Questions about British Styles and Titles 1: Ending 2022

[alvinking]

The Duke of Cambridge is not called the Earl of Strathearn in Scotland, so I wouldn't expect the Duke of Sussex to be called the Earl of Dumbarton either.

Sorry but you are wrong. When in Scotland, The Duke of Cambridge is indeed addressed as The Earl of Strathearn, and the Duke of Sussex as The Earl of Dumbarton

This is what KP said about the subject

https://twitter.com/x/status/1014866463998562304

 

[Denville]

The baby having African American heritage should not in any way influence a decision on whether s/he will be a royal highness. Neither in a negative nor in a positive way. As long as Louise and James, who are grandchildren in maleline of the current monarch, aren't royal highnesses, Harry's children shouldn't be either imo.

In .

Ed's children did not have HRH either because he wanted it (according to some reports). or because he was given a lesser ttitle at his wedding, in order for him to get the D of Ed title later.

 

[Somebody]

This is factually wrong. When in Scotland, the Duke of York is addressed as HRH The Earl of Inverness, just like when the Prince of Wales is in Scotland, he is addressed as HRH The Duke of Rothesay, Prince William is addressed as HRH The Earl of Strathearn, and Prince Harry is addressed as HRH The Earl of Dumbarton. It may seem small and unimportant but it is important for the people of Scotland. Even their Coat of Arms change in Scotland although the variations may be subtle for the untrained eyes. Even today some in Scotland are not over the Queen Elizabeth II, she is Queen Elizabeth I in scotland since Queen Elizabeth I was never Queen of Scots.

Andrew visited Scotland on July 2 and 3 and was called 'The Duke of York' in the Court Circular. However, when he visited Inverness itself in September, his Inverness title was added to his ducal title, not to him being The prince Andrew (as is done with Charles). And even William was called 'The duke of Cambridge' on his visit to Stirling Castle in October 2016. However, in July of this year 'Prince William, earl of Strathearn', was used.

Charles indeed seems to be called 'The prince Charles, duke of Rothesay' consistently when in Scotland.

 

[Spheno]

I would like to see Baby Sussex get HRH because the child will be a grandchild of a future monarch. And HRH or not the baby makes history as a child of African American heritage will be a legal successor to the British throne. There will be interest in Baby Sussex no matter his/her place in the line of succession .

Baby Sussex is not " a legal successor to the British throne".

 

[Denville]

Baby Sussex is not " a legal successor to the British throne".

if you mean he's not the next heir, of course not.. But any baby they have will be in the succession...…….

 

[Somebody]

Ed's children did not have HRH either because he wanted it (according to some reports). or because he was given a lesser ttitle at his wedding, in order for him to get the D of Ed title later.

I am aware of that. Still, I would like the royals to be consistent in their use of titles. Elevating a greatgrandchild by a younger son to HRH when earlier lowering the style of a grandchild by a younger sonseems unjust.

I do wonder whether it would have been possible to still give Edward's children the style of royal highness and use 'Wessex' as the territorial designation for the time being. I don't see why that wouldn't work but I don't think there is a precedent for it.

 

[Denville]

I am aware of that. Still, I would like the royals to be consistent in their use of titles. Elevating a greatgrandchild by a younger son to HRH when earlier lowering the style of a grandchild by a younger sonseems unjust.

I do wonder whether it would have been possible to still give Edward's children the style of royal highness and use 'Wessex' as the territorial designation for the time being. I don't see why that wouldn't work but I don't think there is a precedent for it.

It may be that when Ed becomes Duke of Edinburgh, his children will become HRH but I don't see why they should. Edward's children are unlikely to be needed for royal work, and they don't need an HRH. I presume that he either wished for them not to be titled as royal or else that at least he agreed with his mother on the issue...

 

[Rudolph]

Every day that goes by without an announcement for Harry’s kids makes it less likely there’ll be an announcement.

