Titles and Styles of Harry, his Future Wife and Children

[principessa]

My guesses are: Duke and Duchess of Clarence, Earl and Countess of Dunbar and Baron and Baroness Folliott

Their children will be known as Prince/ss NN of Clarence.

[BrazilianEmpire]

My guess is the Dukedom of Sussex.

They will Their Royal Highness the Duke and Duchess of Sussex.

I believe (but I'm not 100% sure) that the Queen will issue Letter of Patent saying their children will be Princes and Princesses.

[Ish]

Originally Posted by BrazilianEmpire

I believe (but I'm not 100% sure) that the Queen will issue Letter of Patent saying their children will be Princes and Princesses.

Why would she do that? When she issued the LPs regarding William's children it basically just addressed the fact that under the system one of William's children (his eldest son) will be a prince, but his other children won't. As he's the heir it made sense to make an exception for him, especially as the succession laws are in the process of being changed.

Harry's children aren't going to be in the direct line of succession and none of them will be granted a title over anyone else. So why make an exception and issue LPs granting them titles during Elizabeth's reign?

[BrazilianEmpire]

Originally Posted by Ish

Why would she do that? When she issued the LPs regarding William's children it basically just addressed the fact that under the system one of William's children (his eldest son) will be a prince, but his other children won't. As he's the heir it made sense to make an exception for him, especially as the succession laws are in the process of being changed.

Harry's children aren't going to be in the direct line of succession and none of them will be granted a title over anyone else. So why make an exception and issue LPs granting them titles during Elizabeth's reign?

Who knows what the Queen has in mind? Soon or later, Prince Harry's children will be the Monarch's grandchildren, so, I see no problem in Her Majesty giving Royal titles to them.

[Countessmeout]

If the queen doesn't, they will gain the title when Charles is king anyways, as male line grandchildren of the monarch. As it is Will who will be king when his kids wed, it will stand to be seen how Harry's younger kids will be titled. His eldest will gain Harry's dukedome (if a son) when Harry dies. Harry's younger kids may very well just be left as Prince/Princess (like Prince Michael and Princess Alexandra) and not given a duchy on marriage. It may have been different IMO, if their grandfather was king when they wed.

I can see Duke and Duchess of Sussex. And their children will be Lord/Lady, and the eldest what ever Harry's Earl title is, until Charles is king IMO.

[BrazilianEmpire]

Originally Posted by Countessmeout

As it is Will who will be king when his kids wed, it will stand to be seen how Harry's younger kids will be titled.

Will be the same situation of Queen's first cousins.

Let's say Prince Harry will have three children, like the late Duke of Kent:

If he has sons, the eldest will inherit his Dukedom, like the current Duke of Kent.

The other two will be Prince/Princess X of Y.

[Iluvbertie]

Originally Posted by Ish

Not necessarily. Edward was created an Earl with the expectation that he will one day be the Duke of Edinburgh (once the title reverts to the crown). Why not create Harry an Earl upon his marriage, with the expectation that he will be created Duke of York once the title becomes extinct?

Because that mightn't happen - Andrew could marry at any time in the future a woman able to give him a son who would inherit the title - and that might just be the incentive for him to do so.

[Iluvbertie]

Originally Posted by BrazilianEmpire

My guess is the Dukedom of Sussex.

They will Their Royal Highness the Duke and Duchess of Sussex.

I believe (but I'm not 100% sure) that the Queen will issue Letter of Patent saying their children will be Princes and Princesses.

I think if she was going to do that she would have done so when she adjusted the LPs for William's children.


With Edward's children not taking HRHs I expect Harry's to do the same thing - knowing how the public object to Beatrice and Eugenie having HRH and Harry's children will be in the same position.

[Iluvbertie]

Originally Posted by BrazilianEmpire

Who knows what the Queen has in mind? Soon or later, Prince Harry's children will be the Monarch's grandchildren, so, I see no problem in Her Majesty giving Royal titles to them.

That is not a given - Charles may predecease his mother in which case they wouldn't be the monarch's male line grandchildren.

[Ish]

Originally Posted by Iluvbertie

Because that mightn't happen - Andrew could marry at any time in the future a woman able to give him a son who would inherit the title - and that might just be the incentive for him to do so.

And it also might not happen that Edward becomes the Duke of Edinburgh - it depends on the title merging with the crown while Edward is still alive and whoever is on the throne at the moment deciding to follow through with recreating the title for Edward.

