Titles and Styles of Harry, his Future Wife and Children

[Lumutqueen]

There is an Earl of Pembroke, still living, so that's an unlikely title.
William Herbert, 18th Earl of Pembroke - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Harry can't give titles to his best friends as he's not the fount of honour, but when he is given a title, his subsidiary titles will (I think) go to his childre, so he can in that way.

[Iluvbertie]

Originally Posted by PrincessKaimi

Is Duke of Pembroke available?

Harry can't give titles to anyone, can he? Only the monarch can do that, right?

Only the monarch can give titles to people so no Harry can't give titles to anyone.

If the 1917 LPs aren't changed the following scenario faces his children:

If he marries in this reign and he is given a title - say Duke of xxx, Earl of yyy and Baron zzz then his eldest son will be styled Earl of yyy and the other children will be Lord and Lady.

Then when Charles becomes King all of the children will become HRH Prince/Princess (unless he follows the route of Edward and asks the monarch to allow his children to not take the HRH title).

If he doesn't marry until Charles is King then the children won't use the styles that come with being the children of a Duke at all, unless again he asks to follow Edward's example.

[HM Queen Catherine]

Originally Posted by cmsteepy

Well, your thoughts have been thorough and well thought out and I was ready to accept the fact that options for Royal Ducal Titles were running thin. Then I saw this news below which appears to indicate that it is possible for the monarch to create a Dukedom from a title already extant by an Earldom? I would like to get your thoughts.

And little more than a week after the world had celebrated another royal marriage between the new Duke and Duchess of Cambridge in London, there was a new Countess of Cambridge in Miss Rutherford - taking the title from her husband, who is also the Earl of Cambridge.
Wedding of 16th Duke of Hamilton / News / Roundup / Articles / East Lothian Courier Please also see:

Alexander Douglas-Hamilton, 16th Duke of Hamilton - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The title held by the Duke of Hamilton and Brandon is actually Earl of Arran and Cambridge, which is in the peerage of Scotland and is not related to the English earldom. Traditionally this title has simply been used as Earl of Arran..

I do not believe that a royal ducal title would be considered using the same name as an extant peerage in England, Scotland, Great Britain or the United Kingdom. These two Cambridge titles are not the same, especially since the Scots title is a double-named earldom. It is not proper to use "Cambridge" without using Arran before it, and has mostly been dropped altogether in historical usage.

The Duke's wife will never be known as a "Countess" anyway. She is the Duchess of Hamilton and Brandon. Even if her "Cambridge" title were ever used, it would have to be as Countess of Arran and Cambridge, but most likely would simply be given as Countess of Arran.

There is also no precedent for the use of this title, even as a courtesy. The Duke's heir apparent is styled Marquess of Douglas and Clydesdale, and the eldest son of the heir apparent is styled Earl of Angus (although neither title is currently in use, since the Duke just recently married). Even if there were a third direct heir to the dukedom, the courtesy title would be Lord Abernethy and Jedburgh Forest, which is the third senior title available for use.

The title to "Cambridge" in Scotland, is a hold-over from the 4th creation of the earldom of Cambridge in the peerage of England, which was given to James Hamilton, 2nd Marquess of Hamilton in 1619. This English title became extinct in 1651 with the death of his son William, 2nd Duke of Hamilton, who had no surviving sons.

William had been created Earl of Arran and Cambridge in the peerage of Scotland in 1643, and this earldom was inherited by his niece Anne, 3rd Duchess of Hamilton. Definitely not the same title as the English earldom, which can only be inherited in the male line.

The Scots title has been a subsidiary of the Dukes of Hamilton ever since, however, the last (7th) creation of the English earldom of Cambridge became extinct in 1671. All of the Dukes of Cambridge have been male members of the royal family, with the latest and 5th creation being given to Prince William of Wales. But there has never been an extant Earl and extant Duke of Cambridge at the same time.

[Hans-Rickard]

But is it really a good idea to avoid the Clarence title because of a bad history ? I mean, give it to Harry and then for the next generation it might have a good history too ! Same situation with the title Duke of Windsor. It is also a title with a bad history but I think it should be conferred upon someone in the future just to make it a better title. Because Clarence and Windsor is nice and grand titles that I hope the Queen don´t just let slip away because of the history of previous holders.

I would like to see the Queen or Charles as king do something to bring the Kent and Gloucester dukedoms back to the family too before they go to far away.

