Titles and Styles of Harry, his Future Wife and Children


If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Status
Not open for further replies.
I find it
I (unlike Queen Elizabeth, who has four children plus her cousins to rely on). The BRF simply has too many engagements for Harry to opt out (he could in a smaller country like Sweden or Denmark, but not in Britain plus the Commonwealth realms).
Exactly. It woudl be unprecedented for the Kings second son (or potential kings second son) not to have a dukedom when he marries and not to have his children having HRH and princely rank.
No way would Harry go against this and if he did, he'd be told that it wasn't on.
And I agree about your second point.
I think that there will be slimming down and probalby less public appearances by royals but even so, Harry will be needed. Esp as he and Will are the Future Kings only sons.. The other older royals, Charles' siblings will be slowing down and their children wont be on the royal duty roster.
Peter and Zara aren't.
Bea and Eugenie aren't, I dont think they really want to, or are wanted by Charles or the queen.. they're not UNpopular but not veryr popular either.
And Edwards children will probalby be scheduled to "lead a fairly normal life" and not be put on the royal duties.
So Harry will nto be able to retire to Africa (again I dont beleive he would realy want to - he may enjoy it for visits but he'd get tired of it after too long). He's going to be required for full time work in time and so problaby will his children if he has any.
 
Harry and his wife will be expected to be working royals but his children won't.

Given that, Harry may want to avoid having his kids be princes and princesses simply for the sake of it. It's not 1916.

A lot will depend on when he has a family. The longer he goes, the more likely it is he will want his children to lead 'normal' lives.
 
Last edited:
Absolutely Not. He is a prince, he will want his kids to be princes and Charles/the queen would insist on it. His kids may not do royal duties, but they will have the appropriate rank...
 
There's a lot of variables that could happen so no one absolutely knows what Harry wants or what Harry will do. Depending on when he marries and has children, his kids may be born Lady/Lord(or one of Harry's courtesy titles that come with a dukedom on marriage) X Mountbatten-Windsor and the decision made to keep that styling once Charles ascends the throne. Perhaps if the children are born during Charles's reign, it'll be different.

No matter what happens, when Charles is King, any children of Harry's will be princes and princesses. The same applies to Louise and James. They are princes and princess by birthright but are styled as the children of an Earl.
 
Edward is a prince too. He didn't want his kids to use the HRH prince/princess titles that they were entitled too. The Queen agreed and supported his decision. Harry can see how his York and Wessex cousins are treated by the press. His kids will basically be in the same position as the Yorks girls were. William and Harry always had more attention on them then Bea and Eugenie. George, Charlotte and future Cambridge kids will be in the spotlight more. Teenage George and Charlotte will be more interesting to the press then 5 yr Harry's kid.


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community
 
Absolutely Not. He is a prince, he will want his kids to be princes and Charles/the queen would insist on it. His kids may not do royal duties, but they will have the appropriate rank...


How do you know these facts?
 
Edward is a prince too. He didn't want his kids to use the HRH prince/princess titles that they were entitled too. The Queen agreed and supported his decision. Harry can see how his York and Wessex cousins are treated by the press. His kids will basically be in the same position as the Yorks girls were. William and Harry always had more attention on them then Bea and Eugenie. George, Charlotte and future Cambridge kids will be in the spotlight more. Teenage George and Charlotte will be more interesting to the press then 5 yr Harry's kid.


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community

Yeps. Edward's full title is The Prince Edward, Earl of Wessex KG, GCVO, CD, ADC. He is styled as the Earl of Wessex. Charles has quite the extensive list of titles and is styled as The Prince of Wales. Same with Camilla with her choice of using The Duchess of Cornwall as her style.

No on is going to take Harry's kid's birthrights away from them by styling them as children of a Duke.

Its all in what they are known as.
 
all are saying he would want a normal life for his kids but i keep remember a interview with the princess royal when they asked her if she ever wanted a normal life she said "for me it was a normal life , this is the normal for me "
 
Whilst I agree, not giving them HRH and only allowing them to partake in certain royal events similar to James and Louise offers an extra amount of protection that George and Charlotte will never receive.


I don't see how it will protect them at all. You can't even compare them to James and Louise. Any children Harry has are going to be of great interest even if they are plain old Mr. or Miss. If they never did a single public event...they will still be of great interest.

