Prince Harry Created Duke of Sussex: May 19, 2018

[Duke of Leaside]

So as far as I can tell, there's nothing to date in the Gazette about the letters patent.

Maybe they haven't been prepared yet or maybe they have and haven't been gazetted. Maybe they will never be gazetted; which would beg the question why?

Perhaps they are trying to avoid controversy due to an unusual remainder other than to heirs male of the body lawfully begotten. I'm wondering if they've done something like that of the Duke of Fife or Earl Mountbatten so daughters could inherit. Or maybe they've done the full "to the heirs of the body lawfully begotten".

Does anyone know if that last example has ever been done for a peerage?

The lack of a gazette notice is making me a little curious.

Okay, forgive me for quoting my own post; it saved me having to re-state everything.

Am I the only one who believes it is now passing strange that there has been no Gazette notice of the Letters Patent conferring the Dukedom of Sussex on Prince Harry?

 

[Rudolph]

It was about 30 days for Prince William’s. So it’s definitely taking longer for Harry.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

So as far as I can tell, there's nothing to date in the Gazette about the letters patent.

Maybe they haven't been prepared yet or maybe they have and haven't been gazetted. Maybe they will never be gazetted; which would beg the question why?

Perhaps they are trying to avoid controversy due to an unusual remainder other than to heirs male of the body lawfully begotten. [...]

Or likewise, they may be trying to avoid controversy due to a remainder to heirs male of the body lawfully begotten. Assuming that the Duke of Sussex's peerages are hereditary, they are the first hereditary peerages to be created after the campaign for women's right to succession was founded. A remainder to heirs male only may be perceived as taking a side in opposition to women peers.

However, the eldest son of the Sussexes will be referred to as Earl of Dumbarton if he is the heir to the dukedom and Lord X Mountbatten-Windsor if he is not the heir. Should they have a daughter first, and refer to her younger brother as Earl of Dumbarton, it would prove that the remainder either was to heirs male or gave preference to sons.

 

[jacqui24]

Or likewise, they may be trying to avoid controversy due to a remainder to heirs male of the body lawfully begotten. Assuming that the Duke of Sussex's peerages are hereditary, they are the first hereditary peerages to be created after the campaign for women's right to succession was founded. A remainder to heirs male only may be perceived as taking a side in opposition to women peers.

However, the eldest son of the Sussexes will be referred to as Earl of Dumbarton if he is the heir to the dukedom and Lord X Mountbatten-Windsor if he is not the heir. Should they have a daughter first, and refer to her younger brother as Earl of Dumbarton, it would prove that the remainder either was to heirs male or gave preference to sons.

Agreed. Regardless, it's not going to a mystery forever. We'll find out as soon as they have kids. Most of the outlets have already assumed it's male heir only. All the articles about how feminist Meghan would be shocked to find out (I highly doubt that would've been a shock to her on her wedding day somehow) that her daughters wouldn't be able to inherit the title.

Also, do we have the time frame for the Gazette for anyone else's title? Just William is an awfully tiny sample.

 

[Gawin]

Yes, the delay is definitely unusual.

Andrew - titles announced on the date of his marriage, 23 July 1986, and published the same day:

https://www.thegazette.co.uk/London/issue/50606/supplement/1/data.pdf

Edward'- titles announced the day of his marriage, 19 June 1999, and published 28 June:

https://www.thegazette.co.uk/London/issue/55536/page/7011

 

[jacqui24]

It seems it just gets later and later with each one.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

Agreed. Regardless, it's not going to a mystery forever. We'll find out as soon as they have kids. Most of the outlets have already assumed it's male heir only. All the articles about how feminist Meghan would be shocked to find out (I highly doubt that would've been a shock to her on her wedding day somehow) that her daughters wouldn't be able to inherit the title.

It won't necessarily be found out when they have children; if they have only two children, there is a 75 percent chance that they will either have a son first or only have daughters, and then their eldest son's title would not be predicated on the remainder.

An heirs male only remainder in Britain would not be shocking; however, it is widely purported that the Queen allowed the Earl and Countess of Wessex and the Duke and Duchess of Sussex to choose the titles of their future children. I am not sure there is anything to support this claim, but if it is accurate and it was the Sussexes' choice that their daughters be passed over for sons, that of course would not be seen as a feminist request.

 

[Mbruno]

Yes, the delay is definitely unusual.

