Titles and Styles of Harry, his Future Wife and Children

[cepe]

Thank you Artemisia. So Freidrich was not the last "heir" - I didn't know that.

Also, as one of the suspended titles includes Earl of Clarence, I think it even less likely that the title Duke of Clarence will be used, apart from its negative history.

Could they create a new Dukedom? Is it likely? How likely is it to restore a title such as Duke of Suffolk (not specifically a royal title)

 

[Artemisia]

Thank you Artemisia. So Freidrich was not the last "heir" - I didn't know that.

Also, as one of the suspended titles includes Earl of Clarence, I think it even less likely that the title Duke of Clarence will be used, apart from its negative history.

Could they create a new Dukedom? Is it likely? How likely is it to restore a title such as Duke of Suffolk (not specifically a royal title)

You are most welcome, cepe.

The titles Duke and Earl of Clarence are separate and not tied with each other. There has only been one creation of the title Earl of Clarence; it was originally created as a subsidiary title for Prince Leopold, Duke of Albany in 1881 and was inherited by his son, Prince Charles Edward. As with other titles of the latter, it is currently in suspension.

The title Duke of Clarence has been created three times - all in the peerage of England. The third and last creation of the title was in 1461 for George Plantagenet, the third son of Prince Richard, 3rd Duke of York, and brother to Edward IV and Richard III. After The Duke of Clarence was executed for treason in 1478, all his titles and styles were forfeit (in any case, his only son and heir died without issue in 1499).
The title of the Duke of Clarence was basically forgotten until late 18th century, when it was first used as part of two territorial Dukedom. Prince William, the third son of George III, was created Duke of Clarence and St Andrews in 1789. When the Prince ascended to the Throne as William IV, all his titles merged with the Crown. Prince Albert Victor, the eldest son and heir of the Prince of Wales (later Edward VII), was created the Duke of Clarence and Avondale in 1890. The Prince died unmarried and without issue, upon which his titles became extinct.

For a brief period, from 1890 to 1892, the titles of Earl of Clarence and Duke of Clarence co-existed at the same time, their respective holders being Charles Edward, Duke of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha (as well as 2nd Duke of Albany, 2nd Earl of Clarence and 2nd Baron Arklow) and Prince Albert Victor, the Duke of Clarence and Avondale.


New royal dukedoms can be created in the peerage of the United Kingdom; it is entirely upon the will of the Sovereign. For all it matters, the Queen (or King Charles) could theoretically create Harry The Duke of London. It isn't very likely though; the second son of the Monarch (or future Monarch) is likely to be given a title with great royal provenance. The Duke of Suffolk is possible but again not probable; it has never been a royal Dukedom and its last holder (Henry Grey, Duke of Suffolk and Marquess of Dorset - Lady Jane Grey's father) was executed for treason.

Of all the royal Dukedoms in English/British history, the following are currently vacant (excluding the suspended ones):

- Clarence
Last separate creation was in 1461 for George Plantagenet, last joint creation was for Prince Albert Victor, Duke of Clarence and Avondale in 1890.

- Sussex
The first and only creation was for Prince Augustus Frederick, sixth son of George III, who died with no legitimate issue.

- Windsor
The first and only creation was for Prince Edward - former Edward VIII - in 1937, who died with no legitimate issue.

- Albemarle
The only royal creation was in 1397 for Edward of Norwich, a grandson of Edward III. The titles was recreated in 1660, following the Restoration for George Monck - a key figure in the process of restoration. There were also Jacobite creations (recognised only by the supporters of the Jacobite claimants) for Henry FitzJames - illegitimate son of James II, and George Granville, 1st Baron Lansdowne - a notable politician.

- Ross
The title of Duke of Ross was created twice in the peerage of Scotland, both times for the younger sons of the King of Scotland. The first creation was in 1488 for the James Stewart, the second son of James III of Scotland. The second and last creation was in 1514 for the fourth son of James IV of Scotland who died in infancy.

