Titles and Styles of William, Harry, Wives and Children

[bad_barbarella]

Will Harry's wife be a princess or a duchess?
Will William be king by himself.... and his wife stay a princess... because his grandfather is a prince not the king... sorry im just confused why people say things like "who is the future queen?" Wouldn't his wife remain a princess..

[Isana]

I think she'll be HRH (name) Princess Harry of Wales until Harry gets his own title. If he becomes Duke of such-and-such, she'll of course be a Duchess. The same applies to William.

The wife of a King becomes a Queen but the husband of a Reigning Queen (like Elizabeth II) isn't called King but Prince Consort (or gets another title). I guess this goes back to the old idea that the man would outrank the woman. Hence if the husband of the Queen was the King, he'd be in charge and considered "higher" in the hierarchy. So to ensure that everyone knows that the woman is the actual head of state, her husband is "merely" a Prince .

[Jo of Palatine]

Originally Posted by Polly

Well, I'm not really sure, now that you raise it. I'm used to reading Down Here of Charles being Heir Presumptive and William, Heir Apparent, i.e. we presume that Charles is next in line and apparently, William will succeed him.

An Heir Presumptive is an heir where it can be presumed at that moment that he will inherit but where there is the possibility that this situation changes. Death of the Heir is not considered in this scenario.

Eg. princess Elizabeth was her father's Heiress Presumptive, because she was the eldest child, when the king had only daughters. But if queen Elizabteh, her mother, had given king George VI. another child, a son, this son would immediately have become Heir Apparent, because whatever happened (except his death) there couldn't have been another heir with senior rights, as the rule is: older son senior to younger son, sons senior to daughters.

Charles is the eldest child and the son of the queen, so whatever happens (except his death), he is the heir, nothing can deprive him of his birthright. Thus he is Heir Apparent. His son William as eldest child and son is Charles' Heir Apparent, because nothing Charles or anyone else can do can change his senior position in the line. As Charles will be king if he outlives his mother and William is his heir, William is an heir apparent to the Crown, but not "The Heir Apparent", as there can be only one and that's his father, Charles, as Charles' claim is senior to that of William.

Now if William married and has as first child a daughter, she under current law would be William's Heiress Presumptive as the birth of a brother would replace her as heiress to the throne. probably they'd change the law to the firstborn-prerogative like in the Netherlands and Sweden, but so far, boys have senior rights to girls when they are siblings.

Hope this helps.

[msleiman]

would William children be HRH even if the Queen is still on the throne? What about Harry's children being HRH?

[Jo of Palatine]

Originally Posted by msleiman

would William children be HRH even if the Queen is still on the throne? What about Harry's children being HRH?

At the moment only William's eldest son would be HRH because he would be William's heir apparent, so he is going to be king one day. The others would be Lord/Lady Mountbatten-Windsor. Same with Harry's children, they would be Lord/Lady. As soon as Charles accedes, his grandchildren have a right to HRH and prince/princess. But as we've seen with the children of the then princess Elizabeth, who were created prince/princess even though their mother was just heiress presumptive, I guess HM would change the rules to suit her great-grandchildren of the Royal line.

[christinacg]

^but if Willam has children after HM has passed, would they all be HRH? That suprises me that only the elsest child of a future king would be HRH. Even with Harry I would expect his kids to have the title HRH.

[ayvee]

Originally Posted by christinacg

^but if Willam has children after HM has passed, would they all be HRH? That suprises me that only the elsest child of a future king would be HRH. Even with Harry I would expect his kids to have the title HRH.

The British Monarchy limits HRH to grandchildren of the monarch. So if Harry had kids and QEII is the monarch, then his children would simply be Lord and Lady. The Lord and Lady title would change to HRH when Charles becomes the monarch. This rule limits the number of HRH's around in the BRF.

I guess, different countries have different rules. In Denmark, the sons of the monarch are HRH. The children of the Crown Prince are also HRH but the children of (the second son) Prince Joachim are only HH.

Not sure what the rule is for non-reigning monarchs though and how far HRH passes down to the kids.

-Ayvee

[Jo of Palatine]

Originally Posted by christinacg

That suprises me that only the elsest child of a future king would be HRH.

It's not even the eldest child of William but his eldest son. Because only this child will be for sure (if he lives to see that day) one king. So it's only the most direct line which has a right to the HRH and prince once the relationsship to the souverain is wider than two generations.

So if Charles dies before his mother, then William is the next king and Harry has never been the son of the king, only the grandson of the queen. In this case his children, even though they are nephew and niece of king William, will only be Lord/Lady (first name) Mountbatten-Windsor, according to the current rules. Once Charles becomes king, his grandchildren by Harry are HRH and prince/princess.