The LPs for the Cambridge children were dated December 2012 and announced in January 2013, 6 months before George was born.

It looking likely the 1917 LP will apply for the Sussex kids.

 

[Somebody]

It may be that when Ed becomes Duke of Edinburgh, his children will become HRH but I don't see why they should. Edward's children are unlikely to be needed for royal work, and they don't need an HRH. I presume that he either wished for them not to be titled as royal or else that at least he agreed with his mother on the issue...

That wasn't what I was talking about (I was discussing the possibility of Edward being earl of Wessex -as he currently is- and his children still being styled royal highnesses from birth) but I agree that the chance is small they will be elevated in the future hence why I think Harry's children shouldn't be either. Continuing the all-male line grandchildren are royal highnesses except for Edward's seems hugely unfair. Being royal shouldn't be about personal preference; as the system itself is based on tradition and not on likes or dislikes. Of course, traditions can change with the time but should apply to all...

So, not making Edward's children royal highnesses imo can only be justified if no younger son's children will be made royal highnesses in future cases (including Harry's). This would also avoid issues for the next generation with Charlotte being higher in line than her younger brother.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

Ed's children did not have HRH either because he wanted it (according to some reports). or because he was given a lesser ttitle at his wedding, in order for him to get the D of Ed title later.

The explanation provided for the Queen's decision concerning the Wessex children in 1999 was:

The decision reflects "the clear personal wish of Prince Edward and Miss Rhys-Jones as being appropriate to the likely future circumstances of their children," said a spokeswoman before Saturday's wedding.

BBC NEWS | Special Report | 1999 | 06/99 | royal wedding | Wessex titles for Edward and Sophie​

The decision to grant Prince Edward an earldom in lieu of a dukedom has never been given a public explanation. (As far as I am aware, a duke can receive another dukedom, so it was not necessary to avoid giving him a dukedom on marriage in order for him to receive the dukedom of Edinburgh later.) According to unconfirmed reports, Edward simply preferred the sound of it.

"Prince Edward was going to be the Duke of Cambridge, but he watched the film Shakespeare in Love, which had a character called the Earl of Wessex," says the courtier. "He liked the sound of it and asked the Queen if he could have that instead."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukn...am-asks-the-Queen-not-to-make-him-a-duke.html​

The LPs for the Cambridge children were dated December 2012 and announced in January 2013, 6 months before George was born.

The Gazette announcement was in January 2013, but the decision was announced on December 3, 2012, when the Duchess of Cambridge's pregnancy was announced.

https://twitter.com/x/status/275680933762453504

 

[Gawin]

It may be that when Ed becomes Duke of Edinburgh, his children will become HRH but I don't see why they should. Edward's children are unlikely to be needed for royal work, and they don't need an HRH. I presume that he either wished for them not to be titled as royal or else that at least he agreed with his mother on the issue...

I agree. It makes sense to limit the HRH to working royals. I suspect that was the reason behind the decision regarding Edward's children. So whether or not Harry's children will be HRHs will depend on the role that is planned for them.

 

[alvinking]

Prince Edward decision should be put back in context.
First he married in 1999, in a back end a a terrible decade for the BRF, that saw the divorce of Princess Anne, the separation and the divorce of Prince Charles, the divorce of Prince Andrew, the death of Diana, Princess of Wales,and the fire at Windsor.
Then Prince Edward was not supposed to be a working royal, back then he was a tv producer, and Sophie was supposed to keep her communication firm. They tried to pursue that avenue, but it was not feasible and things changed as they changed path. Back then they wanted to shield their future children from the press, given what the family had gone through during the preceding decade.

 

[TLLK]

The baby having African American heritage should not in any way influence a decision on whether s/he will be a royal highness. Neither in a negative nor in a positive way. As long as Louise and James, who are grandchildren in maleline of the current monarch, aren't royal highnesses, Harry's children shouldn't be either imo.