- Kendal
The title Duke of Kendal was created for the first time in 1666 for Charles Stuart, the son of Prince James, Duke of York (future James II) and Anne Hyde; he died just months later. The second creation was, quite unusually, for a woman: Melusine von der Schulenburg - a long time mistress of George I - was created Duchess of Kendal in its second creation in 1719.

- Hereford
The first and only creation of the title was in 1397 for Henry Bolingbroke, the eldest son of John Gaunt (himself the son of Edward III). When Henry Bolingbroke ascended to the English Throne as Henry IV, the title merged with the Crown.

- Connaught (only used as a two-territorial title in combination with another dukedom)
The title of Duke of Connaught and Strathearn was created in 1874 for Prince Arthur, Queen Victoria's third son. It became extinct in 1943 with the death of Alastair Windsor, 2nd Duke of Connaught and Strathearn.

- St Andrews (only used as a two-territorial title in combination with another dukedom)
Prince William, the third son of George III, was created Duke of Clarence and St Andrews in 1789. When the Prince ascended to the Throne as William IV, all his titles merged with the Crown.

- Strathearn (only used as a two-territorial title in combination with another dukedom)
This Dukedom was never awarded by itself but always in combination with another dukedom. The title of Duke of Connaught and Strathearn was created in 1874 for Prince Arthur, Queen Victoria's third son. Prince Edward (fourth son of George III and the father of Queen Victoria) was created Duke of Kent and Strathearn in 1799. Prince Henry (fourth son of Frederick, Prince of Wales, himself the son of George II) was created Duke of Cumberland and Strathearn in 1766.

- Avondale (only used as a two-territorial title in combination with another dukedom)
Prince Albert Victor (the eldest son of the Prince of Wales - later Edward VII) was created Duke of Clarence and Avondale in 1890.


Of the Dukedoms listed above, the following are highly unlikely to be created for Prince Harry:
- Strathearn (since Prince William has already been created Earl of Strathearn)
- Windsor (no one needs reminder of the abdication crisis)
- Albemarle (because of all the issues with Jacobite creations)
- Kendal (because the last creation was for the King's mistress)
- Avondale (the last holder - Prince Albert Victor, was rumoured to be Jack the Ripper, The title was never used separately and only with conjecture with another dukedom)
- Clarence (again, unfortunate associations. Also, the title was never used separately and only with conjecture with another dukedom)

Of the Dukedoms listed above, the following are likely to be created for Prince Harry:
- Ross (the most likely Dukedom in my opinion, especially taking into consideration the Scottish independence movement)
- Sussex (no major scandals or controversies connected with this one)
- Hereford (reminder of War of Roses, but otherwise pretty clean)
- Connaught (no major controversies but never used as a separate title and only with conjecture with another dukedom)
- St Andrews (largely scandal free, however never used as a separate title and only with conjecture with another dukedom)

 

[cepe]

I realsied that the Dukedom and Earldom of CLarence are separate but it would cause confusion wouldn't it! There aren't that many titles with great royal provenance are there? What do you think it will be?

 

[Artemisia]

If I had to bet money, my choice would be either the Duke of Ross or the Duke of Sussex.

- Duke of Ross would be a very diplomatic choice, especially taking into account the Scottish independence movement; it's a title that was always created in the peerage of Scotland for the younger sons of the Scottish Monarch (and would signify the Queen's current and Prince Charles' future rule as the Scottish Sovereign).
- The Duke of Sussex is a safe choice with no controversies (apart from marriage issues) associated with the only previous holder - Prince Augustus Frederick.

Right now, Sussex is the likeliest choice.
However, Ross may be gaining a momentum because of the independence issue and to re-affirm ties with Scotland.

 

[Iluvbertie]

Of the Dukedoms listed above, the following are very likely to be created for Prince Harry:
- Ross (the most likely Dukedom in my opinion, especially taking into consideration the Scottish independence movement)
- Sussex (no major scandals or controversies connected with this one)
- Hereford (reminder of War of Roses, but otherwise pretty clean)
- Connaught (no major controversies but never used as a separate title and only with conjecture with another dukedom)
- St Andrews (largely scandal free, however never used as a separate title and only with conjecture with another dukedom)

A thorough listing of all the past available dukedoms but I do have an issue with Connaught ever being used again.