Andrew - titles announced on the date of his marriage, 23 July 1986, and published the same day:

https://www.thegazette.co.uk/London/issue/50606/supplement/1/data.pdf

Edward'- titles announced the day of his marriage, 19 June 1999, and published 28 June:

https://www.thegazette.co.uk/London/issue/55536/page/7011

Why are HM's sons referred to in the Gazette as "His Royal Highness Prince Andrew [...] " and " His Royal Highness Prince Edward [...]" rather than "His Royal Highness The Prince Andrew [...]" and "His Royal Highness The Prince Edward [...]"? I am confused now.

 

[Osipi]

That's being pretty eagle eyed there, Mbruno. Perhaps the "The" is excluded from the official proclamation so that it remains relevant through time. Once Charles becomes King, Andrew would no longer be "The Prince Andrew" but revert again to just Prince Andrew.

That's my guesstimation anyways.

 

[jacqui24]

An heirs male only remainder in Britain would not be shocking; however, it is widely purported that the Queen allowed the Earl and Countess of Wessex and the Duke and Duchess of Sussex to choose the titles of their future children. I am not sure there is anything to support this claim, but if it is accurate and it was the Sussexes' choice that their daughters be passed over for sons, that of course would not be seen as a feminist request.

The Wessexes were allowed to have their children addressed as those of an Earl rather than HRH title a grandchild of the monarch would be. And the announcement for the Earl of Wessex's title included an announcement about how their future children would be addressed as, but not for Sussexes. So that issue remains to be resolved in the future as well. I personally think they'll ask that any child be addressed as a child of a duke rather than HRH when Charles becomes King, but who knows.

Whether it's male heirs only or if it's like Earl of Mountbatten's case, that's an entirely different situation. I don't believe the Wessexes would've chosen to pass over their eldest daughter if given the choice. I'm not sure why it'd be offered to the Sussex either. There is a debate going on and a law was actually introduced (but never made past committee) about allowing daughters to inherit titles. Given this, I don't think the Queen would venture into that discussion.

 

[Ish]

Earl Mountbatten is not a viable comparison; Lord Mountbatten’s children were already born when his titles were created (and older - Patricia was in her 20s), and the remainder was that his daughters and their heirs male could inherit; their daughters are not in the succession to his titles.

 

[Rudolph]

Imo there’s no way in the world the dukedom was created other than with standard remainder of heirs male.

The government appears to have no appetite for it. In the past proposed bills on gender neutral peerages have gotten nowhere.

Even if Harry was given a choice in the titles name he wouldn’t have a say over the remainder. Peerages, even for the royal family require the consent of government. Unless parliament wants to open up a giant can of worms with all the other hereditary peers, we’re in for no surprises.

 

[Mbruno]

That's being pretty eagle eyed there, Mbruno. Perhaps the "The" is excluded from the official proclamation so that it remains relevant through time. Once Charles becomes King, Andrew would no longer be "The Prince Andrew" but revert again to just Prince Andrew.

That's my guesstimation anyways.

I believe children of any sovereign of the UK always remain "The Prince/Princess" , even after their father or mother is deceased. For example, Princess Margaret was still "HRH The Princess Margaret" during Queen Elizabeth II's reign.

 

[Terri Terri]

I agree. I don't think there are any special or specific reasons for the delay. Tradition will be upheld.

 

[Somebody]

I don't think we've had any further discussion about the titles potential Sussex children would receive since the wedding. But I just read an article on this topic, suggesting that the Queen will likely issue a LP before the birth of the first child to ensure HRH status. The logic for this is based on there being no announcement on the morning of Harry's wedding stating that his children would be styled as children of a duke, unlike what we saw with Edward on the morning of his wedding. I hadn't really thought about this but I think it's pretty sound take.


What titles will the Duke and Duchess of Sussex’s children receive? – Royal Central

This has been discussed elsewhere as well but my take is that the argunent is rather weak. There is no reason to announce anything unless the current rules (they will not be styled as princes(ses) of Sussex during the queen's reign) wouldn't apply. So, to me concluding from no announcement that an LP will be granted makes little sense. The opposite seems more likely. The reason an announcement was made for Edward and Sophie is exactly because the normal rules wouldn't apply.

 

[Biri]

Wouldn't their titles be "HRH Princ(ess) [name] of Sussex"?

 

[Mbruno]

Wouldn't their titles be "HRH Princ(ess) [name] of Sussex"?

That will be their title when Prince Charles becomes king, or if they are born before that happens. If they are born during QEII's reign, they will be styled as children of a duke in the British peerage until their grandfather ascends the throne.

 

[Abbigail]

This has been discussed elsewhere as well but my take is that the argunent is rather weak. There is no reason to announce anything unless the current rules (they will not be styled as princes(ses) of Sussex during the queen's reign) wouldn't apply. So, to me concluding from no announcement that an LP will be granted makes little sense. The opposite seems more likely. The reason an announcement was made for Edward and Sophie is exactly because the normal rules wouldn't apply.

Fair point but I don't see how it means the opposite is more likely. Given that Harry's children would automatically become HRH once Charles is king, I could see Charles perhaps wanting them styled as such at birth. I know some have tried to argue the opposite but if the intent is for said children to have HRH titles, there is little reason to style them as children of a duke, only to change/upgrade later.

 

[jacqui24]

This has been discussed elsewhere as well but my take is that the argunent is rather weak. There is no reason to announce anything unless the current rules (they will not be styled as princes(ses) of Sussex during the queen's reign) wouldn't apply. So, to me concluding from no announcement that an LP will be granted makes little sense. The opposite seems more likely. The reason an announcement was made for Edward and Sophie is exactly because the normal rules wouldn't apply.

Personally, I agree with this. I can't imagine Harry and Meghan would want their children to take on the HRH title. And given the Wessex's situation, I don't see how they wouldn't be. However, they've definitely left room for speculation as the view is only a matter of time before Charles becomes King and of course take into account HM's age.

 

[Mbruno]

Fair point but I don't see how it means the opposite is more likely. Given that Harry's children would automatically become HRH once Charles is king, I could see Charles perhaps wanting them styled as such at birth. I know some have tried to argue the opposite but if the intent is for said children to have HRH titles, there is little reason to style them as children of a duke, only to change/upgrade later.

Royals frequently change titles and styles throughout their lives. I don't see why it would be a problem for Harry's children to be born as "Earl of Dumbarton" or "Lord/Lady [xxx] Mountbatten-Windsor", and later become "HRH Prince/Princess [xxx] of Sussex".



In Prince William's case, there was a plausible argument for new LPs to be issued to change the styles of his children, as his first son would be an HRH under previous rules, but his siblings would not, thus creating an asymmetry. Moreover, had Prince George been born a girl, "she" would not be an HRH from birth, even though she would be in direct line to the throne under the Succession to the Crown Act, which applies to everybody born after October 2011. Conversely, I don't see any reason for QEII to issue special LPs to style Harry's children as HRHs from birth.

 

[RoyalHighness 2002]

Royals frequently change titles and styles throughout their lives. I don't see why it would be a problem for Harry's children to be born as "Earl of Dumbarton" or "Lord/Lady [xxx] Mountbatten-Windsor", and later become "HRH Prince/Princess [xxx] of Sussex".

Maybe the problem is in the fact that this change, going from a courtesy title of nobility to a royal style and title in this particular manner has never happened before. And while we assume Harry and Meghan's possible future children will be covered by the press massively whether they are titled as children of a Duke or not, we can never be sure. That change could potentially bring a lot of unwanted attention to them, especially if they are viewed as hangers-on like Beatrice and Eugenie by the public who then began to benefit from a royal style and title.

 

[Somebody]

Fair point but I don't see how it means the opposite is more likely. Given that Harry's children would automatically become HRH once Charles is king, I could see Charles perhaps wanting them styled as such at birth. I know some have tried to argue the opposite but if the intent is for said children to have HRH titles, there is little reason to style them as children of a duke, only to change/upgrade later.

The argument was BECAUSE no announcement was made, a LP will be issued in due time. To me that is illogical. Had they wanted from the onset that Harry and Meghan's children would have a different title than they are entitled to it would make sense to announce that at the wedding.

Lots of royals in the British royal family change titles during their lifetime, so I don't see a problem with that (for example, George will most likely be styled in 6 different ways throughout his life; Harry himself just changed from being 'prince Harry of Wales' to being 'the duke of Sussex'). Moreover, until a few years ago the only exception for a great-grandchild of a monarch to be born a royal highness was to be the eldest son of the eldest son of the prince of Wales. That was extended to also include any siblings but I see little reason why it should be extended even further to include all grandchildren of a prince of Wales (had the queen wanted that, she could have arranged that all at the same time) - especially not when two of the queen's grandchildren aren't/don't go by the style royal highness. So, why issue LPs to grant your greatgrandchildren enjoy a style that you deprived your grandchildren of?!

 

[Somebody]

Maybe the problem is in the fact that this change, going from a courtesy title of nobility to a royal style and title in this particular manner has never happened before. And while we assume Harry and Meghan's possible future children will be covered by the press massively whether they are titled as children of a Duke or not, we can never be sure. That change could potentially bring a lot of unwanted attention to them, especially if they are viewed as hangers-on like Beatrice and Eugenie by the public who then began to benefit from a royal style and title.

The king's father indeed was born as a highness and changed to royal highness...

There is however a precedent in the British royal family of family members first being styled as 'children of duke' and being elevated to 'highness' and 'princess': Princess Maud and her sister Princess Alexandra. Starting off as 'Lady Alexandra Duff' and 'Lady Maude Duff', being raised to the style of 'HH Princess Alexandra/Maud'.

 

[Mbruno]

Maybe the problem is in the fact that this change, going from a courtesy title of nobility to a royal style and title in this particular manner has never happened before. And while we assume Harry and Meghan's possible future children will be covered by the press massively whether they are titled as children of a Duke or not, we can never be sure. That change could potentially bring a lot of unwanted attention to them, especially if they are viewed as hangers-on like Beatrice and Eugenie by the public who then began to benefit from a royal style and title.

Maybe it never happened because great-grandchildren in male line of British monarchs used to be customarily styled "His/Her Highness" before being downgraded to "Lord/Lady [xxx] Windsor" under George V's 1917 LPs. There were cases, however, of upgrades from "His Highness" to "His Royal Highness". If I am not mistaken, both King Edward VIII and King George VI fall under that category. Could anyone please clarify ?



In any case, I still don't see why being upgraded from a courtesy title in the peerage to an HRH would be a problem in any way or form.


EDIT: I noticed that Somebody mentioned the examples of Ladies Alexandra and Maud Duff, who were upgraded to "HH Princess [xxx] of Fife", though not "HRH Princess".

 

[Somebody]

Maybe it never happened because great-grandchildren in male line of British monarchs used to be customarily styled "His/Her Highness" before being downgraded to "Lord/Lady [xxx] Windsor" under George V's 1917 LPs. There were cases, however, of upgrades from "His Highness" to "His Royal Highness". If I am not mistaken, both King Edward VIII and King George VI fall under that category. Could anyone please clarify ?

Correct!

Another example was princess Victoria Eugenie of Battenberg who was promoted from highness to royal highness because of her marriage to the king of Spain.

In any case, I still don't see why being upgraded from a courtesy title in the peerage to an HRH would be a problem in any way or form.

At least it wasn't a problem to upgrade from courtesy title to highness. As was the case with greatgrandchildren in male/female line - daughters of princes Louise, granddaughter of Victoria, daughter of Edward VII, sister of George V (one of them ended up being a royal highness later in life because of her marriage - their son Alastair was among those born a highness but downgraded to a courtesy title).

 

[EllieCat]

Given that Harry's children would automatically become HRH once Charles is king, I could see Charles perhaps wanting them styled as such at birth.

That would not work if, God forbid, P Charles dies before The Queen.

 

[Abbigail]

Royals frequently change titles and styles throughout their lives. I don't see why it would be a problem for Harry's children to be born as "Earl of Dumbarton" or "Lord/Lady [xxx] Mountbatten-Windsor", and later become "HRH Prince/Princess [xxx] of Sussex".

I didn't say it was a problem, I just don't see the point, particularly given that we're not too many years removed from Charles as king.

The argument was BECAUSE no announcement was made, a LP will be issued in due time. To me that is illogical. Had they wanted from the onset that Harry and Meghan's children would have a different title than they are entitled to it would make sense to announce that at the wedding.

Eh, I'm not buying the last bit. Using that logic, the queen would have done the same in William's case as well.

Lots of royals in the British royal family change titles during their lifetime, so I don't see a problem with that (for example, George will most likely be styled in 6 different ways throughout his life; Harry himself just changed from being 'prince Harry of Wales' to being 'the duke of Sussex'). Moreover, until a few years ago the only exception for a great-grandchild of a monarch to be born a royal highness was to be the eldest son of the eldest son of the prince of Wales. That was extended to also include any siblings but I see little reason why it should be extended even further to include all grandchildren of a prince of Wales (had the queen wanted that, she could have arranged that all at the same time) - especially not when two of the queen's grandchildren aren't/don't go by the style royal highness. So, why issue LPs to grant your greatgrandchildren enjoy a style that you deprived your grandchildren of?!

This is not a compelling argument. For one, George, Harry, William will always be HRH...regardless of any upgrades in titles in the future (save Will and George once they become king but that's decades from now.) Even though Harry is now Duke of Sussex, he is still Prince Harry, the same with William. This is hardly the same as going from Lord/Lady to HRH, and likely within 5-10 years.

Saying the Queen deprived her granchildren of HRH titles is not accurate. They may not go by those titles but they are still HRH and the Queen made this decision with the parents. She would be doing the same with Charles/Harry/Meghan, though the situations/circumstances are different and that should be acknowedged as well.

 

[Somebody]

Eh, I'm not buying the last bit. Using that logic, the queen would have done the same in William's case as well.

I understand your reasoning. However, when William and Catherine got married the rules for the line of succession were still that a son would be higher in line of succession than a daughter regardless of the birth order. That change was only agreed upon 6 months after their marriage.

Had that change not been applied the eldest son would have been the future heir, so there had not been a need to issue LPs as there would not have been the risk of a daughter who would be a future monarch being outranked by a younger brother lower in the line of succession.

This is not a compelling argument. For one, George, Harry, William will always be HRH...regardless of any upgrades in titles in the future (save Will and George once they become king but that's decades from now.) Even though Harry is now Duke of Sussex, he is still Prince Harry, the same with William. This is hardly the same as going from Lord/Lady to HRH, and likely within 5-10 years.

It's indeed a different situation but it shows that changes in titles are common - whether it is a compelling argument is up for debate . Furthermore, I also provided examples of family members styled as ladies at birth being upgraded to princess.

The opposite also happened: (royal) highnesses that were downgraded to 'courtesy titles'.

Saying the Queen deprived her granchildren of HRH titles is not accurate. They may not go by those titles but they are still HRH and the Queen made this decision with the parents. She would be doing the same with Charles/Harry/Meghan, though the situations/circumstances are different and that should be acknowedged as well.

The palace begs to differ. They state that they are not royal highnesses as the queen's will has been made known.

I still think it would be very inconsistent for the queen to make the decision that her grandchildren who were entitled to being prince and princess not to be granted that title and on the other hand granting that same title to great grandchildren who only need to wait a little while for them to be entitled that title (assuming that Charles one day will be king, otherwise there wouldn't be a good reason to make them princes and princesses at all). I would assume there was some reasoning behind the decision that was made, so unless she has a very good reason (something else than 'Charles likes his son better than his brother'), it could be interpreted as a snub to Edward: your children aren't important enough but any potential great-grandchildren by Harry are.

 

[Iluvbertie]

That's being pretty eagle eyed there, Mbruno. Perhaps the "The" is excluded from the official proclamation so that it remains relevant through time. Once Charles becomes King, Andrew would no longer be "The Prince Andrew" but revert again to just Prince Andrew.

That's my guesstimation anyways.

Andrew, Edward and Anne will remain The Prince Andrew, The Prince Edward and The Princess Anne as that indicates that they were the child of a monarch.

Once a title or style is given it can only be removed by an Act of Parliament.

Princess Margaret remained The Princess Margaret throughout her sister's reign.

The late Duke of Gloucester was The Prince Henry through both his brothers' and his niece's reigns.

Here is an example:
This is the Court Circular entry from 9th February 2002: The Queen has learned with deep sorrow of the death this morning of The Princess Margaret, Countess of Snowdon, Her Majesty's sister.

This is one for just an ordinary engagement in 2001 - Philip's birthday church service:
The Queen and The Duke of Edinburgh this morning attended a Service in St. George's Chapel, Windsor Castle, for His Royal Highness's Eightieth Birthday. Queen Elizabeth The Queen Mother, The Prince of Wales with Prince Henry of Wales, The Duke of York with Princess Beatrice of York and Princess Eugenie of York, The Earl and Countess of Wessex, The Princess Royal with Miss Zara Phillips, The Princess Margaret, Countess of Snowdon with Viscount and Viscountess Linley and The Lady Sarah and Mr. Daniel Chatto ......

 

[Iluvbertie]

Saying the Queen deprived her granchildren of HRH titles is not accurate. They may not go by those titles but they are still HRH and the Queen made this decision with the parents.

If you are referring to Louise and James that is not what BP has told me. I sent them a letter to ask and they sent me a reply - which I have posted elsewhere on this forum stating that Louise and James have been deprived of HRH by The Queen's Will being made known.

At the moment we don't have the Letters Patent for Harry's title but we do have The Queen's Will having made known so Harry is Duke of Oxford.

There are three ways for titles to be created:

1. Letters Patent
2. Royal Warrant
3. The Queen's Will - this is what was done for Louise and James (and currently for Harry's Sussex title).