In addition, while I understand the BRF is considered more important than other monarchies, the Liechtenstein princely family already has a biracial prince who is 7th in line to the throne (the same spot baby Sussex will have). The Danish have two princes from partly Asian descent who were born 3rd and 4th in line. And the BRF has children of Maori descent in their midst. So, it's not common but certainly no exception that members of royal families are ethnicially diverse.

Thank you for sharing this information about who are the legal successors to the British throne and that there are ethnically diverse people throughout the various lines of succession for European thrones.?

 

[Mbruno]

Every day that goes by without an announcement for Harry’s kids makes it less likely there’ll be an announcement.

The LPs for the Cambridge children were dated December 2012 and announced in January 2013, 6 months before George was born.

It looking likely the 1917 LP will apply for the Sussex kids.

Great-grandchildren of a reigning British monarch who were not the issue of the eldest living son of the Prince of Wales were never given the style of HRH as far as I know. Harry and Meghan's children will be HRHs in due course when Charles becomes king. No need to rush and open a precedent that would go against the trend of limiting the number of princes/princesses of the United Kingdom .

The decision to grant Prince Edward an earldom in lieu of a dukedom has never been given a public explanation. (As far as I am aware, a duke can receive another dukedom, so it was not necessary to avoid giving him a dukedom on marriage in order for him to receive the dukedom of Edinburgh later.) According to unconfirmed reports, Edward simply preferred the sound of it.

As it is widely known, it has been decided that, when the title of Duke of Edinburgh merges with the Crown, it will be recreated for Prince Edward assuming he is still alive by then. So, most likely, Edward will also be a royal duke eventually.



When Edward becomes a royal duke, it would be appropriate IMHO for Louise and James to take up the title and style of "HRH Prince/Princess xxx of Edinburgh". I doubt it will happen though. After having been styled as children of an earl since they were born, it would be confusing for the public if Louise and James suddenly became HRHs in their adulthood without any compelling reason. James could, however, be referred to as the Earl of Wessex since that would become one of his father's subsidiary titles.

 

[Denville]

I don't see what wuodl be confusing for the public. Royals change their titles, as they move up the hierarchy. William is D of Cambridge now, in due course he will be POW. I don't think it will happen because Ed's children are pretty unlikely to be doing royal duties, and probably having grown up as Vct Severn and Lady Louise MW they wll prefer to go on like that...
Edward wasn't overly popular at the time of his marriage and he wasn't expected to do royal duties, either.. Plus the RF as a whole in 1999 had been badly hit by the scandals of the 1990s. So his having an earldom and his children not being HRH was probably bowing to the spirit of the times and to his not being a full time Prince...
But Harry will be the second son of a King and a working royal. I think that his children may become HRH..

 

[DuchessMia]

I think the Sussex kids will be HRH from birth as well.

I have another question regarding titles. Are all married in Queens called Queen Consort (like Camilla/Catherine will be)? I’ve never heard of the Queen Mother being called anything other than Queen.

 

[Somebody]

I think the Sussex kids will be HRH from birth as well.

The majority at TRF seems to think they won't

I have another question regarding titles. Are all married in Queens called Queen Consort (like Camilla/Catherine will be)? I’ve never heard of the Queen Mother being called anything other than Queen.

No, in daily use they are typically not called 'queen consort' (nor will Camilla or Catherine imo). That is just their position.

 

[Mbruno]

I think the Sussex kids will be HRH from birth as well.

I have another question regarding titles. Are all married in Queens called Queen Consort (like Camilla/Catherine will be)? I’ve never heard of the Queen Mother being called anything other than Queen.

A queen consort is simply called "HM The Queen" while her husband is alive. A queen dowager (i.e. the widow of a king) is normally called "HM Queen [First Name]", e.g. HM Queen Mary, or HM Queen Alexandra.


