grosvenor (20)? :)


She seems a bit young to get married, but if Harry hasn't wed anyone else in the meantime, she might be a good candidate in five or ten years. :flowers:
 
Could Harry have a morganatic marriage?

If Prince Harry was to get married to Cressida Bonas, but she was reluctant to enter royal life (just as his last long term girlfriend was), could it ever be possible they could have a morganatic marriage, where he remained royal (Duke of X) whereas she kept her own name and didn't receieve her husband's title?
 
Not in the UK - Edward VIII asked that in 1936 and was told in no uncertain terms that Britain didn't recognise morganatic marriages. If it wasn't acceptable then there is no way it would be acceptable now.

There is no need for his wife to do royal duties as long as her career doesn't appear to be cashing in on her royal connections. Sophie tried reasonably successfully for awhile to continue with her career and then the fake sheikh struck (the same one who got Sarah and Princess Michael) so she and Edward were encouraged to become full-time working royals.

She wouldn't have to use her husband's title but she would still have it - e.g. Camilla is HRH The Princess of Wales but she uses the title Charles has had since his mother's accession, Duchess of Cornwall.
 
Not in the UK - Edward VIII asked that in 1936 and was told in no uncertain terms that Britain didn't recognise morganatic marriages. If it wasn't acceptable then there is no way it would be acceptable now.

There is no need for his wife to do royal duties as long as her career doesn't appear to be cashing in on her royal connections. Sophie tried reasonably successfully for awhile to continue with her career and then the fake sheikh struck (the same one who got Sarah and Princess Michael) so she and Edward were encouraged to become full-time working royals.

She wouldn't have to use her husband's title but she would still have it - e.g. Camilla is HRH The Princess of Wales but she uses the title Charles has had since his mother's accession, Duchess of Cornwall.

Sophie is a good comparison - if she had said at the time of marriage she wanted to remain Sophie RJ, would this have been refused?

A totally different scenario, after decades of royal life, but the Duchess of Kent eschews her HRH title and prefers to be known as Katherine Kent and live a fairly private life.
 
The only morganatic marriage in European royalty seems to be Marina, Consort of Prince Michael of Greece and Denmark who is married to Prince Michael of Greece and Denmark. However, because this marriage is considered morganatic, she did not gain the title of 'Princess Michael of Greece and Denmark' and cannot style herself as 'her Royal Highness'. Despite this, she is able to call herself Marina, Consort of Prince Michael of Greece and Denmark.
 
Sophie is a good comparison - if she had said at the time of marriage she wanted to remain Sophie RJ, would this have been refused?

A totally different scenario, after decades of royal life, but the Duchess of Kent eschews her HRH title and prefers to be known as Katherine Kent and live a fairly private life.

Katherine Windsor (not Kent - Kent is the title while the name is Windsor) may refer to herself by whatever name she wants but her correct title, and the one that is used on official occasions is HRH The Duchess of Kent.

For Sophie - at work she did continue using Sophie RJ but after the fake sheikh affair Charles was at the centre of insisting the both she and Edward stop trying to work for their living and take on royal duties as trying to keep their two lives separate.

If Cressida wishes to continue with a dancing career she could continue to do so as Cressida Bonas - no problems - but when she accompanied Harry anywhere officially she would still be HRH The Duchess of xxxxx.
 
Not in the UK - Edward VIII asked that in 1936 and was told in no uncertain terms that Britain didn't recognise morganatic marriages. If it wasn't acceptable then there is no way it would be acceptable now.

Well, except that after he abdicated the throne and was created The Duke of Windsor, his wife was denied by Letters Patent the right to share his royal rank by The King, creating a morganatic marriage. She was The Duchess of Windsor upon marriage, but was not royal.

I agree there is no need for another repeat of that.
 
Katherine Windsor (not Kent - Kent is the title while the name is Windsor) may refer to herself by whatever name she wants but her correct title, and the one that is used on official occasions is HRH The Duchess of Kent.

She often refers to herself as Katherine Kent - in the same was as Sophie Wessex or Harry Wales.
 
She often refers to herself as Katherine Kent - in the same was as Sophie Wessex or Harry Wales.

Harry Wales, yes Sophie Wessex, no. Whether she refers to herself as it or not doesn't matter Wales, Wessex nor Kent are surnames.
 
