Titles and Styles of Harry, his Future Wife and Children

[Ish]

Ah, yes. That's different. The Duke of Sussex's children were illegitimately born because the Royal Marriages Act invalidated his marriage (likewise with William IV's children).
Prince Michael of Kent is a better comparison - his children are legitimate therefore hold the titles granted to them under the 1917 LPs - as the children of a British prince who themselves do not hold their own titles, they're styled as Lord/Lady. They're actually in the succession to, as despite their father's (former) removal and their mother's religion, they were raised in the CoE and were never barred from the succession.

The sons and grandchildren of the Duke of Kent are also examples; the Earl of St Andrews has married a Catholic and was temporarily removed from the succession, but still has his courtesy title. Lord Nicholas converted to Catholicism and was removed from the succession, but still has his courtesy title.

 

[Skippyboo]

Prince Michael isn't the same scenario either because the Queen did approve his marriage per the Royal Marriage Act because Freddie and Gabrielle were still in the line of succession because they aren't Catholic.

With the law change, if you went ahead without approval Harry would lose in succession rights, then kids wouldn't have any succession rights. Plus the titles and who is a HRH is all down to the monarch. So the same monarch that didn't approve the marriage can issue LPs to turn HRH Prince Harry of Wales to Mr Harry Mountbatten Windsor. Not to mention kick him out of KP and cut off funding of his activities.

 

[Mbruno]

Prince Michael isn't the same scenario either because the Queen did approve his marriage per the Royal Marriage Act because Freddie and Gabrielle were still in the line of succession because they aren't Catholic.

With the law change, if you went ahead without approval Harry would lose in succession rights, then kids wouldn't have any succession rights. Plus the titles and who is a HRH is all down to the monarch. So the same monarch that didn't approve the marriage can issue LPs to turn HRH Prince Harry of Wales to Mr Harry Mountbatten Windsor.

That is precisely the point. The Succession to the Crown Act 2013 per se does not affect royal styles and titles; the only effect of marriage without consent under the act is the forfeiting of succession rights. On the other hand, the current LPs regulating royal titles and styles do not tie them to succession rights. In fact, Prince Michael (temporarily) lost his place in the line of succession for marrying a Catholic, but remained an HRH and his wife was still styled HRH Princess Michael of Kent.

If Harry and his future children lost their succession rights, I don't see in principle any reason why the Queen, or Charles (when he is king), would also want to strip them of their titles by special LPs.

 

[Skippyboo]

If Queen and Charles were happy with who the royal was going to marry, then it would be approved. The permission being needed is basically to stop a royal doing something stupid like getting drunk somewhere and marrying a stripper. The Queen or Charles is not going to want the Stripper Princess out on the BP balcony.

 

[Mbruno]

If Queen and Charles were happy with who the royal was going to marry, then it would be approved. The permission being needed is basically to stop a royal doing something stupid like getting drunk somewhere and marrying a stripper. The Queen or Charles is going to want the Stripper Princess out on the BP balcony.

It is not that simple. As I mentioned in another thread, quoting the official explanatory notes for the Succession to the Crown Act (from legislation.gov.uk), the practice under the Royal Marriages Act was that government ministers were supposed to be previously informed of proposed marriages of people close to the Crown and the Queen was supposed to seek formal advice from her ministers before granting her consent. Under the new act, the explanatory notes say that the government expects the aforementioned practice to continue, meaning the government will previously consider any proposed bride for Harry and will then advise the Queen on the suitability of the marriage. I believe that kind of vetting goes beyond simply preventing him from marrying a stripper in Vegas.

 

[Rudolph]

A person who (when the person marries) is one of the 6 persons next in the line of succession to the Crown must obtain the consent of Her Majesty before marrying.

(2)Where any such consent has been obtained, it must be—

(a)signified under the Great Seal of the United Kingdom,

(b)declared in Council, and

(c)recorded in the books of the Privy Council.


The act is quite clear. It's the consent of the Sovereign that is required. Once the consent has been obtained then she declares it to the Privy Council .

It is The Queen, not the government which gives consent.

 

[Mbruno]

A person who (when the person marries) is one of the 6 persons next in the line of succession to the Crown must obtain the consent of Her Majesty before marrying.

(2)Where any such consent has been obtained, it must be—

(a)signified under the Great Seal of the United Kingdom,

(b)declared in Council, and

(c)recorded in the books of the Privy Council.


The act is quite clear. It's the consent of the Sovereign that is required. Once the consent has been obtained then she declares it to the Privy Council .

It is The Queen, not the government which gives consent.

Again, please read the official explanatory notes to the act on legislation.gov.uk, which I quote below.

19.Subsection (1) provides that any of the first six people in the line of succession to the Crown must obtain the consent of Her Majesty prior to their marriage. This effects a substantial decrease from the number of people affected by the Royal Marriages Act 1772. The recent practice under that Act is for Ministers to be informed of a proposed marriage of a person close in the succession to the Throne, and to have the opportunity of giving formal advice to Her Majesty as to whether consent should be given. The Government expects this practice to continue.