Camilla might be an exception though as it is unknown if she will be called "HM The Queen", or if Charles will honor his stated intention at the time of his wedding to Camilla and have her styled instead as "HRH The Princess Consort".

 

[Fijiro]

Until Edward's request was announced in 1999 no one questioned the right of the York princesses to be exactly that.

I remember the joy that was expressed when Beatrice was born as there was a 'little princess to go with Diana's two princes'. People were glad to have a baby princess.

Then came the 90s and the questioning about the entire royal family and the way it functions and who should be royal and who shouldn't and its size and cost etc.

By the early part of the 2000s people were asking why Beatrice and Eugenie are princesses and not Louise and James and many made the erroneous suggestion (and belief) that Andrew demanded HRH for his children totally ignoring the fact that they are the children of the second son. The Queen was the child of the second son. In the Queen's generation there are also princes and a princess from the third and fourth sons but I do think the days of the younger children passing on royal status may have ended with Edward's decision going to be the norm (now watch the Queen issue the LPs for Harry's children overnight).

I'm being off point a little, but yes, HM Queen and her sister Princess Margaret were the preceding York Sisters before Princess Beatrice and Princess Eugenie became the next York Sisters.

 

[alvinking]

I think the Sussex kids will be HRH from birth as well.

I have another question regarding titles. Are all married in Queens called Queen Consort (like Camilla/Catherine will be)? I’ve never heard of the Queen Mother being called anything other than Queen.

A Consort is simply the spouse of a reigning monarch. So Queen Alexandra was a Queen Consort, Queen Mary was a Queen Consort, Queen Elizabeth was a Queen Consort, Camilla, Catherine, and Prince George's wife will be Queens Consort. They are just title HM The Queen, they are not numbered. Queen Mary the wife of King George V, was not Queen Mary III, after Queen Mary II who was a reigning Queen. Queen Elizabeth, wife of George VI, was not Queen Elizabeth II, after Queen Elizabeth I, a reigning Queen.

 

[DuchessMia]

Thank you all for your responses.

 

[Osipi]

Prince Edward decision should be put back in context.
First he married in 1999, in a back end a a terrible decade for the BRF, that saw the divorce of Princess Anne, the separation and the divorce of Prince Charles, the divorce of Prince Andrew, the death of Diana, Princess of Wales,and the fire at Windsor.
Then Prince Edward was not supposed to be a working royal, back then he was a tv producer, and Sophie was supposed to keep her communication firm. They tried to pursue that avenue, but it was not feasible and things changed as they changed path. Back then they wanted to shield their future children from the press, given what the family had gone through during the preceding decade.

The 90s were a tumultuous time for the "Firm" with all the events happening as you point out, alvinking. Something had to be done and it was then that the little known of group called the Way Ahead Group was formed. Kind of like a high level crisis resolving group of a corporation would be.

This group is no longer in existence but perhaps some of the decisions that were made back then changed the direction of how things were going to go into the future and starting in 1999 with Edward and Sophie and the Queen implementing that the Wessex children would be styled as the children of an Earl (and eventually a Duke), it set a precedent.

This precedent though would not become apparent until now with Harry and Meghan expecting their first child. It wouldn't have affected William and Kate's children as, due to the Queen's longevity, there was an heir to the heir to the heir to the throne (that's more heirs than William has on his head) and HM, The Queen put into motion the changes that created the Law of Succession Act of 2015. There then, was good reason to also issue letters patent that the grandchildren of the heir to the heir to the throne would be born HRH.

The Queen and the Duke of Edinburgh were in a new era of being great grandparents. The titles and styles of Anne's grandchildren were never any kind of an issue because their parents weren't titled and styled from birth due to Mark Phillip's declining on a title.

Harry and Meghan are the first couple to be expecting a child where Edward's precedent would and could be set into motion. I'm of the opinion that what we will see is that Harry and Meghan's children will grow up and be titled and styled as children of a Duke similar to Edward's children.

This won't come into play should Beatrice and Eugenie have children either. Descending from the female line, their situation will be similar to Anne's. We saw that Jack Brooksbank was not offered any kind of a title and I imagine the same will happen with Beatrice's husband.

This is what is making Harry and Meghan's situation so unique to watch. I believe we're seeing a plan put into action that was formed twenty years ago. Its not a "royal snub" or something directed at Meghan or indicative of anything but an implementation of how the "Firm" saw the "way ahead" years ago.

This also wipes off the board the idea that it is Charles, himself, that wants to streamline the monarchy. I think its possible that Charles was one of the group that was all for it but it was a "Firm's" decision and not one person's.

Yeps, the 90s were the times of the "annus horribilis" but out of the ashes, the Phoenix rose again.

https://www.express.co.uk/news/roya...ilip-prince-charles-diana-windsor-castle-fire

Another aspect of all this is that regardless of titles and styles of a person, it does not, at any time, affect their place in the line of succession to the throne. Lena Tindall is 19th in the list with Prince Richard, Duke of Gloucester (a royal duke) is 26th.

 

[Mbruno]

This precedent though would not become apparent until now with Harry and Meghan expecting their first child. It wouldn't have affected William and Kate's children as, due to the Queen's longevity, there was an heir to the heir to the heir to the throne (that's more heirs than William has on his head) and HM, The Queen put into motion the changes that created the Law of Succession Act of 2015.

I doubt the Queen "put into motion the changes that created" the Succession to the Crown Act 2013, which came into force in 2015 after all necessary enabling legislation had been passed by the Commonwealth realms. The change to the succession law was proposed by then British PM David Cameron and his deputy Nick Clegg, and agreed to at the 2011 Commonwealth Heads of Governments meeting in Perth, Australia. The revolution of 1688 and the subsequent Act of Settlement of 1701 made it patently clear that the succession to the Crown is regulated by law and it is up to the politicians in Parliament, rather than the Queen, to initiate and pass legislation.

 

[Osipi]

Thanks much for the correction, Mbruno. You're absolutely correct. The changes to the Law of Succession Act were always and will remain within the jurisdiction of Parliament and the Commonwealth nations.

I'll amend my statement to say that because of the actions of Parliament to amend the Law of Succession act, the Queen then used her will and pleasure to issue letters patent creating all children of the heir's heir HRHs at birth.

(happily checks off her learn something new box)

 

[Iluvbertie]

Were there any questions in the media before her birth about Prince Andrew's children potentially not being HRH either by request or by changes to the rules of 1917?

No suggestions at all. It was never even raised in the media because it was expected, especially as Andrew was the second son. It was pointed out, during Sarah's pregnancy that the baby would be the first 'of York' child since the abdication.

Did anybody speculate, prior to the birth Princess Anne's children, that they might be granted the HRH?

No. There was a suggestion that they might be given noble titles in their own right as Anne and Mark had refused an Earldom for Mark so the suggestion was that they would be styled as if he had accepted such a title but that was very quickly squashed by Anne.

What are the reasons alleged by the tabloid(s) in question for the snubbing (from the tabloid's point of view) of the Phillips, Wessex, Armstrong-Jones, Gloucester, Kent, and Ogilvy children?

Under the rules of the 1917 Letters Patent, but the Letters Patent could be changed or repealed. Considering the introduction of gender equality in the inheritance of the crown in 2015, it is long overdue.

What do you mean 'snubbing'?

The only children listed above who were entitled to HRH, under the 1917 Letters Patent, who don't have it are the Wessexes and that was made clear when Edward and Sophie were married. Remember that in 1917 women didn't have the right to vote and I doubt that George V ever considered the idea of a Princess marrying a man who didn't have a title in his own right. Princess Margaret was the first to do so and she insisted, when she was pregnant with David, that Tony be given a title. Alexandra and Angus were the first to refuse a title, not Anne and Mark as if often claimed.

Giving gender equality would go against the very idea of a smaller royal family as it would add to the number of royals when the British public already think there are too many.

I do think there will be reform of the 1917 Letters Patent - restricting them to the children of the heir apparent and heir apparent's children only (which is in effect what they would be moving towards if Harry's children are never styled HRH) rather than extending them to the children of Princesses as well as younger sons unless the Princess is also the heiress apparent.

Currently there are 15 HRHs by birth and 8 by marriage for a total of 23 HRHs. If the females were also to have their husbands and children as HRH that would add another 14 HRHs which would mean 37 HRHs and that woudl be way too many.

 

[Iluvbertie]

This is factually wrong. When in Scotland, the Duke of York is addressed as HRH The Earl of Inverness, just like when the Prince of Wales is in Scotland, he is addressed as HRH The Duke of Rothesay, Prince William is addressed as HRH The Earl of Strathearn, and Prince Harry is addressed as HRH The Earl of Dumbarton. It may seem small and unimportant but it is important for the people of Scotland. Even their Coat of Arms change in Scotland although the variations may be subtle for the untrained eyes. Even today some in Scotland are not over the Queen Elizabeth II, she is Queen Elizabeth I in scotland since Queen Elizabeth I was never Queen of Scots.

Andrew hasn't used Earl of Inverness in official documents in Scotland for many years. The CC doesn't refer to him as such when doing engagements in Scotland and hasn't done since the late 1990s from my reading of the CC.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

No, in daily use they are typically not called 'queen consort' (nor will Camilla or Catherine imo). That is just their position.

This also applies to kings consort.

No suggestions at all. It was never even raised in the media because it was expected, especially as Andrew was the second son. It was pointed out, during Sarah's pregnancy that the baby would be the first 'of York' child since the abdication.


No. There was a suggestion that they might be given noble titles in their own right as Anne and Mark had refused an Earldom for Mark so the suggestion was that they would be styled as if he had accepted such a title but that was very quickly squashed by Anne.

Thank you.

What do you mean 'snubbing'?

Please see the original citation about which the question was asked (it was quoted above the question in the post):

The tabloid press is already cluelessly and nonsensically braying about lack of HRH titles somehow being a snub.

What are the reasons alleged by the tabloid(s) in question for the snubbing (from the tabloid's point of view) of the Phillips, Wessex, Armstrong-Jones, Gloucester, Kent, and Ogilvy children?

Thus, "snubbing (from the tabloid's point of view)" meant "whatever the tabloid in question meant by 'snubbing'".

The only children listed above who were entitled to HRH, under the 1917 Letters Patent, who don't have it are the Wessexes and that was made clear when Edward and Sophie were married.

Yes, but the Sussex child is likewise not entitled to HRH (for the moment) under the 1917 Letters Patent. Therefore, the tabloid's meaning of "snub" is clearly not founded on the 1917 Letters Patent - thus my presumption that the tabloid considers all children not styled HRH to have been "snubbed".

Remember that in 1917 women didn't have the right to vote and I doubt that George V ever considered the idea of a Princess marrying a man who didn't have a title in his own right. Princess Margaret was the first to do so and she insisted, when she was pregnant with David, that Tony be given a title. Alexandra and Angus were the first to refuse a title, not Anne and Mark as if often claimed.

Giving gender equality would go against the very idea of a smaller royal family as it would add to the number of royals when the British public already think there are too many.

Not if it was given through restricting the HRH (in accordance with your suggestion below, which appears gender equal to me) rather than extending it.

I do think there will be reform of the 1917 Letters Patent - restricting them to the children of the heir apparent and heir apparent's children only (which is in effect what they would be moving towards if Harry's children are never styled HRH) rather than extending them to the children of Princesses as well as younger sons unless the Princess is also the heiress apparent.