[Esmerelda]

Originally Posted by Hans-Rickard

But is it really a good idea to avoid the Clarence title because of a bad history ? I mean, give it to Harry and then for the next generation it might have a good history too ! Same situation with the title Duke of Windsor. It is also a title with a bad history but I think it should be conferred upon someone in the future just to make it a better title. Because Clarence and Windsor is nice and grand titles that I hope the Queen don´t just let slip away because of the history of previous holders.

I would like to see the Queen or Charles as king do something to bring the Kent and Gloucester dukedoms back to the family too before they go to far away.

Not sure what they can do about Kent and Gloucester while the families continue to have male heirs.

[Zonk]

There is always the potential that the Kent and Gloucester titles might merge with the Crown....but chances are...none of us will be alive for that....if you take into consideration that the Earl of Ulster and St. Andrews both have sons.

[EIIR]

To be honest, I would say that very, very few people in the UK are aware that the title Duke of Clarence even existed, let alone that there's a questionable history attached to it. I'm sure there would be one or two articles in the press if it were to be given again but I just don't think it should be a relevant consideration whatsoever.

[Iluvbertie]

Originally Posted by Zonk

There is always the potential that the Kent and Gloucester titles might merge with the Crown....but chances are...none of us will be alive for that....if you take into consideration that the Earl of Ulster and St. Andrews both have sons.

Just a technical correction - it would take a massive catastrophe for either of them to 'merge with the crown' considering that The Duke of Gloucester is currently 20th and about to drop to 21st in line and The Duke of Kent is further down again. For their titles to 'merge with the Crown' they have to become the monarch e.g. if Philip predeceases The Queen Charles will become Duke of Edinburgh on top of all of his other titles. Then when Charles becomes King the Edinburgh title will merge with the Crown - and be available again for regrant. Meanwhile the Duke of York title will become extinct when Andrew dies if events follow the normal course of events.

Both the Gloucester and Kent titles could become extinct when there are no more male heirs - but merging with the Crown I don't think will happen.

In addition the Kent title not only has the Duke's two sons both of whom have sons he also has a brother with a son. All of those males are in the line of succession to the Kent title. There are currently 7 in line to that title - Earl of St Andrews, Lord Downpatrick, Lord Nicholas Windsor, Albert Windsor, Leopold Windsor, Prince Michael of Kent and finally Lord Frederick Windsor.

[padams2359]

In the last 1000 years Dukedoms have come and gone from the Crown, QE2 will not confer the Duke of Windsor, but Charles will. I think it will be an upgrade in the Queen's eye and go to Andrew or Harry. If D of E goes to Andrew during QE2's lifetime, Charles will make Harry D of W.

[yvr girl]

Originally Posted by padams2359

In the last 1000 years Dukedoms have come and gone from the Crown, QE2 will not confer the Duke of Windsor, but Charles will. I think it will be an upgrade in the Queen's eye and go to Andrew or Harry. If D of E goes to Andrew during QE2's lifetime, Charles will make Harry D of W.

It is highly unlikely that Andrew would be given another dukedom - he doesn't need an 'upgrade' He could become Duke of Cornwall etc, but only if Charles, William and Harry die before the Queen does (assuming that William and Harry don't have any children either.) A longshot.

A more likely candidate for the next Duke of Windsor would be a son of William.

[branchg]

Originally Posted by Iluvbertie

In addition the Kent title not only has the Duke two sons both of whom have sons he also has a brother with a son. All of those males are in the line of succession to the Kent title.

Royal dukedoms can only pass through "heirs of the body male", which means each successive Duke must have a surviving son to succeed to the Peerage.

If they die with no male issue, the title returns to the Crown. A brother cannot inherit the dukedom.

[branchg]

Windsor is highly unlikely to ever be conferred again as a Dukedom. Perhaps as an Earldom as a subsidiary title, but the association with the Abdication of Edward VIII will never be forgotten.

[yvr girl]

Originally Posted by branchg

Royal dukedoms can only pass through "heirs of the body male", which means each successive Duke must have a surviving son to succeed to the Peerage.

If they die with no male issue, the title returns to the Crown. A brother cannot inherit the dukedom.

If the brother is also the son of the former duke, he can inherit the dukedom.

[Iluvbertie]

Originally Posted by branchg

Royal dukedoms can only pass through "heirs of the body male", which means each successive Duke must have a surviving son to succeed to the Peerage.

If they die with no male issue, the title returns to the Crown. A brother cannot inherit the dukedom.

Sorry you are wrong.

‘Heirs male of the body’ is the standard remainder of all titles – with the odd exception such as Mountbatten. It simply means that ALL male line descendents of the initial title holder can inherit the title – which is why we see such a demand on the wives of title holders to have sons, as that stops the title passing to distant cousins. The title holder doesn't have to have a son for the title to continue e.g. the Norfolk title at one point recently passed from the 16th Duke to the 17th Duke - the 17th Duke was the 2nd cousin once removed from the 16th Duke. He was, however, the senior 'heir male of the body' from the initial holder of the title (in its current 3rd creation). Going back into the 1600s the title passed through a series of brothers and cousins as they each died without issue - the title passed to the next senior 'heir male of the body' even when that line could go back a hundred years or more.


Prince Michael is as much an ‘heir male of the body’ of the initial title holder as is the present Duke. This also applies to the sons and grandsons of both The Duke and Prince Michael – they are all ‘heirs male of the body’ of the initial title holder and as such can inherit.

The present Duke of York title can’t pass to Edward but Edinburgh can pass through Charles to William and then to Harry – if say William has a daughter and then Charles and William die before The Queen – Harry would inherit Edinburgh from his brother but the daughter would get the UK. Then is Harry had no sons the title would pass to Andrew and then to Edward and Edward’s male line sons.

Think back to the early 1970s and imagine that these two deaths were around the other way - HRH The Duke of Gloucester (1974) and HRH Prince William of Gloucester (1972). With your argument had William survived his father but died shortly afterwards without issue the title would have become extinct but...it wouldn't because the present Duke is also an 'heir male of the body' of his father.

[Anna Catherine]

Originally Posted by padams2359

In the last 1000 years Dukedoms have come and gone from the Crown, QE2 will not confer the Duke of Windsor, but Charles will. I think it will be an upgrade in the Queen's eye and go to Andrew or Harry. If D of E goes to Andrew during QE2's lifetime, Charles will make Harry D of W.

I'm confused. Why would the Duke of Edinburgh title go to Andrew? He has a dukedom already and plus doesn't it have to go down the line first so Charles, William, then Harry? Harry could become the Duke of Edinburgh if something happens to the Queen's husband right? That was my understanding of how the title works. Am I wrong?

[Jenafran]

Hello all!
The next Duke of Edinburgh will be Prince Edward, currently the Earl of Wessex. When Edward and Sophie married and they announced his new titles they stated that he would become the next Duke of Edinburgh upon Prince Phillip's death.

[NGalitzine]

If Charles survives his father while still Prince of Wales he automatically inherits all of his father titles including D of E. If he then survives his mother and succeeds to the throne all his other titles merge with the Crown. He would then be able to re-create the dukedom in Edwards favor.

[Royal Newbie]

Originally Posted by NGalitzine

If Charles survives his father while still Prince of Wales he automatically inherits all of his father titles including D of E. If he then survives his mother and succeeds to the throne all his other titles merge with the Crown. He would then be able to re-create the dukedom in Edwards favor.

Is this the only way that Edward can become the Duke of Edinburgh?

[Iluvbertie]

No.

Edward can become DoE directly if Charles, William, Harry and Andrew all predecease Philip with William having a daughter and no son - then Edward would get all of Philip's titles. If William has a son that son becomes 3rd in line to inherit the Edinburgh title. If he has a daughter that daughter can't inherit Edinburgh as she would be the wrong gender.

Edward won't get DoE until both The Queen and Philip die as Charles is the heir to his father's titles just as he is the heir to his mother's. When both The Queen and Philip are dead then Charles would hold the Edinburgh title as well as that of HM The King and so the title will merge with the Crown and be available for regrant.

The line of succession to Edinburgh it identical with the line of succession to the Crown down to #4. The Edinburgh title, like the York title, can't pass to Andrew's daughters although the Crown can (sexist of course but that is the way of the royals).

Edward could also miss out of the title completely if William has a daughter and Charles and William both predecease either The Queen or Philip as the daughter would become heir to The Queen while Harry would inherit Edinburgh.

The line of succession to Edinburgh is:

Charles
William
Harry
Andrew
Edward
James

while the line of succession to the Crown is:

Charles
William
Harry
Andrew
Beatrice
Eugenie
Edward
James
Louise
Anne
Peter
Savannah
Zara

[Royal Newbie]

Thank you Iluvbertie. I think I actually understand. I don't think I could repeat it, but when I read your explanation it makes sense. Titles and the succession usually make me want to sit in the corner and eat my hair.

Did you once say that you were a history professor? If so, darn good one I bet. Your posts are always very clear and informative. Many thanks for past, present, and future posts!