I'm not really aware of the details of the Sheik problem nor what kind of job Sophie had, but if I understood correctly the problem had to do with cashing in with royal connections, right? From that perspective, any woman who marries in the RF and runs her own business will have the same problem.

But what if for example, the woman Harry marries had a totally different job, let's say she was scientist for example. Would she be allowed to continue with her job? like if she did research for a university in uk, for example?
 
I'm not really aware of the details of the Sheik problem nor what kind of job Sophie had, but if I understood correctly the problem had to do with cashing in with royal connections, right? From that perspective, any woman who marries in the RF and runs her own business will have the same problem.

But what if for example, the woman Harry marries had a totally different job, let's say she was scientist for example. Would she be allowed to continue with her job? like if she did research for a university in uk, for example?

You're right in regards to Sophie and Sarah although, Edward was involved in Sophie's case. If Henry married someone studying say for a PhD, then I can't see why she wouldn't be allowed to continue her studies. If she wished to hold down a job with her PhD, that's where the difficulty lies. If this woman just liked scientific research as a side hobby to role life, then that's fine too. Another example is if Henry marries a member of the military, I imagine a soldier would be less willing to give up their job.

This is one reason why I think Catherine never really worked anywhere, she didn't want to get attached to something she would one day have to leave.
 
The concept of morganatic marriages does not exist in the UK.
While I would think that any woman Harry marries will be needed for full time royal duties eventually I suppose it would be possible if not very probable she could have a job outside of the BRF. There would be problems such as claims she profited from royal connections, claims that she received promotions due to royal connections, claims she was absent from her job too often due to royal obligations and her poor downtrodden co-workers were forced to cover for her, stories about her employer or co-workers being bothered by paps looking for stories about the royal wife or being bothered by royal security. No matter what her occupation it would be hard for her to continue to work a so called "normal job" when married to Harry.
 
Using Christian Name plus Name of Title is the correct way to shorten one's style/Name/title whatever in the British aristocracy.

HRH The Duchess of Cambridge for short is Catherine Cambridge. While William as the current duke would be just "Cambridge" as a peer

Her Grace The Dowager Duchess of Devonshire is Deborah Devonshire to her friends. Her son the duke is just "Cavendish" for his peers and friends., while other people of course call him "Your Grace".
 
While I would think that any woman Harry marries will be needed for full time royal duties eventually I suppose it would be possible if not very probable she could have a job outside of the BRF. There would be problems such as claims she profited from royal connections, claims that she received promotions due to royal connections, claims she was absent from her job too often due to royal obligations and her poor downtrodden co-workers were forced to cover for her, stories about her employer or co-workers being bothered by paps looking for stories about the royal wife or being bothered by royal security. No matter what her occupation it would be hard for her to continue to work a so called "normal job" when married to Harry.

I agree with this :)
 
The UK doesn't "do" morganatic marriages. Queen Victoria never really recognised them - she didn't seem to have a problem with the Tecks or the Batternbergs marrying members of her family. I don't think anyone would actually object if Harry married Cressida and she wanted to have an ordinary job rather than carry out royal duties - it might even look good, as she'd be earning a wage rather than claiming from the Civil List - but Sophie did that for a while and it got very awkward because business associates were more interested in her royal connections than her actual work, and then the News of the World set her up with that "fake sheikh" business.
 
Alison H - there is no Civil List any more and since 1992 the only people who were on it were The Queen, Philip and The Queen Mum.
 

This is a bit creepy and stalker-ish. I hope Henry steers very clear of any of the girls who are only eager to catch his status and privileged lifestyle. I hate to say this, but this really makes me a bit embarrassed to be a citizen of the United States. People like that make it seem as if the rest of the nation had no class to speak of. Disgraceful.
 
Harry Wales, yes Sophie Wessex, no. Whether she refers to herself as it or not doesn't matter Wales, Wessex nor Kent are surnames.

Harry going by Harry Wales is the exact same as Sophie going by Sophie Wessex, or Katherine going by Katherine Kent. Instead of using the actual surname, Windsor, they use their title in place of a surname.
 
OK - back to basics - please.

Explain morganatic marriages. I'm asking because looking at the posts its about getting married to an HRH, and not carrying out royal duties. That isn't right, is it?
 