 

[O-H Anglophile]

This precedent though would not become apparent until now with Harry and Meghan expecting their first child. It wouldn't have affected William and Kate's children as, due to the Queen's longevity, there was an heir to the heir to the heir to the throne (that's more heirs than William has on his head) and HM, The Queen put into motion the changes that created the Law of Succession Act of 2015. There then, was good reason to also issue letters patent that the grandchildren of the heir to the heir to the throne would be born HRH.

If the Law of Succession Act had not already been well under way when William and Kate were expecting George, I don't know that the Queen would have done anything about William's children all being HRH. As it stood from the Letters Patent of 1917, William's eldest son would be a Prince and HRH. That was from when sons were before daughters in succession rights.

"and the eldest living son of the eldest son of the Prince of Wales (a modification of the Letters Patent of 1898) shall have and at all times hold and enjoy the style, title or attribute of Royal Highness with their titular dignity of Prince" Letters Patent 1917

As it turns out William's first child was a boy, but had Charlotte been born first, although she would be the heir before any of her younger brothers, she would not have been a HRH or Princess (until her grandfather became King)--but her eldest younger brother would. That is why the Queen issued the amendment in 2012, elevating all of William's children.

This issue is not at play for Harry's children.

 

[JR76]

I doubt that George V ever considered the idea of a Princess marrying a man who didn't have a title in his own right.

I'd just like to add that Patricia of Connaught married Captain Alexander Ramsay in 1919. Upon marriage she received permission by Royal warrant to relinquish her title and style of HRH and Princess of Great Britain and Ireland and was later known by the style of Lady Patricia Ramsay, but retained her place in the Order of Succession and her membership of the Royal family. At subsequent coronations she was accorded all the honours of a Princess of the blood and it's said that The Queen still treats her daughter-in-law The Lady Saltoun as a member of the extended Royal family.

 

[Duke of Leaside]

If the Law of Succession Act had not already been well under way when William and Kate were expecting George, I don't know that the Queen would have done anything about William's children all being HRH. As it stood from the Letters Patent of 1917, William's eldest son would be a Prince and HRH. That was from when sons were before daughters in succession rights.

"and the eldest living son of the eldest son of the Prince of Wales (a modification of the Letters Patent of 1898) shall have and at all times hold and enjoy the style, title or attribute of Royal Highness with their titular dignity of Prince" Letters Patent 1917

As it turns out William's first child was a boy, but had Charlotte been born first, although she would be the heir before any of her younger brothers, she would not have been a HRH or Princess (until her grandfather became King)--but her eldest younger brother would. That is why the Queen issued the amendment in 2012, elevating all of William's children.

This issue is not at play for Harry's children.

While I agree that the changes to the succession laws were perhaps part of the reason for the 2012 LPs, I'm not sure that's the entire story.

All William's children would have eventually become HRH and Prince/Princess when (if) Charles became King and I think the Queen would have therefore wanted them to be so from birth. Just like Queen Victoria, through the 1898 LPs, "bumped up" (the future King) George V's children from HH to HRH (which they would have received upon Victoria's death as per the 1864 LPs). Similarly, George VI made Elizabeth's (future) children HRH and Prince/Princess through the 1948 LPs (which they would have received when their mother acceded, according to the 1917 LPs).

It's stated in the above quote and has been stated in this thread before that the changes to the succession law were the sole reason for the 2012 LPs and I just think there was a little more to it than just that.

It's for this reason that I think there's a chance (perhaps slight) that new LPs could be issued for Harry's kids. If they are going to eventually be HRHs, I think the Queen would want that from birth.

More likely, I believe, is that they won't ever be HRHs and in that case I think a statement should be issued like the Wessex statement of 1999, to clarify things.

One final thought re: the 2012 LPs. If the entire reason was the change to the succession laws, the Queen could have issued LPs to say:

"...and the eldest living child of the eldest child of the Prince of Wales shall have and enjoy the style, title and attribute of Royal Highness with the titular dignity of Prince or Princess..." emphasis my own.