The place Connaught is in the Republic of Ireland and I don't tdhink they would take too kindly to a new creation of a Dukedom there.

St Andrews, like Clarence, would see two people known as St Andrews and the eldest son of the Duke of Kent is known as the Earl of St Andrews. I would think that while that title is still so close to the royal family and appears quite regularly at royal functions that St Andrews wouldn't be used.

 

[Artemisia]

I agree with both of your points, which is why I put the two Dukedoms right at the bottom of the "likely" list.
Both are extremely unlikely to be created for Harry, but you never know; they are still likelier than Windsor, Clarence or Avondale, for instance.

 

[Kataryn]

Y

In all, four royals and nobles were deprived of their British titles and styles:
- HRH Charles Edward, Duke of Albany, Earl of Clarence and Baron Arklow
- HRH Ernest Augustus, Duke of Cumberland and Teviotdale, Earl of Armagh
- HRH Ernest Augustus, Duke of Brunswick
- Henry, Viscount Taaffe of Corren, Baron of Ballymote

None of the titles belonging to the people above can be re-created for anyone until the heirs of the four petition for restoration, or further Acts are passed on the future of those titles.

The title of a Duke of Brunswick (Herzog von Braunschweig) still exist as part of the name of the princes(ses) of Hannover (German spelling) in Germany. Brunswick-Lüneburg as an independant dukedomwas created by Imperial charter in 1235. Several lines of the family of the Welfs reigned it alongside each other and it constantly changed due to inheritance needs. At the congress of Vienna in 1814 the dukedom of Brunswick was created from the former Dukedom of Brunswick-Wolfenbüttel and was reigned by the eldest line of the Welfs till 1884 (line became extinct). The heir was the duke of Cumberland and deposed Crown-Prince of Hannover but as the dukedom was forfeit to Prussia, it was only restored to the Welfs when the son of the duke, Prince Ernst August, married Victoria Louise of Prussia.

 

[Jenafran]

You're right we have no idea really. I do like the idea do the Duke of Ross. St. Andrews though is associated with William though so...nah.

 

[Myself1995]

Any possibility he'll become title less like his cousin Zara?

 

[NGalitzine]

Any possibility he'll become title less like his cousin Zara?

Highly unlikely since he is a male line descendent. His father is likely one day to be King at which point he will cease to be HRH Prince henry of Wales and become HRH The Prince Henry unless he receives a royal dukedom and becomes HRH The Duke of X.

Zara didnt become titleless, she never had a title to begin with.

 

[Artemisia]

Any possibility he'll become title less like his cousin Zara?

Harry will never be completely without titles unless an Act of Parliament is passed depriving him of all his titles and styles - and that could only happen under exceptional circumstances (such as if Harry committed a treason or a grave criminal offence).

Harry was born a Prince of the United Kingdom (Prince Henry of Wales) with the style of Royal Highness. Once Charles ascends to the Throne, he will be the Monarch's son (The Prince Henry). Now, whether Harry is granted a Dukedom (or any other peerage) is entirely upon the will of the Sovereign; history and traditions strongly hint he will indeed become a Duke on the eve of his wedding.

Zara and Peter Phillips had no titles or styles because their father was not a peer; although their mother is a Royal Princess, titles are passed down in male, not female line. The Queen wanted to give Mark Phillips a peerage (most probably an Earldom) so that the couple's children could at least have courtesy styles; however Princess Anne reportedly declined the offer. Had she agreed, Zara would now be styled as Lady Zara, whereas Peter would have his father's secondary title (for example, Viscount of ___).

 

[branchg]

Sussex is a maybe, as the last holder, The Prince Frederick Augustus, married twice without permission from The Sovereign under the Royal Marriages Act and had illegitimate children from his first marriage.

Not exactly a sterling association for Harry, although Queen Victoria later recognized her uncle's second wife, Lady Underwood, by granting her a life peerage in her own right as The Duchess of Inverness. The Duke was her favorite uncle and gave her away on her wedding day.

It could be a new Dukedom altogether.

 

[shaya]

so what if harry had a child before he got married (this could happen it has before)

what would be the title then and how would you guys feel about that ?

 

[Lumutqueen]

If i'm correct, an illegitimate child would get no title and no place in the line of succession. Unless HM or Prince Charles chose otherwise. Depends on the circumstances of the childs appearance.

 

[NGalitzine]

so what if harry had a child before he got married (this could happen it has before)

what would be the title then and how would you guys feel about that ?

Sort of uncharted territory. As a child born out of wedlock the child would have no automatic rights to a title and would not appear in the line of succession to the throne. Even if the parents were to subsequently marry the child would not gain any right to the succession but I suppose some sort of courtesy title would be arrived at. Using the Harewoods as an example, those born before their parents marriage are not in succession to the earldom but do have the courtesy styles of younger children of an earl.

 

[shaya]

how would you feel if you heard that he did in the future

 

[NGalitzine]

how would you feel if you heard that he did in the future

Probably a bit disappointed, I would wonder if it was just another Daily Mail send up, but then roll my eyes and go "Oh well, it happens in the best of families" and move on.

 

[Lumutqueen]

how would you feel if you heard that he did in the future

As silly as Harry has been in the past, and I know accidents happen, I don't think this accident would. Harry knows how devastated his family would be, particularly his grandmother I think.
It doesn't really matter what the ordinary people think, but I would be a little disappointed, mainly for the child.

 

[Furienna]

Even if the parents were to subsequently marry, the child would not gain any right to the succession.

And I don't understand why it should be so. I mean, if I have understood this correctly, illegitimate children usually earned inheritence rights as soon as their parents got married, and maybe even already when they got engaged. Or was it really that much different in England and/or for royalty?

 

[Artemisia]

so what if harry had a child before he got married (this could happen it has before)

what would be the title then and how would you guys feel about that ?

An illegitimate child has no succession rights and can have no titles.
If Harry's child is legitimised by a subsequent marriage of his parents, he'd still be ineligible to succeed to any hereditary titles. However, in accordance with the Royal Warrant 2004, he will be entitled to the same courtesy styles as his siblings. Since at the moment Prince Harry is not a Peer, the question is moot; on the other hand, when Harry becomes a Duke his illegitimate (but legitimised) son will be titled as a Lord - same as younger sons of a Duke. Again, the child will never be a Royal Highness or a Prince, unless Letters Patent granting him either (or both) are issued by the Monarch of the time.

And I don't understand why it should be so. I mean, if I have understood this correctly, illegitimate children usually earned inheritence rights as soon as their parents got married, and maybe even already when they got engaged. Or was it really that much different in England and/or for royalty?

However unfair, that's one of the rules I actually strongly support; otherwise, there could be some very unfortunate incidents. Imagine, for example, that Tom Parker Bowles were Prince Charles' natural son and was legitimised by his parents' marriage. If there were no rules barring adopted and illegitimate (even legitimised) children from inheriting the Throne or peerages, that would effectively mean that Tom would bypass his younger half-sibling William and become the new Heir Apparent.

 

[Furienna]

However undair, that's one of the rules I actually strongly support; otherwise, there could be some very unfortunate incidents. Imagine, for example, that Tom Parker Bowles were Prince Charles' natural son and was legitimised by his parents' marriage. If there were no rules barring adopted and illegitimate (even legitimised) children from inheriting the Throne or peerages, that would effectively mean that Tom would bypass his younger half-sibling William and become the new Heir Apparent.

As long as the child is raised from birth (or a very young age, so they don't remember anything else) as a member of the royal family, I don't see why it should matter if his/her parents were married at the time of his/her birth or not.

 

[NGalitzine]

As long as the child is raised from birth (or a very young age, so they don't remember anything else) as a member of the royal family, I don't see why it should matter if his/her parents were married at the time of his/her birth or not.

Well life is perhaps not fair, but inheriting the throne is not quite the same as inheriting a semi detached house in Surbiton. Different rules apply.

 

[Furienna]

Maybe so, but still!

 

[shaya]

times has change so we wont kow until it happends

 

[NGalitzine]

times has change so we wont kow until it happends

There is a separate thread to discuss illegitimacy, but as the law stands now inheritance of titles is based on children born in lawful wedlock.