OK - back to basics - please.

Explain morganatic marriages. I'm asking because looking at the posts its about getting married to an HRH, and not carrying out royal duties. That isn't right, is it?

We dont have morganatic marriages in the UK, but they way they work is the wife does not have her husbands titles or rank. Generally she is given a lower title of her own that may be inherited by her children. The children cannot inherit the fathers rank or titles, that comes from their mother, and have no other succession rights.
Think back to the origins of the Teck or Battenberg titles if you need more.
 
Last edited:
Then the answer to the original question on this thread is No
 
The answer is a resounding 'no'.

Britain doesn't recognise the concept of a 'morganatic' marriage. The wife takes all the styles and titles of her husband with two notable exceptions - Wallis and Camilla.

Wallis was deprived of her rightful HRH by LPs and Camilla with the idea that she won't be Queen Consort.
 
Thank you Iluvbertie - I thought I might have been over simplistic, something that has got me in trouble in my life!

I understand about Wallis, but in the case of Camilla and "Princess Consort", I think that Prince Charles was badly advised. My view is that (at the time) BP was trying to calm the anti Camilla lobby and PoW was told he could do this. But surely he can't. It is not a title that exists, it is not a secondary title (princess of wales/Duchess of Cornwall/etc). IT must take an Act of Parliament and doing that for an individual is ridiculous.

I am the 1st to admit I'm learning this but from my perspective, PoW should leave well alone, let Camilla (and Catherine, and all who follow) be Queen Consort.

I just dont think what was stated about Princess Consort is do-able.
 
It was stated at the time that it would take legislation and personally I can't see that happening.

What I think will happen is that the Diana fans will call her Princess Consort and begrudge her that title while others will call her Queen Consort and when the Coronation happens she will be crowned alongside Charles and the Diana fans, I can think of a couple on this and other sites, will claimed they were lied to when all that was ever said was it was the 'intention' and intentions do change.
 
Giving parliamentary time to legislate for 1 individual is not good. I'm sure William would want Catherine to be Queen Consort so it is mad. I just think it would be good if HMQ made a statememtn saying that she has followed this up and taken legal advise and has informed the PoW that is cant be done for a single individual. That wouls help PoW. But it would also be a frst cos HMQ is not great at helping out.
 
As to the whole issue of Camilla's future title, will it take an act of parliament to create a new title or simply to deny Camilla (and possibly future female consorts) the use of the one already in existence?

I'm not saying I think this should be done, but if Charles is dead set on Camilla being a princess and not a queen, can he not simply issue LPs making her a princess in her own right, and having her use that title instead of queen - similar to how she does now?

Harry going by Harry Wales is the exact same as Sophie going by Sophie Wessex, or Katherine going by Katherine Kent. Instead of using the actual surname, Windsor, they use their title in place of a surname.

The actual surname (when one is necessary) for male-line descendants of the Queen and Philip is Mountbatten-Windsor, although some have used just Windsor at times. Edward used to go by Edward Windsor prior to his marriage, and in some places Louise is called Louise Windsor (although in the CC she's Mountbatten-Windsor).

Most use their "of x" as a surname; William and Harry Wales, Edward and Sophie Wessex, etc.
 
Public opinion about the Duchess of Cornwall is changing, people are seeing how wonderful she is.

By the time the Prince of Wales becomes King, the Duchess will be his Queen.

Diana's fans will all be dead or too old to complain by the time. No one born after 1997 cares about who Diana was.
 
Public opinion about the Duchess of Cornwall is changing, people are seeing how wonderful she is.

By the time the Prince of Wales becomes King, the Duchess will be his Queen.

Diana's fans will all be dead or too old to complain by the time. No one born after 1997 cares about who Diana was.

How old are you?

There are a lot of people who are younger and care about Diana. There are a lot of people who continue to be influenced by her. Sure, I'll agree with you on the idea that anyone born after 1997 (and would be 15 or under now) might not care about Diana, but someone who's in their 20s now? May have an opinion. Someone who's in their 30s is almost definitely going to have one, likewise with the 40s. As Charles is going to come to the throne at some point in the next 20 years, that means that this group of 20s-40s is going to be in their 40s-60s. Just to break the news to you, but 40 isn't that old.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom