Titles and Styles of Harry, his Future Wife and Children

[Ish]

The title Duke of Albany is in no way restricted by the House Rules of the Saxe Coburgs and Gotha's. It is a British title and it's inheritance is determined by the LPs which created the title.

The morganatic marriages that come into play with the title Duke of S-C&G don't come into play with the title DoA.

Charles Edward, Duke of S-C&G and DoA, had 2 sons who outlived him - elder Johann Leopold and younger Friedrich Josias (in between them was also a son who didn't outlive CE and two daughters).

JL married morganatic ally twice, renouncing his succession rights to S-C&G, but not to being DoA. However, JL married in contravention to the Royal Marriages Act 1772, so while he was still eligible to the DoA, his sons Ernst Leopold and Peter Albert are removed from the succession to the DoA title.

FJ married equally (twice) and inherited his father's claim to S-C&G. He also outlived his brother, and so inherited his claim to DoA. However, he too didn't get permission to marry under the RMA 1772, so his sons Andreas and Adrian are not included in the succession.

So, really, FJ was the last person who could claim the title DoA. Which technically leaves it open.

The title that isn't open because of this issue is actually the Duke of Cumberland - Ernst Augustus, 5th son of George III, was created Duke of Cumberland and Teviotdale. Then, after William IV's death EA became King of Hanover while his niece became Queen of the U.K. In succession his son, George, and grandson, Ernst Augustus II, inherited both Kingdom and DoC title (and was deprived of both because of the war). EAII's son, EAIII, married with permission of the British monarch, retaining his claim to the DoC. As did m, I believe his son, EAIV, and the current claimant, Ernst August V. I would suspect that EAV's son, (EAVI) also gained permission from the Queen before his marriage.

[Duc_et_Pair]

I would like to see Harry as HRH The Duke of Clarence and have his residence at Clarence House. Would be nice to see the mansion and the peerage title connected.

Originally Posted by Ish

The title Duke of Albany is in no way restricted by the House Rules of the Saxe Coburgs and Gotha's. It is a British title and it's inheritance is determined by the LPs which created the title.

The morganatic marriages that come into play with the title Duke of S-C&G don't come into play with the title DoA.

Charles Edward, Duke of S-C&G and DoA, had 2 sons who outlived him - elder Johann Leopold and younger Friedrich Josias (in between them was also a son who didn't outlive CE and two daughters).

JL married morganatic ally twice, renouncing his succession rights to S-C&G, but not to being DoA. However, JL married in contravention to the Royal Marriages Act 1772, so while he was still eligible to the DoA, his sons Ernst Leopold and Peter Albert are removed from the succession to the DoA title.

FJ married equally (twice) and inherited his father's claim to S-C&G. He also outlived his brother, and so inherited his claim to DoA. However, he too didn't get permission to marry under the RMA 1772, so his sons Andreas and Adrian are not included in the succession.

[...]

That the prince looses his place in the line of succession, okay, but by my understanding the Royal Marriages Act has nothing to do with the peerage titles. Would the Earl of St Andrews have married aganist the workings of the Royal Marriages Act, he would cease to be a successor but remains the Heir to his father's titles, isn't it?

How could Leopold and his brother Andreas then loose their rights on the Dukedom of Albany because of their father's marriage contra the Royal Marriages Act? That can not be because of his father's marriage as the Letters Patent usually makes the peerage titles hereditary for the Heirs of the Body Male without furtherer conditions?

[Rudolph]

I don't think it does. As long as someone is the lawful male heir, he inherits the Dukedom.

The RMA doesn't govern peerages as far as I know.

[Ish]

The RMA doesn't govern peerages, but it does govern (or did) what marriages were recognized in British law, and by extension which children were recognized as legitimate.

Johann Leopold and Friedrich Josias both married against the RMA, therefore their marriages aren't valid in British law, making their children under British law illegitimate. Illegitimate children have no succession rights, be it to a peerage or royal title.

Originally Posted by Duc_et_Pair

That the prince looses his place in the line of succession, okay, but by my understanding the Royal Marriages Act has nothing to do with the peerage titles. Would the Earl of St Andrews have married aganist the workings of the Royal Marriages Act, he would cease to be a successor but remains the Heir to his father's titles, isn't it?

The Earl of St Andrews would have remained his father's successor, but his children would have been illegitimate because his marriage wouldn't have been legal.

Evidence of this:
- Prince Augustus Frederick, Duke of Sussex
- Prince George, Duke of Cambridge

How could Leopold and his brother Andreas then loose their rights on the Dukedom of Albany because of their father's marriage contra the Royal Marriages Act? That can not be because of his father's marriage as the Letters Patent usually makes the peerage titles hereditary for the Heirs of the Body Male without furtherer conditions?

You're mixing names here.

- Prince Leopold, Duke of Albany was the son of Queen Victoria
- Prince Charles Edward, Duke of S-C&G was his
- Johann Leopold, Hereditary Prince of S-C&G was CE's eldest son
- Ernst Leopold was his eldest son (his son, Hubertus, would be the claimant to DoA today, if such a claim were valid)
- Peter is his younger son
- Friedrich Josias was CE's youngest son
- Andreas (current claimant to S-C&E) is his eldest son
- Adrian is his youngest son

[Denville]

Originally Posted by Curryong

As far as the Dukedom of Albany is concerned, from all I've read the devil seems to be in the detail, that is the fine print of the 1917 Titles Deprivation Act. It appears that for decades the Princes of Saxe-Coburg Gotha were more than welcome to apply for a restoration of their Dukedom of Albany.

kingdom of Scotland.

They coudnt agree with the queen that they are going to give up any claim and then it would revert to the Crown?

Originally Posted by Duc_et_Pair

I would like to see Harry as HRH The Duke of Clarence and have his residence at Clarence House. Would be nice to see the mansion and the peerage title connected.

I associate the Clarence title with poor old Eddy, who was really a potential disaster for the RF, and the previous Duke of Clar was WIlliam IV, who wasn't exactly a shining light either, though a good old bloke and not a bad king..
I think Sussex is all that is left.

[Tatiana Maria]

Originally Posted by Duc_et_Pair

That can not be because of his father's marriage as the Letters Patent usually makes the peerage titles hereditary for the Heirs of the Body Male without furtherer conditions?

Originally Posted by Rudolph

I don't think it does. As long as someone is the lawful male heir, he inherits the Dukedom.

Most British peerages were created with the remainder "male heirs of the body, lawfully begotten". "Lawfully begotten" means "legitimate" and thus, as Ish said, a son who was born out of wedlock (in British law) cannot inherit a British peerage.

Royal Marriages Act 1772 (repealed)

However, the Succession to the Crown Act 2013 retroactively legitimizes some of the descendants who were illegitimate under the RMA.

[CyrilVladisla]

Prince Henry could be given the title of Duke of Ainsworth.

[Curryong]

Why? Royal Dukes, sons of Kings and Queens, are invariably given dukedoms with at least some Royal history behind them. The only monarchs who changed the rules a bit were King George III, who had masses of sons, and Queen Victoria, who wished to disassociate her own family from her dissolute uncles. Neither case applies to Harry.

[Hans-Rickard]

I think Harry will be created Duke of Clarence and Earl of Ross. I think he will recive grand titles with long royal history as the 2:nd son and brother to future heads of state.

If he ever marry and have kids, i think they will be H.R.H Prince / Princess of Clarence as grandchildren to King Charles. Their children won't get Royal titles.

[Curryong]

You may be correct Hans, but I don't think so. The Dukedom of Clarence has an awful Royal history. The future Richard III's brother George Duke of Clarence was disposed of in the Tower, by fair means or foul, while King William 1V as Duke of Clarence did nothing much in a very long naval career except befriend Nelson and produce ten children with his actress girlfriend.