My point wasn't that "Andrew can't have a son" so much as "at this point it seems unlikely, so why not follow the Edinburgh example."

[NGalitzine]

Originally Posted by Ish

And it also might not happen that Edward becomes the Duke of Edinburgh - it depends on the title merging with the crown while Edward is still alive and whoever is on the throne at the moment deciding to follow through with recreating the title for Edward.

My point wasn't that "Andrew can't have a son" so much as "at this point it seems unlikely, so why not follow the Edinburgh example."

Possibly because there are likely still to be 2 Princesses "of York" living who would not be the children of HRH Prince Henry, Duke of York whose own children would also become "of York".

[cepe]

Originally Posted by NGalitzine

Possibly because there are likely still to be 2 Princesses "of York" living who would not be the children of HRH Prince Henry, Duke of York whose own children would also become "of York".

You are correct of course, but it made me smile as the rest of us manage with the same surnames in the family

[Ish]

I totally get the "of York" issue (and think when it comes down to it, it's a better argument than "Andrew could still have a son").

Question though, will the girls still be "of York" when they're married? I know when I make a generalization in reference to the Queen's cousins I say the Gloucesters and Kents and obviously include Princess Alexandra, but is she still technically "of Kent"? I've only ever seen her (post marriage) without it.

[BrazilianEmpire]

Originally Posted by Ish

I totally get the "of York" issue (and think when it comes down to it, it's a better argument than "Andrew could still have a son").

Question though, will the girls still be "of York" when they're married? I know when I make a generalization in reference to the Queen's cousins I say the Gloucesters and Kents and obviously include Princess Alexandra, but is she still technically "of Kent"? I've only ever seen her (post marriage) without it.

No, when a Prince gets a Dukedom, he ceases to use the "surname" from his father's title (the Duke of Cambridge is no longer "Prince William of Wales").

Similarly, when a Princess marry, she ceases to use the "surname", and starts to use her husband title or surname (like Princess Alexandra, the Honorable Lady Ogilvy).

[branchg]

Originally Posted by Iluvbertie

I think if she was going to do that she would have done so when she adjusted the LPs for William's children.

With Edward's children not taking HRHs I expect Harry's to do the same thing - knowing how the public object to Beatrice and Eugenie having HRH and Harry's children will be in the same position.

I agree. I think Harry's children will be Lord/Lady Mountbatten-Windsor even after Charles is King.

[NGalitzine]

Maybe yes, maybe no. I don't believe it is a requirement to use the husbands name at all. Princess Margaret for instance was never Mrs Armstrong Jones, it wasn't until Tony received a peerage that she started calling herself Princess Margaret, Countess of Snowdon.
Also there are no guarantees that the York princesses will marry or add their husbands names to their descriptions.

[BrazilianEmpire]

Originally Posted by NGalitzine

Maybe yes, maybe no. I don't believe it is a requirement to use the husbands name at all. Princess Margaret for instance was never Mrs Armstrong Jones, it wasn't until Tony received a peerage that she started calling herself Princess Margaret, Countess of Snowdon.

Princess Margaret always liked to be different.

But Princess Elizabeth became Princess Elizabeth, Duchess of Edinburgh; Princess Alexandra of Kent became Princess Alexandra, the Honorable Mrs. Ogilvy; and Princess Anne became Princess Anne, Mrs. Phillips.

Princess Margaret was the exception, not the rule.

[Ish]

There's also the fact that Princess Margaret wasn't "of" anything prior to her marriage, so she had nothing to drop.

Her official title would have been HRH The Princess Margaret, Mrs. Armstrong-Jones, but she chose not to use the "Mrs. Armstrong-Jones." I doubt she would have simply remained (had she still held it at the time) Princess Margaret of York upon her marriage.

[BrazilianEmpire]

Originally Posted by cepe

its late here and I havent slept in 48 hours - chronic insomnia, but unless I have completely lost my marbles PRincess MArgaret became Countess of Snowdon on her marriage. So there is no difference between her and Princess Anne or Princess Alexandra.

In each case their title has HRH Princes XXXXX, (Husbands Title).

What have I missed? Be kind cos I'm very tired now.

Anthony Armstrong-Jones was only received the title of Earl of Snowdon in 1961.

[cepe]

Originally Posted by BrazilianEmpire

Anthony Armstrong-Jones was only received the title of Earl of Snowdon in 1961.

Thank you I've rdeleted my message cos I remembered it was about 18 months after the wedding. Sorry.