The weirdest thing in UK law is that an unborn child has no inheritance rights. Let's assume the queen dies and Charles becomes king before William is married. William marries a young lady who gets pregnant. During this pregancy Charles dies and William has an accident. The Crown would bypass the unborn child of William and Harry as the next in line would immediately become king. It has been discussed in a similar case on queen Victoria's ascension. Question was what would happen if queen Adelaide, wife of Victoria's predecessor William IV., was pregnant when the king died. The solution for Victoria was that she would become queen immediately on the king's death but that she would abdicate in favour of her cousin with a more senior right as soon as the baby was born. But that was Victoria's decision, according to the law she couldn't be forced to abdicate once she was queen. Fortunately queen Adelaide was not pregnant when her husband died, but there have been such cases in history. In Germanic and french law the unborn child has a claim to the throne, while in British law it hasn't.

[msleiman]

Originally Posted by Jo of Palatine

It's not even the eldest child of William but his eldest son. Because only this child will be for sure (if he lives to see that day) one king. So it's only the most direct line which has a right to the HRH and prince once the relationsship to the souverain is wider than two generations.

The weirdest thing in UK law is that an unborn child has no inheritance rights. Let's assume the queen dies and Charles becomes king before William is married. William marries a young lady who gets pregnant. During this pregancy Charles dies and William has an accident. The Crown would bypass the unborn child of William and Harry as the next in line would immediately become king.

Do you think that this law will be changed! I understand this law in the past, but now even if the baby was born very early it chance of living is very high. I think that this should be changed.

[Skydragon]

Originally Posted by msleiman

Do you think that this law will be changed! I understand this law in the past, but now even if the baby was born very early it chance of living is very high. I think that this should be changed.

Apart from anything else, it ensures that there is always a monarch. Anything can happen to an unborn child.

[Jo of Palatine]

Originally Posted by Skydragon

Apart from anything else, it ensures that there is always a monarch. Anything can happen to an unborn child.

That's the idea behind it: in British law, the Common law on which the british sytsem is based, the king never dies. Meaning that the moment a souverain dies, his heir becomes the next souverain. Interregnum is a foreign concept in Common law when it comes to the kingship.

[muriel]

Current practice notwithstanding, I think it makes sense only for Will's children to have the HRH, whilst Harry's children to simply be Lord / Lady M-B. That said, on my opinion, Harry's wife shoud have the HRH, as the wife of an HRH, and the daughter-in-law of a future King.

[PrinceOfCanada]

Of course Harry's wife would take HRH. That's never been in question--wives take the style of their husband.

[Furienna]

Harry's children would still be princes and princesses though, right?

[PrinceOfCanada]

They would be when Charles ascends the throne. If Harry were to have children right now, they would be great-grandchildren of the monarch, and not entitled to HRH under the Letters Patent currently in effect.

On Charles' presumed accession, Harry's putative children would then be grandchildren of the monarch, and entitled to the style of HRH as Princes or Princesses of the United Kingdom.

'course, that could all be changed if another Letter Patent is issued. More likely, Harry will be created a Royal Duke of something or other (Cumberland, maybe. Sandringham would be quite nice, actually--create a totally new title), probably with a couple of subsidiary titles (Duke Whatsit, Earl of Over There, and Baron That Other Place). His children would then be entitled to use the appropriate courtesy titles.

Given HM's probable longevity, it's almost certain that Harry will have a couple of sprogs before she dies, and thus his children will have courtesy titles first, then rise to HRH when Charles accedes. At that point, they'd be known as something like Princess Buttercup, Lady Sandringham (or whatever).

Beatrice and Eugenie, however, won't ever have children with the HRH style.

[sophie]

If they do get married will she be just HRH Princess Catherine?

[PrincessofEurope]

Originally Posted by sophie

If they do get married will she be just HRH Princess Catherine?

No
i would image she would techinally be HRH Princess William of Wales unless the Queen (or if it was King Charles by then) granted William a title such as a Duke of .... or Earl of .....
William could receive one of his father's titles but as Camilla is using the Duchess of Cornwall title that one is out so most likely he will get a new title like the precedent that was set for Edward and Andrew when they married

of course the press and public will all call her Princess Kate

[Skydragon]

Originally Posted by PrincessofEurope

No
i would image she would techinally be HRH Princess William of Wales unless the Queen (or if it was King Charles by then) granted William a title such as a Duke of .... or Earl of .....
William could receive one of his father's titles but as Camilla is using the Duchess of Cornwall title that one is out so most likely he will get a new title like the precedent that was set for Edward and Andrew when they married

of course the press and public will all call her Princess Kate

She can't be the Duchess of Cornwall until Charles ascends the throne and William becomes the Duke of Cornwall. The title Duke of Cornwall is reserved for the eldest son of the sovereign.