King George V's elder brother died prematurely from pneumonia, causing grief to parents, brother, other siblings and fiancée . Nothing there really to inspire the Queen or perhaps Charles to give this Dukedom a new airing. I think it's almost certain to be the Dukedom of Sussex, but who really knows.

[Hans-Rickard]

Originally Posted by Curryong

You may be correct Hans, but I don't think so. The Dukedom of Clarence has an awful Royal history. The future Richard III's brother George Duke of Clarence was disposed of in the Tower, by fair means or foul, while King William 1V as Duke of Clarence did nothing much in a very long naval career except befriend Nelson and produce ten children with his actress girlfriend.

King George V's elder brother died prematurely from pneumonia, causing grief to parents, brother, other siblings and fiancée . Nothing there really to inspire the Queen or perhaps Charles to give this Dukedom a new airing. I think it's almost certain to be the Dukedom of Sussex, but who really knows.

You may be correct too :) I just said my own preference.
Sussex is a nice title too but with a very short Royal history. I belive the youngest son of George III was the only one who had it.

King William IV was Duke of Clarence and St Andrews (it's a shame that St Andrews is not available !). I don't think Albert Victors early death should stop the title from being bestowed again. Early death can happen to us all.

I wouldn't even rule out Duke of Windsor. That title is very grand and deserves to have a good royal connection too. But that will only be possible in Charles or William's reign.
QEII would probably deport anyone who even dares to suggest it :-D

[Iluvbertie]

Originally Posted by Hans-Rickard

I think Harry will be created Duke of Clarence and Earl of Ross. I think he will recive grand titles with long royal history as the 2:nd son and brother to future heads of state.

If he ever marry and have kids, i think they will be H.R.H Prince / Princess of Clarence as grandchildren to King Charles. Their children won't get Royal titles.

Given the public's objection to the Princesses 'of York' who are the children of the 2nd son I wouldn't be surprised if Harry's children are styled like Edward's as the children of a peer of the realm rather than a prince even though the existing LPs will give Harry's children HRH when Charles is King.

That is assuming Harry ever marries.

[Denville]

what objection to the Princesses of York?? i've never heard of any. Of course harry's children will be given the rank of Prince and Princess. He's the second son of the future King, and will be the Kings brother

Originally Posted by Hans-Rickard

You may be correct too :) I just said my own preference.
Suss
I wouldn't even rule out Duke of Windsor. That title is very grand and deserves to have a good royal connection too. But that will only be possible in Charles or William's reign.
QEII would probably deport anyone who even dares to suggest it :-D

Certianly think they ought to get rid of Clarence. Windsor well it is only Edward VIII POST being King who used it, and so his bad behaviour would not affect the title. I think that they are going ot have to look around for new titles tho' becuase they're going to lose the traditional ones of Gloucester and Kent. York will revert but not for a long time yet.
I'd say Sussex is thte most likely...

[Duc_et_Pair]

Originally Posted by Denville

what objection to the Princesses of York?? i've never heard of any. Of course harry's children will be given the rank of Prince and Princess. He's the second son of the future King, and will be the Kings brother

Edward is a brother to a future King as well. His children are not styled Prince James and Princess Louise of Wessex, despite the LP instructing so.

[Lumutqueen]

Originally Posted by Denville

what objection to the Princesses of York?? i've never heard of any. Of course harry's children will be given the rank of Prince and Princess. He's the second son of the future King, and will be the Kings brother

Head over to the York forums and you'll witness plenty of objection.

There's no guarantee Henry's children will be made HRH's, he might not want them to have titles and there won't be any need for them.

[Iluvbertie]

Originally Posted by Denville

what objection to the Princesses of York?? i've never heard of any. Of course harry's children will be given the rank of Prince and Princess. He's the second son of the future King, and will be the Kings brother

Try reading the press in the UK.

The public don't respect or even like the girls - or Andrew - and see no reason for them having HRHs.

Edward saw the writing on the wall when he decided that his children wouldn't have the HRHs. He too is the son of the monarch, brother of the future monarch etc - the same as Harry.

[Duc_et_Pair]

Originally Posted by Iluvbertie

Try reading the press in the UK.

The public don't respect or even like the girls - or Andrew - and see no reason for them having HRHs.

Edward saw the writing on the wall when he decided that his children wouldn't have the HRHs. He too is the son of the monarch, brother of the future monarch etc - the same as Harry.

That the public has no respect for Beatrice and Eugenie has nothing to do with them being princesses. It has everything to do with the shallow, superficial, twiddling and twaddling, partying and celebbie-loving lifestyle of the two paired with childish fashion choices and unroyal behaviour.

[Denville]

True, I don't know of anyone who even thinks about them.. problaby would not know them if they saw a picture.
I see occasional stories in the press, I wouldn't say that they get Unfavourable coverage or that people OBJECT to them..but they don't think much of them on the whole. And rightly so.
There's nothing bad about them but they are not very interesting, they don't do anyting much.
They COULD be very popular, since there aren't any princesses of young age around, but they aren't... I think that the Fergie baggage clings to them..
They don't do royal duties, though I suspect that both Andrew and Fergie would like them to, and they don't seem to stick at jobs for long.. But I don't know of anyone OBJECTING to them. What would be the point? They are titled Princess, that's not going to change. And theyre not doing anything wrong per se, just they are not doing anything much that's wroth commenting on. They are good for an occasional story in the papers and that's all that they will get, when they marry, there will be a biggish wedding and then they will probably slip into obscurity.

But they are the daughters of a Prince, a duke of York and are perfectly entitled to be titled Princess and HRH.
Edward's children were born at a bit of a low time for the RF when it was recovering from the scandals of the 1990s, and so He was given the title of Earl rather than a dukedom and as for his children, although entitled to be Prince etc, it was decided that they would not use the titles.
Harry's children will be higher up in the hierarchy and I'm sure he would wish them ot have titles of Prince and Princess and to use them. If they DONT want to, they still have the titles...

[Hans-Rickard]

Originally Posted by Duc_et_Pair

That the public has no respect for Beatrice and Eugenie has nothing to do with them being princesses. It has everything to do with the shallow, superficial, twiddling and twaddling, partying and celebbie-loving lifestyle of the two paired with childish fashion choices and unroyal behaviour.

That's true. There is a reason why many people don't like them or don't even recognize them...

Edward is not the 2:nd son. Andrew is the one in a similar position as Harry. Andrew was always meant to be "Duke of York". Harry too but they can't strip Andrew of his titles and Andrew is expected to live for another 30-40 years so Harry must get other titles.

I think we can be sure of one thing. Sooner or later, a King William is going to need help from his own generation. And a possible King George and his sister Princess Charlotte can't be left almost completely alone. They are going to need help from their own generation too and would certainly be happy if there is royal cousins there to help them.

[Duc_et_Pair]

Lady Sarah Chatto née Armstrong Jones, the Queen's niece, always gets quite favourable lines in the Daily Mail and the likes. She looks and acts like anyone expects a royal to look and to act indeed. No one will ever see Lady Sarah stumbling out of a car in front of a celebbie-studden nightclub. No one will see her in outrageous (or hideous) extravaganza. Lady Sarah and her brother Viscount Linley provide no dramas but are calm, serene, dignified persons, trustworthy and good company. Very unlike their mother who sometimes acted être plus royaliste que la reine (acting more royal than the Queen).

Beatrice and Eugenie acting a bit more like Lady Sarah would have resulted in a total different public perception. I agree with some fellow-posters here: it is the shadow of their mother which hangs over the girls. If there was ever a lady unsuitable for royal life, then it was the un-tame-able Sarah Ferguson. Sadly their mother's poor reputation seems to extend over her daughters.

It is very well possible that Prince Harry will get children like James and Louise, David and Sarah, a bit out of the public eye, calm, remaining in the shadow of the throne and still being a Prince (Princess) of the United Kingdom without being grilled and ridiculed by media and public.