Source: Succession to the Crown Act 2013

As I said before, I don't think the government cares (too much) about whom Harry marries (as Harry is relatively unimportant as 5th in line), but the practice is very clear: Meghan, or any other person whom Harry chooses as his bride, will be vetted by the government and the government will advise the Queen as to whether that person is suitable or nor before the Queen decides to consent to the union or not.

 

[Lumutqueen]

Somehow I think this is just "in writing" and not in practice. It's for The Queen to decide and that's quite clear.

And beside that, who cares?!

 

[Curryong]

Why would the Queen refuse Harry consent anyway? There is nothing in Meghan's past or present that would cause such a thing to happen.

 

[O-H Anglophile]

Why would the Queen refuse Harry consent anyway? There is nothing in Meghan's past or present that would cause such a thing to happen.

well, you know--she's "American" and an actress...

 

[Pranter]

Harry has American blood already from his mother's side...and a number of noble families have Americans in their bloodlines. That's a non-issue.

At least some of the BRF are known for their ability to mimic and act, love of acting.

The divorce is another non-issue thanks to Charles.


I don't think there's anything that we know about that would bar approval from the Queen for the marriage.


LaRae

 

[O-H Anglophile]

Harry has American blood already from his mother's side...and a number of noble families have Americans in their bloodlines. That's a non-issue.

At least some of the BRF are known for their ability to mimic and act, love of acting.

The divorce is another non-issue thanks to Charles.


I don't think there's anything that we know about that would bar approval from the Queen for the marriage.


LaRae

I agree with you, my comment was sarcasm. That's why I included the laughing emoticon.

 

[Pranter]

I agree with you, my comment was sarcasm. That's why I included the laughing emoticon.

Yes I caught that...I was heading them off at the pass...cause you know what's going to be said next.


LaRae

 

[Vicomte de Valjean]

I think that "Duke of Ross" would be a more fitting title for Harry. It has gravitas and hasn't been created since 1514. "Duke of Sussex" sounds boring and doesn't have any history before 1801. "Duke of Albany" is nice too, but it still exists (even if it was suspended and has never been reclaimed).

 

[Kitty1224]

I think that "Duke of Ross" would be a more fitting title for Harry. It has gravitas and hasn't been created since 1514. "Duke of Sussex" sounds boring and doesn't have any history before 1801. "Duke of Albany" is nice too, but it still exists (even if it was suspended and has never been reclaimed).

Your right, Duke of Ross is nice. But I think Duke of Clarence is better.

 

[Mbruno]

I think that "Duke of Ross" would be a more fitting title for Harry. It has gravitas and hasn't been created since 1514. "Duke of Sussex" sounds boring and doesn't have any history before 1801. "Duke of Albany" is nice too, but it still exists (even if it was suspended and has never been reclaimed).

I'd be very surprised if Harry didn't get either Sussex or Clarence as his dukedom.

 

[Kitty1224]

I'd be very surprised if Harry didn't get either Sussex or Clarence as his dukedom.

I rather it be Clarence since the media will have a great time making fun of SusSEX since Harry is known as the playboy prince.

 

[O-H Anglophile]

I rather it be Clarence since the media will have a great time making fun of SusSEX since Harry is known as the playboy prince.

Let;s not go in that juvenile direction again, the last time the thread was shut down by the mods.

 

[Curryong]

Id really, really rather Harry have Sussex than Clarence, whatever fun the DM has with it! Previous Dukes of Clarence were killed in the Tower, died from pneumonia in their twenties or were crass idiots with at least ten illegitimate children like the future William IV. It's been quite an unlucky Dukedom.

 

[Pranter]

I think all the dukedom's have had their share of bad luck.


LaRae

 

[Hans-Rickard]

I would love if The Duke of Exeter would be used again. Or why not make Harry The Duke of London ! It doesn't have any history (except that Churchill was said to have been offered it but turned it down) but it can hardly be any grander !

I would also love to see "The Duke of Windsor" back om use. It's a nice and grand title. But that might be under Charles or Williams reign. I can perfectly understand if the Queen won't do it

And i really think they should do what they can to get "The Duke of Albany" back. It's too grand to be "stored" forever.

 

[Vicomte de Valjean]

I would love if The Duke of Exeter would be used again. Or why not make Harry The Duke of London ! It doesn't have any history (except that Churchill was said to have been offered it but turned it down) but it can hardly be any grander !

I love your way of thinking! However as for a possible Dukedom of Exeter, there's already a Marquessate of Exeter (possessed by members of the Cecil family; the head of another branch of the family is the Marquess of Salisbury).

I'd be very surprised if Harry didn't get either Sussex or Clarence as his dukedom.