It's just the way it is due to who their father and grandmother are/were.



LaRae

Edward is a prince too. He didn't want his kids to use the HRH prince/princess titles that they were entitled too. The Queen agreed and supported his decision. Harry can see how his York and Wessex cousins are treated by the press. His kids will basically be in the same position as the Yorks girls were. William and Harry always had more attention on them then Bea and Eugenie. George, Charlotte and future Cambridge kids will be in the spotlight more. Teenage George and Charlotte will be more interesting to the press then 5 yr Harry's kid.


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community


Can't even compare Harry's children to those of Charle's nieces and nephews. The York girls have never been that popular...they've never had the interest like what you will see of Harry's kids.

Harry's children, regardless of their age ...will be of great interest. Well above that of the Yorks or Edwards kids will experience.


LaRae
 
Last edited by a moderator:
30 years from now Diana will have been dead for 50 years. Large segments of the population would have lived their lives with no first hand knowledge of Diana. Why would they be interested her grandchildren because they are Diana's?

Back in the 80s, Andrew was so popular too. He was the handsome, war hero younger brother to the boring, balding heir to throne. Wait doesn't that sound familiar.


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community
 
Last edited:
Exactly. It woudl be unprecedented for the Kings second son (or potential kings second son) not to have a dukedom when he marries and not to have his children having HRH and princely rank.
No way would Harry go against this and if he did, he'd be told that it wasn't on.

It was unprecedented for the monarch's third son not to have a Dukedom and not to have their children as HRH but guess what - Edward changed that precedent.

It can be done.

And I agree about your second point.
I think that there will be slimming down and probalby less public appearances by royals but even so, Harry will be needed. Esp as he and Will are the Future Kings only sons.. The other older royals, Charles' siblings will be slowing down and their children wont be on the royal duty roster.
Peter and Zara aren't.

I have read somewhere that William doesn't want to be doing as many engagements as Charles or The Queen when he is in that position and Harry is the same. About 200 each per year even as monarch is William's intention - so around 600 - 800 per year down from the around 3500 - 4000 done now.

Bea and Eugenie aren't, I dont think they really want to, or are wanted by Charles or the queen.. they're not UNpopular but not veryr popular either.

Beatrice, I think, would love to do royal duties. Eugenie would prefer the life away from the limelight.

From everything I have read and the people I have spoken to though they are extremely unpopular - despised even.

They aren't wanted by the public or the family - that much is clear.

And Edwards children will probalby be scheduled to "lead a fairly normal life" and not be put on the royal duties.

True - not wanted for royal duties and once The Queen is gone probably won't be seen at all.

I think Charles is going to want a much smaller family appearing on the balcony for instance at Trooping - his sons and grandchildren but possibly not even his siblings.

So Harry will nto be able to retire to Africa (again I dont beleive he would realy want to - he may enjoy it for visits but he'd get tired of it after too long). He's going to be required for full time work in time and so problaby will his children if he has any.

Harry can retire to Africa and live the life there if he wants to do so - he isn't a slave to the British people.

By the time Charles is King - George will probably be close to a teenager and if Harry is still unmarried he will be an aging prince with no wife to interest the public.

His leaving the army after 10 years and only a few months after saying he wanted a 20+ year career says he lacks something.

We have been told that he does work behind the scenes for some charities but with no actual evidence why should we believe that when with as much evidence of Beatrice and Eugenie working people don't believe they work?

Double standards of course - Harry=good and therefore anything we are told is the truth but Yorks=bad and therefore we are being lied to about them.
 
Can't even compare Harry's children to those of Charle's nieces and nephews. The York girls have never been that popular...they've never had the interest like what you will see of Harry's kids.

Harry's children, regardless of their age ...will be of great interest. Well above that of the Yorks or Edwards kids will experience.


LaRae

The York girls were popular as children - they were girls and there were pictures of them lots of times. Andrew was very popular in his 20s and 30s and his girls were seen as even adding to his popularity.

But then then they grew up and they weren't the most beautiful of princesses and the public decided that only the Wales boys should be liked - because they are Diana's sons.
 
Let's just face the facts his children will more than likely be HRH and will be Prince or Princess. They are the second child of the King's children and it is not like being the third child or daughter, before that all changed, of a monarch. It will be interesting to see what title Harry will get and I hope it will be Clarence.
 
