Titles and Styles of Harry, his Future Wife and Children - Page 60

Iluvbertie · #**1181** 02-06-2016, 10:42 PM

Of course Xan could go ahead and have six sons who all have six sons ad infinitum.

In addition the current countess of Ulster is still not yet 40 so could have another son or two. I doubt that she will as she does seem career conscious but she could.

As things currently stand the next two Dukes of Gloucester will be non-royal as will the next two Dukes of Kent - at least in both cases.

Skippyboo · #**1182** 02-06-2016, 10:47 PM

But still out of the two titles- the Gloucester title has a better shot of returning to the Crown .

Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community

Ish · #**1183** 02-06-2016, 11:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Countessmeout

Um, No. The kingdom of York, and later duchy and now county of York has existed since before William the conqueror. The first Duke of York owned estates in Yorkshire, and when he was elevated to Duke, he was named Duke of York because of those estates in Yorkshire, not the city itself. The house of York is descended from him. Now the title is of course not actually attached to the land in any real way, nor the city.

Just a couple of corrections - first it was the Kingdom of Jorvik, not York. Second, the title Duke of York did not exist before William the Conqueror. Dukedoms didn't exist in England until nearly 300 years after the Norman conquest.

kyle · #**1184** 02-08-2016, 03:35 PM

I'm wondering how the wedding invitation would read in this hypothetical situation.

Harry becomes engaged to a daughter of the Prince and Princess of XXXX. They are descendants of equal ancient noble houses. Queen Victoria also descends from these houses. Stephanie (not real name) is number 202 (not real place) in the line of succession to the British throne and a descendant of Queen Victoria through both Mom and Dad. She is know as Princess Stephanie of XXXX in the noble houses of Germany thread on this forum as well as her families website. She is Stephanie XXXXX on her LinkedIn profile. She works in London for a charity foundation (not real job). In Germany her legal name is Stephanie Prinzessin zu XXXX. When she marries Harry she doesn't have to give up her title because she really doesn't have one.

Will the invitation read... The Lord Chamberlain is commanded by the Queen to invite _________ to the marriage of His Royal Highness Prince Henry of Wales with Her Serene Highness Princess Stephanie of XXXX? Or will it just be Miss Stephanie Prinzessin zu XXXX? Or Miss Stephanie XXXX?

I know which one I would want.

After marriage she will be the Duchess of Something, so none of this will matter.

CyrilVladisla · #**1185** 04-08-2016, 11:39 PM

Could Prince Henry be given the title of Earl of Banbury?

Curryong · #**1186** 04-08-2016, 11:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CyrilVladisla

Could Prince Henry be given the title of Earl of Banbury?

Why? Something like an Earldom of Banbury has no Royal precedent as far as I know, and I think Charles will want Harry to have a dukedom with at least a little BRF history.

Curryong · #**1187** 04-09-2016, 12:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kyle

I'm wondering how the wedding invitation would read in this hypothetical situation.

Harry becomes engaged to a daughter of the Prince and Princess of XXXX. They are descendants of equal ancient noble houses. Queen Victoria also descends from these houses. Stephanie (not real name) is number 202 (not real place) in the line of succession to the British throne and a descendant of Queen Victoria through both Mom and Dad. She is know as Princess Stephanie of XXXX in the noble houses of Germany thread on this forum as well as her families website. She is Stephanie XXXXX on her LinkedIn profile. She works in London for a charity foundation (not real job). In Germany her legal name is Stephanie Prinzessin zu XXXX. When she marries Harry she doesn't have to give up her title because she really doesn't have one.

Will the invitation read... The Lord Chamberlain is commanded by the Queen to invite _________ to the marriage of His Royal Highness Prince Henry of Wales with Her Serene Highness Princess Stephanie of XXXX? Or will it just be Miss Stephanie Prinzessin zu XXXX? Or Miss Stephanie XXXX?

I know which one I would want.

After marriage she will be the Duchess of Something, so none of this will matter.

A wedding invitation isn't a legal document and there are several deposed European royal families that are still quite close to Charles and the Queen. They are accepted as the royals of Greece, Rumania, Yugoslavia etc. So I think she would be referred to on the wedding invite as Princess Stephanie of Rumpelstilsken du Weelburg etc etc.

Countessmeout · #**1188** 04-09-2016, 12:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ish

Just a couple of corrections - first it was the Kingdom of Jorvik, not York. Second, the title Duke of York did not exist before William the Conqueror. Dukedoms didn't exist in England until nearly 300 years after the Norman conquest.

If you read my post, I did NOT say the Duke of York has existed before William the Conqueror. I said the territory of York (York being the anglicized version of Jorvik BTW) existed before William the Conqueror. There is a difference, so before being quick to try and correct me, perhaps read carefully what I said.

Quote:

Why? Something like an Earldom of Banbury has no Royal precedent as far as I know, and I think Charles will want Harry to have a dukedom with at least a little BRF history.

The Earldom, unless they pull an Edward, would be Harry's lesser title. It would be more important or his Dukedom to have some royal precedence.

But it is likely his secondary title will be a Scottish Earldom. William is Earl of Strathean (Baron Carrickfergus for NI). Andrew is the Earl of Inverness. Charles has Earl of Carrick among his titles. Prince Philip's Earl title is actually Welsh (Earl of Merioneth).

The only holder of the Earl of Banbury was the grandson of Mary Boelyn (his mother was Catherine Carey and she was rumored by some to be the daughter of Henry VIII). To this day there are those who contest the extinction of the title.

Pranter · #**1189** 04-09-2016, 11:47 AM

Weren't at least 2 of the Carey children supposed to be Henry's...I've heard there's a potrait of a Carey girl that looks a lot like Henry and Elizabeth I?

LaRae

Curryong · #**1190** 04-09-2016, 01:06 PM

Well, considering Mary Boleyn's reputation, and Henry's, that is more than possible. However, there was no DNA in those days, so I suppose it's speculative!

Ish · #**1191** 04-09-2016, 01:43 PM

There were only 2 Carey children (that Mary Boleyn mothered), Catherine and Henry. It's believed that Catherine was born during Mary's affair with Henry VIII, and Henry just after it ended, so it's possible one or both of them were fathered by the king.

Henry Carey was reported as having looked like Henry VIII, and Catherine and three of her daughters all looked like him and Elizabeth I (although Catherine was a first cousin of Elizabeth's).

Countessmeout · #**1192** 04-09-2016, 02:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pranter

Weren't at least 2 of the Carey children supposed to be Henry's...I've heard there's a potrait of a Carey girl that looks a lot like Henry and Elizabeth I?

LaRae

Mary had two children, Catherine and Harry. Catherine was born when she was certainly a mistress to the king (though never recognized). Henry is said to be after, though was remarked he looked like the king. They both held places at court during the reign of Elizabeth, and portraits exist of both.

http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb....dy-knollys.jpg

Catherine was married to Sir Frances Knollys and many of their children were prominent in court. In the paintings of some of her daughters you can see a bit of a possible resemblance. But then again Elizabeth and Catherine even if not sisters, were cousins. And any shared resemblance could be contributed to looks they got from their mothers.

Lady Lettice Knollys (among her husbands was Robert Dudley)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lettic...e_Knollys1.jpg

Lady Elizabeth Knollys
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...th_Knollys.jpg

Lady Anne Knollys (Deleware is named after her eldest son)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anne_K...bert_peake.jpg

Henry Carey
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...on_Hunsdon.png

Princess Diana, the Queen Mum and even Fergie are all said to be descended from her line. Diana is from Elizabeth Knollys and her husband Thomas.

Countess Jeannie · #**1193** 07-20-2016, 04:02 AM

Hi, What about Duke of Exeter or Manchester. or are these unavailable. They have a nice sound to them. Henry, Duke of Exeter. Makes me think of Camelot (I know it's legendary).. Henry, Duke of Manchester....the 3 syllables make this title sound important with the "ch" and the "st" close...

I'm going on sound mostly.

Curryong · #**1194** 07-20-2016, 04:33 AM

Hi Jeannie. Welcome to the forum. I'm sure you'll enjoy yourself here.
As for Harry's future titles, I agree the Duke of Exeter sounds lovely and I don't believe it's been used since the 15th century, Hundred Years' War etc.

The trouble is that the BRF tend to give Royal dukes titles that have been prominent in the family in the past, and the Dukes of Exeter weren't really royals, just relatives, like half-brother to the King, etc.

As for the Dukedom of Manchester, it's been in use for a very long time. I think the 13th Duke is the present one. Some past ones have been a bit unsavoury!

Countessmeout · #**1195** 07-20-2016, 04:44 AM

The current holders of both may protest.

The title Duke of Manchester was created in 1719. It was upgraded from Earl of Manchester which was made in 1626 by Charles I, 390 years ago. They were viscount Manderville before (current subsidiary). Curent (13th) is shady as all and lives abroad, dad went to prison, but don't think the title will be free for use (though you perhaps by their land as it was all sold off). The duke has a brother and nephew.

No Duke of Exeter but a Marquis of Exeter so pretty sure that eliminates any new use. Current creation is from 1801. But like Manchester, due to upgrade. The 10th Earl was made Marquis. The earls date back to 1605 when 2nd Baron Burleigh was made an earl. He was the son of William Cecil, Elizabeth I's counselor. Previous Marquis was beheaded in 1525. There was a Duke of Exeter, first a son of John of Gaunt but died with his grandson. He married to Anne, sister of Edward IV and Richard III. You have a thing for foreign held ones. The current and his father lived in Canada. The Baron Amherst is the heir to the heir, a relation.

Denville · #**1196** 07-20-2016, 02:54 PM

He wont have ieihter of those titles. he will have a title iwth some royal history and one that is not disputed, like Duke of Albany. Probaby thte most likely is D of Sussex.

Countessmeout · #**1197** 07-21-2016, 12:30 AM

Sussex I agree. They aren't always royal connected (like Wessex) but think Harry's will. He will like Will likely have a Scottish secondary.

Albanny is as nearly impossible as the other 2. The title may not be in use but it isn't extinct. It is deprived, which like an extant title, any heirs can petition for it. The last Duke has a great grandson who also has a son, who are direct heirs. Not saying they will ever petition but I don't see the queen granting a contestable peerage.

Ish · #**1198** 07-21-2016, 01:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Countessmeout

Sussex I agree. They aren't always royal connected (like Wessex) but think Harry's will. He will like Will likely have a Scottish secondary.

Wessex actually has a royal history.

The first Earl of Wessex was Godwin, who, during the reign of Edward the Confessor, was the most powerful man in England. When he died his son, Harold, became Earl of Wessex. Harold was named king following Edward's death, and reigned for about a year until his death at the Battle of Hastings - he was the last Anglo-Saxon king of England, and in a way the last Danish one too (his mother, Gytha, was a Dane).

Denville · #**1199** 07-21-2016, 02:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Countessmeout

:p
Albanny is as nearly impossible as the other 2. The title may not be in use but it isn't extinct. It is deprived, which like an extant title, any heirs can petition for it. The last Duke has a great grandson who also has a son, who are direct heirs. Not saying they will ever petition but I don't see the queen granting a contestable peerage.

Yes that's what I said, it is in dispute.. Unless they settle the issue, it is not avaialabe for Harry or anyone.
And Wessex has a royal connextion. I think that in due course, they will have to create new titles, for Royals who are getting married, or drorp the whole thing, because Royal dukedoms like Kent and Gloucester will pass away from the crown.

Curryong · #**1200** 07-21-2016, 03:19 AM

I agree and that's where I think Queen Victoria showed some initiative. Yes, I know that her prime motivation was she and Albert wanted their own family to be seen as a separate unit from King George III's disreputable sons. However she, and the Prince Consort, did give their second son, Affie, the title of Edinburgh rather than York and then Prince Arthur became Duke of Connaught and Leopold of Albany.

Those were lovely titles IMO and, although Ireland is out, there are plenty of places in England, and Scotland (for the moment,) that have great cities that would do very well for a Royal dukedom.