The main problem with the Dukedom of Clarence is that Earldom of Clarence already exists as a subsidiary title of the Dukedom of Albany, although both were suspended in 1919 and have yet to be reclaimed. "Duke of Kendal" is another possible title, but I think that that title sounds possibly even less impressive than that of "Duke of Sussex."

I rather it be Clarence since the media will have a great time making fun of SusSEX since Harry is known as the playboy prince.

It also sounds like Wessex...

 

[Pranter]

Couldn't the Queen (or Charles if he's King when Harry is created a duke) create a new dukedom?


LaRae

 

[Vicomte de Valjean]

Couldn't the Queen (or Charles if he's King when Harry is created a duke) create a new dukedom?


LaRae

Of course. The only hindrance is the tradition not to make "duplicate" titles (e.g. not to make someone "Duke of Albemarle" if another living person is the Earl of Albemarle).

 

[Kitty1224]

Id really, really rather Harry have Sussex than Clarence, whatever fun the DM has with it! Previous Dukes of Clarence were killed in the Tower, died from pneumonia in their twenties or were crass idiots with at least ten illegitimate children like the future William IV. It's been quite an unlucky Dukedom.

All Dukedoms have had bad lucks lol.

 

[Countessmeout]

I think that "Duke of Ross" would be a more fitting title for Harry. It has gravitas and hasn't been created since 1514. "Duke of Sussex" sounds boring and doesn't have any history before 1801. "Duke of Albany" is nice too, but it still exists (even if it was suspended and has never been reclaimed).

It's unlikely Scottish would be primary. More likely secondary, for when in Scotland which is much less.

The Duke of Ross may be older but it doesn't have much history. And it has no royal history in the United Kingdom, only in Scotland. Was created twice but never inherited. One was a son of James III who was an archbishop and had no kids. The other was his nephew who died as an infant.

There is a history for Earl of ross. It would make a nice secondary title.

Thought there is only one holder, Sussex was held by a son of George III. That is a closer royal link.

Clarence good chance too. Reality is, unless a new title, any title will have some dark history.

Prince Harry, duke of Clarence, Earl of Ross, Baron (insert northern Irish or possibly welsh title here) good suggestion.

As for any others, pretty sure we can rule out any titles used in other forms. Like Exeter for instance.

 

[Curryong]

Yes, but Clarence seems to have had more than most. At least Sussex has had only one recipient, who died in his old age.

 

[Countessmeout]

Yes, but Clarence seems to have had more than most. At least Sussex has had only one recipient, who died in his old age.

Yeah, other then his issues with marrying inappropriate (by birth) women, the only thing the previous Duke is known for is being the favoured uncle of Victoria.

 

[MaiaMia_53]

I think that "Duke of Ross" would be a more fitting title for Harry. It has gravitas and hasn't been created since 1514. "Duke of Sussex" sounds boring and doesn't have any history before 1801. "Duke of Albany" is nice too, but it still exists (even if it was suspended and has never been reclaimed).

I think 'Duke of Ross,' 'Duke of Albany,' and even 'Duke of Clarence' (aside from its less than favorable associations), all have a nice ring. However, I do not find 'Duke of Sussex' to be at all boring. Quite the opposite. It sounds like Duke & Duchess of Success! Hmmm, and there's also something of a 'sexy' nature to 'Sussex.' (ETA: Oh, I see that someone already mentioned the obvious. I think Harry is said to have liked the ring of 'Sussex,' but he's also been reported to have said he doesn't want a title). I guess we shall see what happens.

I like 'Duke of Cumberland,' as well but that could be seen as somewhat cumbersome and too similar to Cambridge.

Plus, Countessmeout's reasoning about 'Duke of Ross' being a Scottish title makes sense. As mentioned, Prince Harry could be given 'Ross' as a secondary title, e.g., 'Duke of Sussex, Earl of Ross ... Duchess of Sussex, Countess of Ross...'

Here's a recent article that discusses possible titles of Harry, and his future wife and offspring:
http://www.express.co.uk/news/royal...arry-marry-title-princess-children-engagement
This article seems to assume that 'Sussex' is a frontrunner.

Article on British titles 'order of precedence':
http://www.edwardianpromenade.com/resources/titles-and-orders-of-precedence/

Additional info: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_dukedoms_in_the_peerages_of_Britain_and_Ireland

 

[Iluvbertie]

Cumberland and Albany are unavailable as there are living claimants to both titles. They were stopped from being used under the Titles Deprivations Act 1917 but future heirs have had the right to petition for them to be restored. While there are living heirs neither can be used.

The last time the Ross title was used it was as an Earldom for Charles I and we all know what happened to him. It is also a title from the peerage of Scotland and so I am not sure if it can be used in the UK - I know that there are still peers who hold their peerage in the peerage of Scotland from before 1701 but I can't find any creation of a peerage that had been in the peerage of Scotland that has been then recreated in the peerage of the UK (no doubt someone will come up with one ... always the way.