All the pointing to Edward and the precedents of his Earldom and his children ignores IMO that he will, in the course of time, become a Royal duke, exactly like Andrew. I cannot see Charles in his reign allowing one set of grandchildren the rights and titles of a Prince and Princess of the U.K. while their cousins are not HRH's. In other words, believe that Harry, whatever his personal wishes, will be given a Royal Dukedom, probably Sussex, and his children will be HRHs.

As for Harry's 'idleness', which some have taken aim at, there have been constant references on Twitter to his visiting wounded ex servicemen and their families in the past year, including IG's. He is also the only prince in the BRF apart from Andrew to serve in a war combat zone. He's already made reference to the difficulties of getting a full time job that fits in with royal duties. William too had a gap year before taking up his present role which has only a few months to run before becoming a full time Royal.

Things are definitely in transition as far as Prince Philip at least. He will be 96 next birthday and has many, many patronages which have to be sorted out among the family.

People forget, when pointing to the way the BRF has been run so far when speculating as to what Charles will do, that Charles has only two offspring. The Queen had four.

Yes, there will of course be interest in George and Charlotte as they grow up. If however, the precedent of William is followed, there is likely to be a blanket ban on publicity for both while they attend university. Then, if George joins the RAF say, the media is hardly likely to be following him everyday there. He might not be in full time Royal duties until his late twenties.

By that time most of the Royal cousins will be gone, and King Charles if still alive will be very elderly. If, as I believe, both William and Harry and their wives will be performing Royal duties, then the public spotlight will continue on Harry and wife as well as William and Kate. Whenever William becomes King he'll still need the support of his only sibling, even if Charlotte is pushed into Royal duties early on.
 
30 years from now Diana will have been dead for 50 years. Large segments of the population would have lived their lives with no first hand knowledge of Diana. Why would they be interested her grandchildren because they are Diana's?

Back in the 80s, Andrew was so popular too. He was the handsome, war hero younger brother to the boring, balding heir to throne. Wait doesn't that sound familiar.


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community


Andrew was never as popular as the Wales boys. Harry has what his mother had ..that charisma. I think his kids will be of interest because of who he is as well.

30 years from now many of us here (who remember his mother also) will hopefully still be alive! We won't be the only ones I hope!


LaRae
 
How do you know these facts?

Nobody can know it for sure as we are talking about future events here. One thing we do know though is that the British care a lot about precedent and, as I said, not styling Harry's children as HRHs during Charles' reign would be unprecedented. Edward's case was already an oddity , but Edward is the monarch's third son, not the second like Andrew or Harry. In fact, assuming Charles is king and William doesn't have any more children, Harry's firstborn will be born fifth in line to the throne. By contrast, Louise was already 8th when she was born , and James is now 10th and Louise 11th.
 
Last edited:
Of course there will be interest in Harry's kids. There is interest in Mia Tindall.

My rational is if Harry's children are going to be expected to earn their way in the world, outside of royal duties, there is a case to be made that Harry himself may not want them to be royal highnesses.

Having William's children, and George's children as royal highnesses makes sense because of the direct succession.

We don't really know, and first off, Harry needs to get married and have said children.

I think it will look sort of odd though to have princes and princesses not in the direct line, and not working for the firm.
 
We already have 2 Royal Princess not in the direct line not working for the firm with Beatrice and Eugenie.


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community
 
^^^ Right, but going forward I think it will be more the Sophie and Edward way of doing things, rather than the Andrew and Fergie.

Having children as princes and princesses just for the sake of it, and not working for the firm is very last century.
 
We don't really know, and first off, Harry needs to get married and have said children.

I think it will look sort of odd though to have princes and princesses not in the direct line, and not working for the firm.

So, would you strip Beatrice and Eugenie of their HRH status, or would you have them "work for the firm" instead ?

Again, different countries have different ways of handling these matters. In Denmark, the heir's children are HRHs whereas the children of the queen's younger son are also princes, but only HHs, not HRHs. The same rule used to apply to the Netherlands BTW ( for example, Princess Margriet's sons are HHs, but not HRHs), but now only the heir's children are princes/princesses (Prince Constantijn's children are only count or countess for example). In Belgium and in Sweden, on the other hand, all grandchildren of the monarch (in male or female line) are HRHs, even if their parents are not full-time working royals . I guess Astrid and even Laurent would count as full-time royals as they even get public funding, but Carl Philip and Madeleine most certainly are not, and none of their children will ever be working royals.

In Britain, the current rule is that the monarch's grandchildren in male line are HRHs. It was wrong to change the rule for Edward's children without issuing new Letters Patent, which would probably have stripped Beatrice and Eugenie of their ranks too, and it would be even more controversial to do so for Harry's children as Harry is Charles' only son besides William. On the other hand, I don't see any reason why the British should follow the (new) Dutch system of princely rank for the monarch's and the heir's children only when that rule has never been applied in the UK before.
 
Last edited:
The change in LPs suggested for Edward's children though wouldn't only have affected Beatrice and Eugenie but - Richard, Edward, Alexandra and Michael who are HRHs' by virtue of being the children of the 3rd and 4th sons of the monarch.

I do think though that a change will come so that only the heir and the heir's children and heir's heir's children are HRH while all other grandchildren will be untitled or have the styles of children of a peer. I can even see no peerages given, in time, to younger sons as the very concept of hereditary peers is no longer really accepted in the UK.
 
The change in LPs suggested for Edward's children though wouldn't only have affected Beatrice and Eugenie but - Richard, Edward, Alexandra and Michael who are HRHs' by virtue of being the children of the 3rd and 4th sons of the monarch.

I do think though that a change will come so that only the heir and the heir's children and heir's heir's children are HRH while all other grandchildren will be untitled or have the styles of children of a peer. I can even see no peerages given, in time, to younger sons as the very concept of hereditary peers is no longer really accepted in the UK.

I suppose the new LP could have been worded in a way that it would apply to Queen Elizabeth II's and future monarchs' grandchildren only, and not to George V's grandchildren (references to George VI's grandchildren are not required as Princess Margaret's children were not HRHs already under the current rule).

If a change comes, it will signify a change on how the Royal Family is viewed, i.e. HRH status will be linked to "work status" to use Rudolph's argument, and not to a birthright linked to bloodline or membership of a family. That would be in line with the new concept of royals as "public servants" fullfilling a contract with the nation, rather than the top of the pyramid in a class sytem that also included the hereditary nobility and where rank was determined by the family to which one belonged , rather than work or merit.

In other words, it could be more revolutionary than it seems on the surface.
 
Last edited:
I don't see how it will protect them at all.

Because if they don't have titles and don't do engagements they're private citizens which makes life a lot easier.



Andrew was never as popular as the Wales boys.


He was when he was their age, comparing a 50+ year old divorcee to his two young nephew doesn't match.

Nobody can know it for sure as we are talking about future events here.


I agree so as customary when talking about future events we don't state what we don't know as fact.
 
I can remember back to Andrew's teen years and his twenties. Andrew was really feted when he came back from the Falklands War. He was photographed with a rose between his teeth, in his uniform. Someone must have given him the flower! Andrew was certainly regarded as the most good looking of the Queen's children.

However, I can't remember the paps and media following his nightlife or his girlfriends much, apart from Koo. Maybe he didn't go out to clubs much, maybe my memory's fading, but I can't remember a fandom. Of course Andrew's youth was pre Internet/Twitter age, and that really makes a difference.
 
It went wrong with the likes of Koo Stark and Sarah Ferguson. The association with them did not do favour Prince Andrew. By hindsight a less spectacular loudmouthed partner would have helped Andrew to become a same silent force behind the throne, like his sister Anne.
 
I'm expecting any children the married Harry has will be titled as per the current LP. They will be the grandchildren of one future King and the only blood nieces/nephews of the other.

While I was a bit surprised at Edward (and Sophie) choosing the lesser as formal titles for their children, it was a different situation in some ways. Being the fourth not the second sibling, so moving rapidly down the pecking order and there being a mix of titled and non titled off-spring in the family anyway.
 
I'm expecting any children the married Harry has will be titled as per the current LP. They will be the grandchildren of one future King and the only blood nieces/nephews of the other.

While I was a bit surprised at Edward (and Sophie) choosing the lesser as formal titles for their children, it was a different situation in some ways. Being the fourth not the second sibling, so moving rapidly down the pecking order and there being a mix of titled and non titled off-spring in the family anyway.

