Titles and Styles of Harry, his Future Wife and Children

[Iluvbertie]

Why should he?

The Inverness Earldom has been associated with the last couple of York dukedom's e.g. both George V and George VI were also the Earls of Inverness.

'Giving up' a title isn't all that easy anyway. I think it would require an Act of Parliament.

We should also remember that if Andrew were to remarry and have a son that son would be the heir to York and that son's son would have the courtesy title, eventually of Earl of Inverness.

 

[Countessmeout]

If Harry is given the Sussex title on his marriage, one of his subsidiary titles would be Earl of Inverness. However the Inverness Earldom is already taken by his uncle Andrew. Harry would also be Baron Arklow. Would Andrew give up his Earldom to his nephew?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duke_of_Sussex

He wouldn't have to. They aren't creating the old Duke of Sussex, this is a new creation. It can have different subsidiary titles. Certainly wouldn't be the first time. There is no set titles that have to go together

Take Cambridge. The last two dukes were Earl of Tipperary and Baron Culloden. Tipperary is out as it is Republic of Ireland.and culloden is the subsidiary of the Duke of Gloucester. Instead William was given Strathearn and Carrickfergus. Previous had various including Earl and marquis of Cambridge as subsidiary, Earl of Milford haven and so on.

Philip is Earl of Merioneth and Baron Greenwich. The previous Duke was Earl of ulster and Kent. Edward when he is Duke is likely to use his current titles as subsidiary.

 

[Ish]

If Harry is given the Sussex title on his marriage, one of his subsidiary titles would be Earl of Inverness. However the Inverness Earldom is already taken by his uncle Andrew. Harry would also be Baron Arklow. Would Andrew give up his Earldom to his nephew?



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duke_of_Sussex

One of the subsidiary titles held by the last Duke of Sussex was Earl of Inverness. The titles do not go hand in hand - outside of those for the monarch and heir, no titles are firm.

Look at Cambridge:

The first creation was for one James Stuart, who was also Earl of Cambridge and Baron of Dauntsey. The second creation was for one Edgar Stuart and had the same titles - which makes sense, given as James had died and Edgar was his brother.

The third creation was for the future George II who was also Marquess of Cambridge, Earl of Milford Haven, Viscount Northallerton, and Baron Tewkesbury.

The fourth creation was for Prince Adolphus, who was also Earl of Tipperary and Baron Culloden.

The fifth creation is the current, for Prince William, who holds none of the subsidiary titles previously associated with the Dukedom - instead he is Earl Strathearn and Baron Carrickfergus.

 

[Iluvbertie]

Baron Culloden, of course, is now one of the Duke of Gloucester's titles - Duke of Gloucester, Earl of Ulster and Baron Culloden.

That is clear evidence of the fact that the combinations for the titles aren't set in stone.

 

[Mbruno]

Well, history or not, I still think they should go with Duke of Buckingham.

Clarence also has a negative history, and it would be confusing with Cornwall, Cambridge, and Clarence at the same time.

And Duke of Sussex sounds awkward, somehow.

I'm sure someone has already answered that, but couldn't he be the Duke of Connaught ?

It would suit Meghan to be the Duchess of Connaught given that Prince Arthur, Duke of Connaught and Strathearn, was once the Governor General of Canada, and Meghan is almost a Canadian now !

 

[Spheno]

I'm sure someone has already answered that, but couldn't he be the Duke of Connaught ?

It would suit Meghan to be the Duchess of Connaught given that Prince Arthur, Duke of Connaught and Strathearn, was once the Governor General of Canada, and Meghan is almost a Canadian now !

No. Connaught is in Ireland.

 

[Mbruno]

No. Connaught is in Ireland.

So what ? There are probably many British peers who have titles with an Irish territorial designation. The Duke of Wellington for example is also the Baron Mornington.

And, on a different note, the heir to the Dutch throne is the Prince of Orange, although that location is now part of the French Republic.

 

[Lumutqueen]

So what ? There are probably many British peers who have titles with an Irish territorial designation. The Duke of Wellington for example is also the Baron Mornington.

And, on a different note, the heir to the Dutch throne is the Prince of Orange, although that location is now part of the French Republic.

Ireland has a completely different relationship with the RF than the Orange association with France.

Most Irish titles are Earls/Barons, they're not the "main" title like Duke of Connaught.

From Wiki - Since the exit of the Irish Free State from the United Kingdom in 1922, titles related to locations in the Free State (and later the Republic of Ireland) have not been awarded (though Prince Edward, Prince of Wales—in 1936 briefly King Edward VIII—was made a Knight of the Order of St Patrick). However, territorial titles relating to Northern Ireland have continued to be awarded.

 

[Osipi]

For me, creating subsidiary titles for areas in the Republic of Ireland would rank right up there with using areas in the original 13 colonies of the United States. It just doesn't make sense to me at all.

 

[Skippyboo]

The peers with Irish titles not NI ones aren't new creations. The Duke of Wellington title is the original creation so the secondary titles wouldn't change. It was fine in 1800 whenever to use Irish places but it isn't now in 2017 to make a British Prince's title in a place that isn't part of the U.K. anymore. Plus Meghan isn't a virtual Canadian.

 

[Mirabel]

I don't see why the RF would use an Irish title anyway; there seem to be plenty of others available.

And let's face it, probably every title has some negative history attached to it.

 

[JR76]

There seems to be a small misconception regarding royal titles among a few posters. They cant only use titles that have been used by the royal family before & they cant only use noble titles that have been used before. The Queen could make Harry the Duke of Elephant & Castle, Earl of Chigwell & Baron of Slough if she wanted to. In general the only restrictions there are is that titles once used by the royal family arent awarded to non-royals, titles in places not longer under British rule arent awarded anymore & the titles lost by the Hannovers & SCG are still considered taken.

 

[Denville]

So what ? There are probably many British peers who have titles with an Irish territorial designation. The Duke of Wellington for example is also the Baron Mornington.

And, on a different note, the heir to the Dutch throne is the Prince of Orange, although that location is now part of the French Republic.

You do know that the republic of Ireland is a separate country to the UK and that there would certainly be resentment if any such a thing were to happen.. not that it would.

 

[Osipi]

I think the difference would be using a territorial designation in a *new* creation of titles. The older titles that have been passed down through generations with an Republic of Ireland designation was actually created when that area was part of the UK and has historical meaning.

More simply put, the 6th Baron of Blarney Stone shows that the title has spanned six generations of the same creation. To create the 1st Baron of Blarney Stone wouldn't be correct as Blarney Stone isn't applicable for a UK title.

At least that's how I see it.

 

[Rudolph]

Plenty of Irish titles exist, Maurice FitzGerald, 9th Duke of Leinster, is the highest-ranking member of the peerage of Ireland.

That was then though and this is now. Ireland was sensitive about this sort of thing when it was part of UK. There would be war if the Queen created an Irish title for Harry today.

 

[Denville]

at the time of these peerages being created, Ireland was under British rule. the Irish didn't necessarily LIKE their land's places being used for british lords and royals to use as their titles. but they had to put up with it. now they are independent of the UK ad have been for 100 years almost.
it simply wouldn't happen now...
And yes, the queen could create Harry Earl of Milton Keynes and Baron Tiddley In the Wold but it would sound pretty silly....

 

[cepe]

Using Northern Irish titles is acceptable.

William was given the title Baron Carrickfergus in 2011

 

[Denville]

Since N Ireland is still part of the UK yes it is acceptable.

 

[Kitty1224]

Still think he should get Clarence. At the end of the day lots of titles being used has had a bad history.

 

[Iluvbertie]

Pretty well all the titles used by royals have 'bad' histories e.g. Gloucester was the title or Richard III (and I am not going into the Richard III story but his reputation is debateable).

All the sons of George III had interesting stories attached and so again it could be argued that they have some 'bad' history. That includes York, Clarence, Kent, Cumberland, Cambridge and Sussex.

Albany (which along with Cumberland isn't available) are both associated with Germans who fought against Britain in WWI.

The one thing we do know is that there won't be any titles associated with countries outside the UK - such as Connaught - as that would be insulting to that country. If a current title with a Republic of Ireland association becomes extinct it won't be recreated. If Scotland were to leave the UK then there would be no new creations of Scottish titles although those with existing Scottish titles would continue to use them - although Scotland probably wouldn't recognise them.

Edward VIII and his brothers, Henry and Albert were all created Knights of St Patrick after 1922. Interestingly Edward VIII created the future George VI such a knight in March, 1936 while George V had given that status to Henry in 1934. At that time, although Eire was an independent country it was still a 'realm' so there was no real difference between creating the royals knights of an order in Ireland (of which interestingly the Queen is still the Sovereign of the Order) than Australia creating Charles a Knight of the Order of Australia which happened in 1981 (there was controversy when Philip was given that honour in 2015 and the honour no longer exists).

 

[Kitty1224]

Pretty well all the titles used by royals have 'bad' histories e.g. Gloucester was the title or Richard III (and I am not going into the Richard III story but his reputation is debateable).

All the sons of George III had interesting stories attached and so again it could be argued that they have some 'bad' history. That includes York, Clarence, Kent, Cumberland, Cambridge and Sussex.

Albany (which along with Cumberland isn't available) are both associated with Germans who fought against Britain in WWI.

The one thing we do know is that there won't be any titles associated with countries outside the UK - such as Connaught - as that would be insulting to that country. If a current title with a Republic of Ireland association becomes extinct it won't be recreated. If Scotland were to leave the UK then there would be no new creations of Scottish titles although those with existing Scottish titles would continue to use them - although Scotland probably wouldn't recognise them.

