Titles and Styles of Harry, his Future Wife and Children

[Ish]

York's a bit of a special case though isn't it, an oddity in a way? From medieval times each time the bearer has either died without male heirs or has ascended the throne himself.
Thanks for that, Skippyboo. I am having a debate at the moment with someone about it. I thought I was on the right track. Good to have it confirmed!

The funny thing is, York isn't actually as much of an oddity as it might seem to be. It's been created and recreated 9 times since Edward III first created it, and only been inherited through the first creation - every Duke of York since Edward IV has either become King or died without a male heir.

But, the title Duke of Gloucester has been created 7 times, and only been passed on through 2 of those creations in the same time span. The title Duke of Clarence has been created 4 times in that time period, merging with the throne once, having no male heirs twice and being created once for a man who turned traitor against his brother the king. Cumberland was created 3 times and only inherited once... before being revoked because the Cumberlands/Hanovers fought on the wrong side of WWI.

 

[Iluvbertie]

Edinburgh is another interesting title having been created 4 times since 1726.

The first time it was for Frederick Prince of Wales as the grandson of the King (in William's position) and was then inherited by his son - the future George III and so it merged with the Crown when he became King.

He then regranted it, along with Gloucester, for his younger brother William who died leaving a son to inherit but that son died without male heirs.

The third creation was for Queen Victoria's second son Alfred whose only son predeceased him without male issue. Interestingly there has been some discussion of the fact that Queen Victoria didn't use the title Duke of Kent for her sons - but she did use Earl of Kent for Alfred - along with Earl of Ulster.

Philip is the fourth creation. I find it interesting that it has only made it, at most, to the first line of inheritance before becoming extinct at best. Even though Philip has three sons his title will most likely merge with the Crown when it passes into the next generation and so will then again be regranted.

Of course this isn't a title that should be available for Harry or his children but it is one that, if tragedy were to strike, Harry could inherit (if Charles, William and George were to predecease The Queen then Charlotte would become Queen and Philip's titles would all go to Harry).

 

[Heavs]

Edinburgh is another interesting title having been created 4 times since 1726.

The first time it was for Frederick Prince of Wales as the grandson of the King (in William's position) and was then inherited by his son - the future George III and so it merged with the Crown when he became King.

He then regranted it, along with Gloucester, for his younger brother William who died leaving a son to inherit but that son died without male heirs.

The third creation was for Queen Victoria's second son Alfred whose only son predeceased him without male issue. Interestingly there has been some discussion of the fact that Queen Victoria didn't use the title Duke of Kent for her sons - but she did use Earl of Kent for Alfred - along with Earl of Ulster.

Philip is the fourth creation. I find it interesting that it has only made it, at most, to the first line of inheritance before becoming extinct at best. Even though Philip has three sons his title will most likely merge with the Crown when it passes into the next generation and so will then again be regranted.

Of course this isn't a title that should be available for Harry or his children but it is one that, if tragedy were to strike, Harry could inherit (if Charles, William and George were to predecease The Queen then Charlotte would become Queen and Philip's titles would all go to Harry).

There has been some recurring talk about Edward being created Duke of Edinburgh when his father dies.

 

[Lumutqueen]

There has been some recurring talk about Edward being created Duke of Edinburgh when his father dies.

Iluvbertie has a pinned thread where that scenario is answered.
http://www.theroyalforums.com/forums/f23/the-future-of-the-duke-of-edinburgh-title-24343.html

 

[Mbruno]

There has been some recurring talk about Edward being created Duke of Edinburgh when his father dies.

When Prince Philip passes, the title will go to Charles, who is his heir. If Charles becomes king, the title will then merge into the Crown and King Charles III (or George VII, or whatever his regnal name is) will be able to recreate it for Edward.

 

[Denville]

I've asked this before maybe here, or somewhere else, but I never got an answer... what will happen if the RF run out of these traditional "royal duke titles"? if say Harry becomes D of York and has a male heir.. and that tilte goes away and Edinbrugh too.. what happens when young George is getting married? Will they stop having this tradition of giving a young male a royal dukedom on marriage/maturity?

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

In my understanding only sons of a Sovereign and of a Heir are created Dukes. Then their titles are inherited by their respective eldest sons, as we can see with the Kents and the Gloucesters.

The Dukedom of Prince Andrew will revert back to the Crown. The Dukedom of Prince Philip will revert back to the Crown. The Dukedom of Prince William will revert back to the Crown.

So from the record-breaking long Reign of Queen Elizabeth possibly only the Dukedom for Prince Harry will be a "lasting" one, when she is the creator and her grandson will have a male heir. After all an eventual Dukedom for Prince Edward will always be the prerogative of King Charles.

So little danger for "running out of Dukedoms". ;-)

 

[Osipi]

Thanks Duc. With the explanation you've given, its occurred to me that perhaps this is one reason why it'll be very hard to change the ruling of only having males inherit and go for equal primogeniture with life peerage.

They change that and the titles can be passed down through both the sons and the daughters, there's more chances of royal dukedoms not reverting to the crown to be created anew.

Interesting topic.

 

[Mbruno]

In my understanding only sons of a Sovereign and of a Heir are created Dukes. Then their titles are inherited by their respective eldest sons, as we can see with the Kents and the Gloucesters.

The Dukedom of Prince Andrew will revert back to the Crown. The Dukedom of Prince Philip will revert back to the Crown. The Dukedom of Prince William will revert back to the Crown.

So from the record-breaking long Reign of Queen Elizabeth possibly only the Dukedom for Prince Harry will be a "lasting" one, when she is the creator and her grandson will have a male heir. After all an eventual Dukedom for Prince Edward will always be the prerogative of King Charles.

So little danger for "running out of Dukedoms". ;-)

Besides, daughters of the monarch or the Prince of Wales do not get dukedoms, which also helps to avoid "running out of dukedoms". That will continue to be the case unless calls for "gender equality" get in the way in the future.

In the next generation, George will probably be the Prince of Wales and Charlotte will probably be the Princess Royal, so no need for an extra dukedom there. If William has a second younger son, then he will probably beome Duke of York as the title will be available after Andrew passes.

Harry's children on the other hand won't have any dukedoms of their own ; Harry's eldest son, if any, will inherit Harry's dukedom.

 

[Mirabel]

Assuming Harry becomes a duke, will his son then become an earl or a viscount?

(When Antony Armstrong-Jones became the Earl of Snowdon, his son became Viscount Linley).

 

[Mbruno]

Assuming Harry becomes a duke, will his son then become an earl or a viscount?

(When Antony Armstrong-Jones became the Earl of Snowdon, his son became Viscount Linley).

If Harry's children are HRHs, which would be the current legal rule when Charles is king, then they will be known as Prince/Princess [Given Name] of [territorial designation of Harry's dukedom]. Harry's eldest son will use his father's subsidiary title (probably an earl) if he is not simultaneoulsy a prince; Harry's other younger children in that situation would be Lord/Lady [Given Name] Mountbatten-Windsor.

 

[Molly2101]

In my understanding only sons of a Sovereign and of a Heir are created Dukes. Then their titles are inherited by their respective eldest sons, as we can see with the Kents and the Gloucesters.

The Dukedom of Prince Andrew will revert back to the Crown. The Dukedom of Prince Philip will revert back to the Crown. The Dukedom of Prince William will revert back to the Crown.

So from the record-breaking long Reign of Queen Elizabeth possibly only the Dukedom for Prince Harry will be a "lasting" one, when she is the creator and her grandson will have a male heir. After all an eventual Dukedom for Prince Edward will always be the prerogative of King Charles.

So little danger for "running out of Dukedoms". ;-)

I highly doubt Charles will not create the title for his brother as is the will of his mother. Edward has done and will do so much for the DoE (as has his wife) so it is only fitting they are the future Duke and Duchess of Edinburgh.

I can see Harry being created Duke of Sussex over Duke of Clarence personally. I do think that Sussex is very similar to Wessex though, but Edward wont be Earl of Wessex forever so it's not really an issue.

 

[Denville]

They change that and the titles can be passed down through both the sons and the daughters, there's more chances of royal dukedoms not reverting to the crown to be created anew.

Interesting topic.

well that's my point. IF those Royal dukedoms run out, supposing George has 4 sons or something, what would happen? is it possible that in years to come the RF will stop this practice? and its possible that there might be pressure to allow daughters to get similar titles, in the name of Gender equality.

 

[Skippyboo]

Unless the Cambridges have more children, you have 2 Dukedom to be passed out Harry and Edward as Edinburgh. You get back Andrew's, Philip's to be given to Edward, Cambridge from William, if George get a Dukedom before Cornwall that goes back to the Crown. You are okay until George's kids or if William and Kate have 2 more boys.

 

[Denville]

OK I give up....

 

[Curryong]

No, don't give up. Look at Queen Victoria. She didn't give any 'old' historic Dukedoms to her younger sons. She gave Edinburgh to her second son, not York (it's immaterial really as to why she did so) one was Albany and the other the completely new Dukedom of Connaught.

Wessex is an earldom but is completely 'made-up' and new. In theory, if the Dukedoms of Gloucester, Kents and Sussex all go away from the royal family in future generations, the then sovereign is perfectly capable of given sons or grandsons the title of other counties or areas in the UK. It's unfortunate that new ones in George's reign probably won't have the old Royal provenance of a Gloucester or perhaps Clarence, (though that may be used again) but they will still be Royal Dukedoms. They won't ever run out.

 

[Skippyboo]

The royals are not going to be vanguards on gender equality and start giving the female royals Dukedoms and allow female peerage inheritance when the non royals peerages don't. There is not a giant fortune or stately home with these royal Dukedoms so how would say Beatrice benefit from being a Duchess in addition to a HRH Princess?

If George has 4 sons, they won't get Dukedoms until they married so that probably at least 50 to 60 years in the future for the first son. Lots of things could change by then

 

[Denville]

So you're sayig that they will make up titles? of course since they are not land related, unlike prevous titles of nobility, in a sense it does not matter.. if they are completely "made up".
However these titles have usually had some royal connextion.. have't they? Edinburgh is an old Scottish place. Connaught, well a bit of a stretch but it maybe a desire to give the Irish a "royal title" form their land.
Wessex of course has a long LONG royal history. Albany too, I'm sure was a title belonging to the Royal house of Scotland, prior to its union with England?
I just wondered if instead of making up a title like Earl of Milton Keynes... the RF might decide in George's day.. "this is soemthig that we shodl drop and the sons wil just be Prince Robert of Cambridge or Wales for life...

 

[Curryong]

Wessex had a long Royal association with the Anglo Saxon Kings but hasn't been used since the Normans and certainly not within the BRF. There are literally thousands of places in Britain both large and small which have some historic Royal associations so I don't think they will ever be short of place names. Who knows what will happen in the future. By the time George has sons (if he does) there may well be no more monarchy, so he won't need to worry!

 

[Ish]

So you're sayig that they will make up titles? of course since they are not land related, unlike prevous titles of nobility, in a sense it does not matter.. if they are completely "made up".
However these titles have usually had some royal connextion.. have't they? Edinburgh is an old Scottish place. Connaught, well a bit of a stretch but it maybe a desire to give the Irish a "royal title" form their land.
Wessex of course has a long LONG royal history. Albany too, I'm sure was a title belonging to the Royal house of Scotland, prior to its union with England?
I just wondered if instead of making up a title like Earl of Milton Keynes... the RF might decide in George's day.. "this is soemthig that we shodl drop and the sons wil just be Prince Robert of Cambridge or Wales for life...

They could very easily make up new titles or revive long dead titles - Wessex hadn't been used for a thousand years. Some of the titles we think of as "royal" aren't that old at all; we think of Kent as being an old royal dukedom, but it's only been created twice, the first time for one of the sons of George III.

They may also take lower titles and elevate them. Many Dukedoms were once Earldoms that got elevated.

There are still a few titles that could be used without making up new ones, although Kent, Gloucester, and (likely) Edinburgh will all cease to be Royal in the next generation or so. Cambridge and York will very likely revert to the crown before George's kids are getting dukedoms.

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

I highly doubt Charles will not create the title for his brother as is the will of his mother. Edward has done and will do so much for the DoE (as has his wife) so it is only fitting they are the future Duke and Duchess of Edinburgh.

I can see Harry being created Duke of Sussex over Duke of Clarence personally. I do think that Sussex is very similar to Wessex though, but Edward wont be Earl of Wessex forever so it's not really an issue.

I am sure it will be the will and pleasure of King Charles to create his brother Prince Edward a new Duke. But -despite it is a wish of their parents- it still will be a Letters Patent under the Seal of Charles III and not under Elizabeth II.

From the new-to-be-created Dukedom of Edinburgh we know that then HRH Prince James of Edinburgh (possibly better known as Lord James) is the heir. Deo Volente he once will become Duke of Edinburgh, Earl of Wessex, Viscount Severn.

So far Lord James is the only grandchild of the Queen to inherit a peerage from his father and to procreate it furtherer. Harry can become the second to procreate a creation of Queen Elizabeth II. William does not "inherit" his father's titles, since these are not hereditary for the heirs of the body male but are connected to the position of the male heir to the throne.

 

[Denville]

Wessex had a long Royal association with the Anglo Saxon Kings but hasn't been used since the Normans and certainly not within the BRF. There are literally thousands of places in Britain both large and small which have some historic Royal associations so I don't think they will ever be short of place names. Who knows what will happen in the future. By the time George has sons (if he does) there may well be no more monarchy, so he won't need to worry!

I'm not worried.. I'm just curious. I wonder if when they do run out or low on of the old ones that have been used on and off for a while, they might decide to drop the "making a son a duke on marriage.." as it may seem like a very old fashioned way of marking his status..
there are a few thtat haven't been used/cant be, because they are in dispute Like D of Albany and I think D of Cumberland too? as for D of Clarence, given the history I think that they might want to leave that in abeyance for a longer time.
Sso because of all this, I just was curious as to what they might do if there are not many of the "well used" titles left. In the past, because people were more likely to die prematurely, there was a fair chance of dukedoms reverting to the crown..like the Dukedom of Edinburgh which of course reverted because Alfred died withuot a son.. And William D of Gloucester who was married to Princess Mary also died without a son. Edward D of York, brother of George III died without legitimate heirs and so on. but even if couples have only 2 or 3 kids, that sort of thing is (thank goodness) less likely to happen....

 

[Mbruno]

OK I give up....

In the unlikely scenario that they run out of historical dukedoms, the king (or reigning queen) can always create a new one, with a different territorial designation.

 

[Westfield Bakery]

I am sure it will be the will and pleasure of King Charles to create his brother Prince Edward a new Duke. But -despite it is a wish of their parents- it still will be a Letters Patent under the Seal of Charles III and not under Elizabeth II.

From the new-to-be-created Dukedom of Edinburgh we know that then HRH Prince James of Edinburgh (possibly better known as Lord James) is the heir. Deo Volente he once will become Duke of Edinburgh, Earl of Wessex, Viscount Severn.

So far Lord James is the only grandchild of the Queen to inherit a peerage from his father and to procreate it furtherer. Harry can become the second to procreate a creation of Queen Elizabeth II. William does not "inherit" his father's titles, since these are not hereditary for the heirs of the body male but are connected to the position of the male heir to the throne.

William does inherit some of his father's titles. The Earldom of Carrick, the Earldom of Chester, and the Lordship of the Isles.

The Prince of Wales title should be granted to him. Rothesay and Cornwall titles are automatic.

I think Harry should remain a prince of Wales, but he could be a Duke of Sussex.

 

[Mbruno]

William does inherit some of his father's titles. The Earldom of Carrick, the Earldom of Chester, and the Lordship of the Isles.

The Prince of Wales title should be granted to him. Rothesay and Cornwall titles are automatic.

I think Harry should remain a prince of Wales, but he could be a Duke of Sussex.

It doesn't make sense for Harry to remain Prince Harry of Wales after his father becomes King as Charles will no longer be Prince of Wales then. Either he will be known simply as HRH The Prince Henry, which would be a bit of a letdown, or he will be HRH The Duke of [xxx]. The latter is most likely if Harry ever gets married .

Again, we don't know if Harry will get married one day or if he will have any children of his own.

 

[Osipi]

I'm willing to be there is one very important title that Harry is looking forward to being able to carry and hear a lot of and that is "Daddy".

 

[Iluvbertie]

William does inherit some of his father's titles. The Earldom of Carrick, the Earldom of Chester, and the Lordship of the Isles.

The Prince of Wales title should be granted to him. Rothesay and Cornwall titles are automatic.

I think Harry should remain a prince of Wales, but he could be a Duke of Sussex.

William doesn’t inherit any of his father’s titles. They come under two categories:

1. Those that are held automatically by the heir apparent to the throne who is also the eldest son of the monarch. These are: Duke of Cornwall, Duke of Rothesday, Earl of Carrick, Baron of Renfrew, Lord of the Isles, Prince and Great Steward of Scotland.

If William was to predecease his father than George wouldn’t meet the criteria for any of these titles under the existing rules and so would hold none of them when Charles became King as he would only be the grandson of the monarch. That was the case with George III who never held any of these titles as the grandson and heir apparent of the King.

George would inherit the Cambridge title of course in that scenario again following the example set by George III who inherited the Edinburgh title from his father but was very quickly given the Prince of Wales and Earl of Chester titles by his grandfather so he used those titles while heir apparent but never held the others.

2. Those that may be created for him: These are Prince of Wales and Earl of Chester. Since 1301 the title Earl of Chester has been limited to the heir apparent but unlike the Duke of Cornwall title isn’t automatic and has to be recreated each time it is used. It has been recreated with the Prince of Wales title since the Middle Ages.

Harry will cease to be ‘of Wales’ the instant his father ceases to be the Prince of Wales by becoming King. He will then become HRH The Prince Henry. To remain HRH Prince Henry of Wales he would need his father to die without becoming King in which case he would keep the ‘of Wales’ in the same way that Prince Michael is ‘of Kent’ even though his brother is the Duke of Kent.

The most likely option would be that Harry will be given a dukedom on his wedding day in accordance with the precedence that the Queen has followed throughout her reign.

 

[Jacknch]

Please be reminded that this thread is specifically for discussing the titles and styles of Prince Harry, his future wife and children. For other members of the Royal Family, we have the following threads among others available for discussing their titles:

http://www.theroyalforums.com/forum...sh-styles-and-titles-258-154.html#post1978754
http://www.theroyalforums.com/forum...ridge-get-the-princess-royal-title-42036.html
http://www.theroyalforums.com/forums/f269/prince-georges-title-38701.html
http://www.theroyalforums.com/forums/f114/titles-of-the-wessex-children-13729.html

Let's get back on topic please.

 

[Kitty1224]

I think Harry should get Clarence as his title. Much fitting than Sussex.

 

[Denville]

I think Harry should get Clarence as his title. Much fitting than Sussex.

Clarence has an pretty awful history.. the Duke who drowned in a butt of Malmsey, William IV who was a bit of an idiot, Albert Victor also an embarrassing royal. why is it better than Sussex>?