 

[Iluvbertie]

The real problem is not with recognising an illegimate son/child as the eldest but the unrecognised one coming out of the woodwork late in the game and upsetting the apple-cart.

e.g. imagine if Tom is Charles and Camilla's son and DNA test prove that moving him ahead of William in the line of succession and the law accepts that but...then some woman in say Australia comes forward claiming that Charles is the father of her son, born earlier than Tom and again DNA proves it - then that son becomes the heir.

I totally support the insistence that a child who is to inherit a throne or other title has to be born to legally married parents and be the biological child of that marriage. (The child doesn't have to have been conceived while the parents were married mind you - so if Harry was to get a woman pregnant I would hope that he would man up and do the right thing and marry her and that The Queen would give the appropriate permission in time).

 

[Squirrel]

If I had to bet money, my choice would be either the Duke of Ross or the Duke of Sussex.

I was also wondering, seeing as William got three different titles, do you reckon Harry might also be given several titles of different countries of the UK or more likely just one?

 

[Artemisia]

I was also wondering, seeing as William got three different titles, do you reckon Harry might also be given several titles of different countries of the UK or more likely just one?

As the second son of the (future) Sovereign, Harry will almost certainly get at least three titles - a Dukedom, an Earldom, a Viscountcy and/or Baronetcy. Not only Royals - hereditary titles created for nobility usually include subsidiary titles as well. That's done so that the Heir Apparent to the title can have a courtesy title (usually, his father's second highest title), and the Heir Apparent's eldest son is not without a title either. As per tradition for Royal Princes, all the titles will from different parts of the Kingdom.

So, for example, if Harry is created Duke of X, Baron of Y and Viscount Z, then:
- Harry will be known as Prince Henry, Duke of X
- His eldest son (and Heir Apparent) will be known as Baron of Y
- The eldest son of the eldest son will be known as Viscount Z

Prince Edward was created Earl of Wessex and Viscount Severn, which is why his only son is titled by courtesy Viscount Severn.
Prince Andrew was created Duke of York, Earl of Inverness, Baron Killyleagh. If he had a son, that son would be known as Earl of Inverness. The eldest son of the Earl of Inverness (born during Andrew's lifetime) would have the courtesy title of Baron Killyleagh.

 

[Iluvbertie]

I was also wondering, seeing as William got three different titles, do you reckon Harry might also be given several titles of different countries of the UK or more likely just one?

The tradition for the last 100 or so years has been three titles. The exception have been The Duke of Windsor - given only the one title - and The Earl of Wessex but he is expected to add one of his father's at some point in the future, which would also give him three titles.

Philip - Edinburgh (Scotland), Merioneth (Wales), Greenwich (England)
Andrew- York (England), Inverness (Scotland), Killyleagh (Ireland)
Edward - Wessex (England), Severn (Wales - the River Severn is in both Wales and England if my Geography is correct)
William - Cambridge (England), Strathearn (Scotland), Carrickfergus (Ireland)

Going back to George V's sons and the titles currently held by his grandsons:

Albert (George VI) - York (England), Inverness (Scotland), Killarney (Ireland) - notice that Andrew's Irish title is Killyleagh in Northern Ireland while George VI's is in the republc and thus not available for his grandson
Henry - Gloucester (England), Ulster (Ireland), Culloden (Scotland)
George - Kent (England), St Andrews (Scotland), Downpatrick (Ireland)

Going back another generation

George V also had three titles - York, Inverness and Killarney - the same titles he gave to his own second son.

It therefore is fairly clear that three titles is the norm with one from England, one from Scotland and one from either Wales or Northern Ireland (unless inherited from a title created prior to the separation of that country).

It would therefore be safe to assume that Harry will end up with three titles - one English, one Scottish and one from either Wales or Northern Ireland.

 

[Myself1995]

How do they determine what titles the daughters of second, third, etc. in line for the throne get? Why are Andrew's daughters titled "Princess", Anne's children not titled and Edward's children titled "Lady" and "Lord" and not "Prince" and Princess"?