Edward VIII and his brothers, Henry and Albert were all created Knights of St Patrick after 1922. Interestingly Edward VIII created the future George VI such a knight in March, 1936 while George V had given that status to Henry in 1934. At that time, although Eire was an independent country it was still a 'realm' so there was no real difference between creating the royals knights of an order in Ireland (of which interestingly the Queen is still the Sovereign of the Order) than Australia creating Charles a Knight of the Order of Australia which happened in 1981 (there was controversy when Philip was given that honour in 2015 and the honour no longer exists).

Thank you. So I really do not get why people don't like Clarence as Harry's future title.

 

[RoyalHighness 2002]

For those who want Duke of Clarence, sorry it can be used. It is stuck in limbo as a subsidiary title (Earl of Clarence) for the Dukedom of Albany.

 

[Iluvbertie]

The issue with that is that Queen Victoria created both the Earldom for her son, Leopold and then created the Dukedom again for her grandson, Albert Victor. So both did exist at the same time and were both created by the same monarch. With that precedent the Dukedom can co-exist with the Earldom. She did add Avondale to the Dukedom when she did that but she still did it.

 

[Kitty1224]

For those who want Duke of Clarence, sorry it can be used. It is stuck in limbo as a subsidiary title (Earl of Clarence) for the Dukedom of Albany.

But what about Avondale since thats part of the Clarence title.

 

[Countessmeout]

For those who want Duke of Clarence, sorry it can be used. It is stuck in limbo as a subsidiary title (Earl of Clarence) for the Dukedom of Albany.

A Duke and Earl of the same name easily coexist. There is an Earl of Cambridge. It is the secondary title of the Duke of Hamilton. Didn't stop William from being made Duke. And unlike Albany, Hamilton isn't even in limbo.

Avondale is possible. Scottish as senior title is not that common, but of course like Prince Philip, not heard of. Though if his Earl totle was English, customarily he would be referred to by his lesser title (opposite of Charles going by his Scottish in Scotland). But by practice would likely just be referred to by his senior title every where as Philip is.

 

[Mbruno]

Let's assume that Prince Harry marries without consent, in violation of the Succession to the Crown Act 2013. Under the said act, Harry and his descendants from that marriage would be disqualified from the succession. However, unlike what happened before under the Royal Marriages Act, his marriage would still be legally valid. Since the marriage would not be morganatic, could Harry's wife use his titles and would their children still be styled as grandchildren of a sovereign when Charles becomes king , even though they would have no succession rights ?

 

[Osipi]

I imagine that the situation would be handled much like Prince Michael of Kent's was. Prince Michael forfeited his place in the line of succession when he married Marie Christine but his children remained in the line of succession as they were raised in the Church of England.

When the Succession to the Crown Act of 2013 was passed allowing marriages to Roman Catholics, Prince Michael regained his place in the line of succession.

I would imagine that if Harry was to renounce his place to marry and it stipulated that neither he or his descendants would be in the line of succession, that would be the only repercussion. They would still be the members of the family most likely with their HRH titles when Charles becomes King unless Charles himself changes things.

 

[Spheno]

Let's assume that Prince Harry marries without consent, in violation of the Succession to the Crown Act 2013. Under the said act, Harry and his descendants from that marriage would be disqualified from the succession. However, unlike what happened before under the Royal Marriages Act, his marriage would still be legally valid. Since the marriage would not be morganatic, could Harry's wife use his titles and would their children still be styled as grandchildren of a sovereign when Charles becomes king , even though they would have no succession rights ?

This topic was discussed and you participated in this discussion
http://www.theroyalforums.com/forum...sh-styles-and-titles-258-147.html#post1958113

 

[Ish]

Let's assume that Prince Harry marries without consent, in violation of the Succession to the Crown Act 2013. Under the said act, Harry and his descendants from that marriage would be disqualified from the succession. However, unlike what happened before under the Royal Marriages Act, his marriage would still be legally valid. Since the marriage would not be morganatic, could Harry's wife use his titles and would their children still be styled as grandchildren of a sovereign when Charles becomes king , even though they would have no succession rights ?

The 1917 LPs make no reference to the succession. Titles are based on proximity to a monarch, not proximity to inheriting the throne.

 

[Mbruno]

The 1917 LPs make no reference to the succession. Titles are based on proximity to a monarch, not proximity to inheriting the throne.

I asked the question because, coincidentally, I was watching the ITV series Victoria over the weekend where there is a reference to the Duke of Sussex (one of Victoria's uncles), who married without the sovereign's consent, and whose wife and children were not able to use royal titles. However, the situation was different back then because, under the old Royal Marriages Act, his marriage was legally invalid and, therefore, his children were technically illegitimate. The Duke himself remained in the line of succession as the Royal Marriages Act did not affect his own succession rights.