The children of Edward and Sophie will become children of a royal Duke (alike the Earl of Ulster and the Earl of St Andrews). I can understand the choice for that. A duke is the higest rank in the British peerage, so the children remain in the highest echelons of society. Imagine that Prince Henry takes the same road as his uncle Edward and imagine he will become Duke of Clarence, Earl of Athlone. The "sideline royal family" would look like this:

HRH The Prince Henry, Duke of Clarence
Lord [name] Mountbatten-Windsor, Earl of Athlone

HRH The Prince Edward, Duke of Edinburgh
Lord James Mountbatten-Windsor, Earl of Wessex

HRH Prince Richard, Duke of Gloucester
Lord Alexander Windsor, Earl of Ulster

HRH Prince Edward, Duke of Kent
Lord Nicholas Windsor, Earl of St Andrews

I can see the systematic in this. In such a scenario they are -de facto- limiting the persons who are a Prince of the United Kingdom to those not furtherer related to a Sovereign than two degrees of consanguinity. De jure it remains three degrees of consanguinity. That Prince Henry is the second son is not very relevant. Princess Margaret was also a second child. Princess Anne was also a second child.
 
Last edited:
All in all, I do think the situation with Edward and the Duke of Edinburgh title is something special that has been planned specifically as a way for a father to hand down to his son not only the title but the involvement of the Duke of Edinburgh Award Scheme which Edward is very much involved in now. As it stands right now, if Philip were to die before the Queen, Charles would inherit Philip's title and then on becoming King, it would revert to the Crown. This plan is a way for Philip's title to continue on through the Wessex line.

With Harry, I think we'll just have to wait and see what happens over the years. He's nowhere even close to getting married (that we know of) let alone having kids. I think we can pretty much count on Harry being created a duke upon his marriage. Anything after that is anybody's guess.
 
Nobody can know it for sure as we are talking about future events here. One thing we do know though is that the British care a lot about precedent and, as I said, not styling Harry's children as HRHs during Charles' reign would be unprecedented. Edward's case was already an oddity , but Edward is the monarch's third son, not the second like Andrew or Harry. In fact, assuming Charles is king and William doesn't have any more children, Harry's firstborn will be born fifth in line to the throne. By contrast, Louise was already 8th when she was born , and James is now 10th and Louise 11th.

It just would not happen IMO. Harry would hardly want his children to be treated as less important than they should be in terms of status.
I dont believe that Edward wanted to be an earl, it was problaby a decision taken at the time of low popularity for the RF, in the years after Diana's death.
He was the fourth child and third son, and there were several people ahead of him in the line, so there was only the slimmest possibliity that he woudl ever be king..
that's usually how changes happen.. Firs they happen with the outside people in the RF, usually cousins etc. George V decided to stop the titles going on and on... so that prince Michael's chidlren are merely Lord and Lady First name Windsor.
Minor members of the RF like the Earl of Harewood, got divorces, well before the Monarch's own children were allowed to divorce..
So for Edward to have a lower rank than was usual for a monarch's son on his marriage.. was the way that changes usually happen.

However I believe it also had a lot to do with the fact that in the few years after Diana had died, the RF had had a big blow ot its popularity and they were seen as needing to simplify things and have less ceremony and grandeur and talk about titles and precedence
So Ed was only made Earl of Wessex and his children we were told weren't going to use the titles Prince or Princess. However a door was left open, in that its expected that when Philip goes, Edward will get the title of Duke of Edinburgh and possibly then his children will start to use the Royal titles. At any rate Im sure Edward was not too happy to get a lesser title..
And for Harry who is much higher in the ranking system, to take a lesser title on his marriage or to have his children merely Viscount nad Lady, would be very very unlikely to happen.
He will be the equivalent of the Duke of York, as the monarch's second son. he wont be let off royal duties, and his children will problaby be pulled into them too.
It hasn't happened with Beatrice and Eugenie because there are still plenty of people to do the job, and they aren't very popular because of Fergie and Andrew's own scandals. But they are still HRH and Princesses becuase that's' their birthright as the children of the Queen's second son.
 
The
H

I can see the systematic in this. In such a scenario they are -de facto- limiting the persons who are a Prince of the United Kingdom to those not furtherer related to a Sovereign than two degrees of consanguity. De jure it remains three degrees of consanguity. That Prince Henry is the second son is not very relevant. Princess Margaret was also a second child. Princess Anne was also a second child.

they are women. They dont transfer a title to thier children.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom