Prince Harry Created Duke of Sussex: May 19, 2018

[Mbruno]

The LPs formally mention "the state, degree, style, dignity, title and honour" of Duke [xxx]. The gazette summary, on the other hand, refers only to "the dignity of [xxx]". George V's 1917 LPs add even further to the confusion by referring to "style, title or attribute of Royal Highness with their titular dignity of Prince or Princess".

I know I have already asked that before, but I am still confused by those terms and by the difference between a "dignity" and a "title". Different dictionaries say that one possible meaning of the word "dignity" is "a high rank", or "a title of high rank". Apparently, "prince" is a dignity in that sense, but, per the Gazette notice, so is "Duke of Sussex", which is somewhat confusing.

Apparently BTW, that semantic complication also extends to other languages. For example, in Spain, the royal decree 1368/1987 mentions the "dignidad" of Prince of Asturias or Infante of Spain, but otherwise refers to "títulos de nobleza pertenecientes a la Casa Real", as the ones currently held by Infantas Elena, Pilar and Margarita for example.

 

[Somebody]

Right, but further action could be taken when Meghan becomes pregnant for the Queen to make M&H's offspring HRH Prince/Princess from birth. Or right, nothing will be done and they will automatically be styled as children of a duke, and once Prince Charles inherits the throne, their titles might be elevated, or not if M&H have decided differently.

I'm not sure why you are saying 'non-royal' though since Harry is definitely royal.

My wording was indeed not precise. I was trying to make the distinction between being styled as grandchildren of the monarch (i.e., as children of a royal duke: so, princes and princesses) compared to being styled of children of an ordinary duke (secondary title for eldest son, lord and lady for any other children). However, there is of course the category of greatgrandchildren who are styled the same as those of ordinary dukes (and the eldest son will be an ordinary duke himself and no longer a royal duke) while their father is a royal duke (think: the current dukes of Kent and Gloucester).

 

[Somebody]

What the Gazette reported was the "traditional" text. Which is true - no special reminder would exclude the "heirs male lawfully begotten". That it doesn't mention any special reminders does not mean there aren't any.
I totally agree that in all likelihood that is the way the Letters Patent were given by HM's wishes. But we don't know for sure, till someone actually sees the Letters Patent for Harry. That's all I wanted to express.
We simply cannot discuss something we don't know for real if it is the whole truth. IMHO, of course.

But again, why would they publish something that would be incorrect and misleading. The Gazette reports "granting unto Her Majesty’s Grandson, His Royal Highness Prince Henry Charles Albert David of Wales, K.C.V.O., and the heirs male of his body lawfully begotten the dignities of Baron Kilkeel, Earl of Dumbarton, and Duke of Sussex."

So, it was clearly NOT granted to heirs female of his body - if it had been that would have been mentioned. This message is supposed to be an accurate reflection of the Letters Patent as that is the whole purpose of this announcement. So, the whole truth is rather obvious. I don't see any reason to speculate any longer but of course anyone is free to do so

 

[jacqui24]

Ok, I feel like we might be lost in the semantics in debating about the language in the Gazette. Bottom line is, I don't think this Queen would venture into this debate right now given the issues Parliament has had with it.

 

[Mbruno]

However, there is of course the category of greatgrandchildren who are styled the same as those of ordinary dukes (and the eldest son will be an ordinary duke himself and no longer a royal duke) while their father is a royal duke (think: the current dukes of Kent and Gloucester).

That category actually includes any grandchildren in direct male line of a son of a British sovereign, even if their father is not a duke himself. Prince Michael of Kent for example is not a duke, but his children held from birth the style of "Lord/Lady [xxx] Windsor", as if they were children of an ordinary duke in the peerage of the UK. The only difference is that there is no other "courtesy title" that can be used by the eldest son.

 

[Duke of Leaside]

What the Gazette reported was the "traditional" text. Which is true - no special reminder would exclude the "heirs male lawfully begotten". That it doesn't mention any special reminders does not mean there aren't any.
I totally agree that in all likelihood that is the way the Letters Patent were given by HM's wishes. But we don't know for sure, till someone actually sees the Letters Patent for Harry. That's all I wanted to express.
We simply cannot discuss something we don't know for real if it is the whole truth. IMHO, of course.

I think this has been beaten to death; and I will try to bury it now as others have. ?

IF we question the gazette in terms of having misleading or incomplete information here, then we must question every gazette entry and without the letters patent one could say we know nothing and the gazette is just PR deflecting.

I personally do not believe this. The gazette is simply a quick summary of the relevant facts regarding the granting of the peerage. If they had wanted to hide something they simply would not have gazetted at all. (I'm suspicious this is why the letters patent granting the Duke of Windsor -March 8, 1937, were never gazetted).

And to answer an earlier question: yes Lord Mountbatten's special remainders were mentioned in the gazette notice in 1947. See below:

https://www.thegazette.co.uk/London/issue/38109/page/5074

I believe he had special remainders for his 1946 Viscountcy (that were also gazetted) as were the Duke of Fife's special remainders in 1900. If interested, you can search them yourselves on the gazette website.

 

[Mbruno]

Ok, I feel like we might be lost in the semantics in debating about the language in the Gazette. Bottom line is, I don't think this Queen would venture into this debate right now given the issues Parliament has had with it.

More significantly, I agree with most other posters. It wouldn't make any sense for the Gazette notice to mention "heirs to the body male" if the actual LPs had a different remainder.


In the past, when royal dukes were automatically eligible to seat in the House of Lords, we had the benefit of the full LPs being read out loud in the chamber of the House of Lords on the occasion of the new duke's introduction, as seen in the clip below from Prince Andrew's introduction. Unfortunately, nowadays, the LPs are normally not made public, so there is no way to access their content other than the summary provided in the Gazette.

 

[Somebody]

That category actually includes any grandchildren in direct male line of a son of a British sovereign, even if their father is not a duke himself. Prince Michael of Kent for example is not a duke, but his children held from birth the style of "Lord/Lady [xxx] Windsor", as if they were children of an ordinary duke in the peerage of the UK. The only difference is that there is no other "courtesy title" that can be used by the eldest son.

Thanks for the addition. You are of course completely right - as Lord Frederick and Lady Gabriella will attest to. The difference starts in the next generation. While Frederick's cousin George's children are styled as Lord (Downpatrick) and Lady, his children aren't.

 

[MaiaMia_53]

So Lord Frederick Windsor's daughter is Miss Maud Windsor (plus she has three additional given names). ?

 

[Gawin]

What the Gazette reported was the "traditional" text. Which is true - no special reminder would exclude the "heirs male lawfully begotten". That it doesn't mention any special reminders does not mean there aren't any.
I totally agree that in all likelihood that is the way the Letters Patent were given by HM's wishes. But we don't know for sure, till someone actually sees the Letters Patent for Harry. That's all I wanted to express.
We simply cannot discuss something we don't know for real if it is the whole truth. IMHO, of course.

Yes, we do know the truth. The Gazette wouldn't state the succession is limited to "heirs male" unless the LP does. The Gazette simply summarizes the LP. If the LP contained a special remainder, the Gazette would report it.

Please refer to the Gazette's website for more information on its function:

"The Gazette is the UK’s official public record."

"The Gazette is a government publication, managed by The Stationery Office, under the superintendence of The National Archives. As the official public record, information published is verified and certified as fact."

https://www.thegazette.co.uk/about

 

[csw]

What would happen in terms of Harry and Meghan's children's titles if Her Majesty outlives Charles and William is her successor. Because they would never have been the grandchildren of a monarch would they not become HRH or would it still be automatic? Thank you for any clarification you can give.

 

[Kataryn]

What would happen in terms of Harry and Meghan's children's titles if Her Majesty outlives Charles and William is her successor. Because they would never have been the grandchildren of a monarch would they not become HRH or would it still be automatic? Thank you for any clarification you can give.

I guess that would be up to king William then. There is a precedent though for the sisters of an earl who inherited directly from their grandfather - they become known as Ladies by courtesy as the sisters of an earl. It's not so, though, if the brother is created the first earl of his family. Then they remain mere Misses.

 

[Somebody]

What would happen in terms of Harry and Meghan's children's titles if Her Majesty outlives Charles and William is her successor. Because they would never have been the grandchildren of a monarch would they not become HRH or would it still be automatic? Thank you for any clarification you can give.

They would still be entitled to the style they are entitled to right now: that is that of children of a duke. Their eldest son would use Harry's secondary title, any other sons would be Lord X Mountbatten-Windsor and daughters Lady Y Mountbatten-Windsor.

The only way for this to change would be for the monarch to decide something differently (but I don't see a reason to do so).

 

[Somebody]

I guess that would be up to king William then. There is a precedent though for the sisters of an earl who inherited directly from their grandfather - they become known as Ladies by courtesy as the sisters of an earl. It's not so, though, if the brother is created the first earl of his family. Then they remain mere Misses.

That's a totally different situation. Any children they may have are children of a duke, so that's what their styles depend upon unless something supersedes that (such as being the grandchild of a monarch).

 

[Mbruno]

What would happen in terms of Harry and Meghan's children's titles if Her Majesty outlives Charles and William is her successor.

They would never become HRHs in that scenario, unless King William V issued special letters patent creating them princes/princesses of the United Kingdom.


All things being equal, their styles would still be Earl of Dumbarton for Harry and Meghan's eldest son (if any) and Lord/Lady [xxx] Mountbatten-Windsor for their other children, including all of their daughters.

 

[Kataryn]

That's a totally different situation. Any children they may have are children of a duke, so that's what their styles depend upon unless something supersedes that (such as being the grandchild of a monarch).

Of course any children would in that scenario be children of a (normal) duke. But Harry would still be a "Royal" duke who (under "normal" circumstances) would be the son of the king. So his kids would be in the same situation as the granddaughters of an earl, whose father died before he became earl himself. In that case their courtesy title is as if their father inherited, not their brother.
In Harry's case that would mean his children are treated as if Charles had inherited, not William. In case the same rules applied. You never know with Royals....

 

[Mbruno]

. So his kids would be in the same situation as the granddaughters of an earl, whose father died before he became earl himself. ..

Don't granddaughters of an earl need a special authorization from the Queen to use the courtesy style of Lady when their father is outlived by their grandfather and their brother inherits the earldom directly ? Please clarify.


I am almost sure that, based on the wording of the LPs, the style, rank and titular dignity of prince/princess would not be automatic for Harry's children if the present Queen outlived Prince Charles.

 

[Denville]

Of course any children would in that scenario be children of a (normal) duke. But Harry would still be a "Royal" duke who (under "normal" circumstances) would be the son of the king. So his kids would be in the same situation as the granddaughters of an earl, whose father died before he became earl himself. In that case their courtesy title is as if their father inherited, not their brother.
In Harry's case that would mean his children are treated as if Charles had inherited, not William. In case the same rules applied. You never know with Royals....

Im not sure what you're saying. if Charles were to predecease his mother, and never become King.. it would be up to William to give the HRH to his brother's children, if he wished to do so...
of course as H is a royale duke, his son would be already Lord Dumbarton (or whatever his secondary title is) and any daughters would be Lady Mary Mountbatten Windsor...

 

[Rudolph]

The Letters Patent of 1917 don’t allow for Harry’s children to be HRH if the Queen outlives Charles.

 

[Denville]

The Letters Patent of 1917 don’t allow for Harry’s children to be HRH if the Queen outlives Charles.

yes we know but William could issue new ones.

 

[Osipi]

Put it this way. *Any* monarch has the will and the pleasure to issue letters patent deeming who carries the titular dignity of titles that denote the closeness to the monarch.

On a whim or even just because he's temporarily lost his marbles for a while, Charles could, in all respect, deem Mr. Thomas Markle, Sr. as the official court jester with the title "Esteemed Clown to the King" if he wanted to.

That's what the will and pleasure of the monarch entails. Its solely up to them what they want to do. Titles of peers though go through governmental approval.

 

[Denville]

yes we know this but the trend has been over the past 100 years to cut down on titles. Instead of the prince title descending in perpetuity, it was restricted to the grandsons of the Monarch in the male line. Even Edward was only given an Earldom and his children are only known by the titles of Viscount and Lady....

Hereditary peerages haven't been given now for a long time.. If the queen does not given H's children the HRH, they wotn have it automatically. If Charles does not want to do it, Harry will have to wait and hope his brother will give it to any children he has...

 

[O-H Anglophile]

If the queen does not given H's children the HRH, they wotn have it automatically. If Charles does not want to do it, Harry will have to wait and hope his brother will give it to any children he has...

No, I think your statement is incorrect--Harry's children will automatically be HRH once Charles becomes King unless letters patent are issued to exclude that from happening-as in the case of the Earl of Wessex's children. Only if Charles never becomes King would William need to issue letters patent for Harry 's children to be HRH.

 

[jacqui24]

yes we know this but the trend has been over the past 100 years to cut down on titles. Instead of the prince title descending in perpetuity, it was restricted to the grandsons of the Monarch in the male line. Even Edward was only given an Earldom and his children are only known by the titles of Viscount and .

Edward given an earldom isn’t part of slimming down the monarchy. It’s so the Duke of Edinburgh title would be given to one of the Queen and Prince Philip’s children after it merges with the Crown.

 

[jacqui24]

No, I think your statement is incorrect--Harry's children will automatically be HRH once Charles becomes King unless letters patent are issued to exclude that from happening-as in the case of the Earl of Wessex's children. Only if Charles never becomes King would William need to issue letters patent for Harry 's children to be HRH.

That’s correct. Unless Charles does something to make it known they won’t be HRHs, either through his will or LP, they’ll automatically be HRHs when Charles becomes king.

 

[jacqui24]

Im not sure what you're saying. if Charles were to predecease his mother, and never become King.. it would be up to William to give the HRH to his brother's children, if he wished to do so...
of course as H is a royale duke, his son would be already Lord Dumbarton (or whatever his secondary title is) and any daughters would be Lady Mary Mountbatten Windsor...

Earl of Dumbarton.

 

[Terri Terri]

Goodness! They have only been married for 2 months! Let's wait until there is an actual pregnancy/birth and then we will all know what happens!

 

[Mbruno]

Earl of Dumbarton.

Any marquess, earl, viscount or baron may be called alternatively "Lord [Title Designation]". Normally, the full title is used in written citations or in correspondence (on envelopes for example) whereas "Lord [Title]" is preferred in conversation or oral address.


For example:


The Rt Hon The Earl of Airlie / Lord Airlie

In courtesy titles, as used by the eldest son of a peer, one omits, however, styles (e.g. The Most Hon or The Rt Hon ) and the article "the" before the title. In other words, one would write/say simply:


Earl of Dumbarton / Lord Dumbarton
Viscount Linley / Lord Linley


Alternatively, it is possible to use the name and family name followed by the courtesy title, e.g.


James Mountbatten-Windsor, Viscount Severn
Charles Armstrong-Jones, Viscount Linley

 

[Tatiana Maria]

While it surprised some royal watchers on this forum and elsewhere, the earldom of Dumbarton was actually a leading candidate for Prince Harry's Scottish subsidiary title.

The earldom has been extinct for more than 250 years – but its military links make it an ideal candidate for the Queen’s grandson, who served nine years in the Armed Forces.

McBookie.com has Dumbarton as the 3/1 second favourite behind the Earl of Ross.

[...]

McBookie spokesman Paul Petrie said: “History is pointing to Ross or Dumbarton but perhaps Forfar would be the perfect choice for a prince and his bridie.”​

Bookies say Prince Harry and Meghan could become Earl and Countess of Dumbarton - Daily Record

Please give it a rest with all this feminist munbo jumbo [...] I've got the feeling that some people are projecting their twisted agenda just to create controversies and angles of attack to somehow bring her down.

While the "twisted agenda" to prevent daughters from being treated as inferior to sons in the aristocracy has not made much headway, it does not appear that the campaigners will be "giving it a rest".

https://www.theatlantic.com/interna...aristocrats-who-want-daughters-rights/617067/

Incidentally, a YouGov poll conducted in 2018 demonstrated that over two-thirds of Britons support what you refer to as "feminist mumbo jumbo".

https://yougov.co.uk/opi/surveys/re...8e44b46e-89a0-11e8-8d0b-55ea1bb289e2/toplines

 

[Denville]

Harry can't have liked it much, since Archie isn't using it..