Titles and Styles of Harry, his Future Wife and Children

[Ish]

Ah, yes. That's different. The Duke of Sussex's children were illegitimately born because the Royal Marriages Act invalidated his marriage (likewise with William IV's children).
Prince Michael of Kent is a better comparison - his children are legitimate therefore hold the titles granted to them under the 1917 LPs - as the children of a British prince who themselves do not hold their own titles, they're styled as Lord/Lady. They're actually in the succession to, as despite their father's (former) removal and their mother's religion, they were raised in the CoE and were never barred from the succession.

The sons and grandchildren of the Duke of Kent are also examples; the Earl of St Andrews has married a Catholic and was temporarily removed from the succession, but still has his courtesy title. Lord Nicholas converted to Catholicism and was removed from the succession, but still has his courtesy title.

[Skippyboo]

Prince Michael isn't the same scenario either because the Queen did approve his marriage per the Royal Marriage Act because Freddie and Gabrielle were still in the line of succession because they aren't Catholic.

With the law change, if you went ahead without approval Harry would lose in succession rights, then kids wouldn't have any succession rights. Plus the titles and who is a HRH is all down to the monarch. So the same monarch that didn't approve the marriage can issue LPs to turn HRH Prince Harry of Wales to Mr Harry Mountbatten Windsor. Not to mention kick him out of KP and cut off funding of his activities.

[Mbruno]

Originally Posted by Skippyboo

Prince Michael isn't the same scenario either because the Queen did approve his marriage per the Royal Marriage Act because Freddie and Gabrielle were still in the line of succession because they aren't Catholic.

With the law change, if you went ahead without approval Harry would lose in succession rights, then kids wouldn't have any succession rights. Plus the titles and who is a HRH is all down to the monarch. So the same monarch that didn't approve the marriage can issue LPs to turn HRH Prince Harry of Wales to Mr Harry Mountbatten Windsor.

That is precisely the point. The Succession to the Crown Act 2013 per se does not affect royal styles and titles; the only effect of marriage without consent under the act is the forfeiting of succession rights. On the other hand, the current LPs regulating royal titles and styles do not tie them to succession rights. In fact, Prince Michael (temporarily) lost his place in the line of succession for marrying a Catholic, but remained an HRH and his wife was still styled HRH Princess Michael of Kent.

If Harry and his future children lost their succession rights, I don't see in principle any reason why the Queen, or Charles (when he is king), would also want to strip them of their titles by special LPs.

[Skippyboo]

If Queen and Charles were happy with who the royal was going to marry, then it would be approved. The permission being needed is basically to stop a royal doing something stupid like getting drunk somewhere and marrying a stripper. The Queen or Charles is not going to want the Stripper Princess out on the BP balcony.

[Mbruno]

Originally Posted by Skippyboo

If Queen and Charles were happy with who the royal was going to marry, then it would be approved. The permission being needed is basically to stop a royal doing something stupid like getting drunk somewhere and marrying a stripper. The Queen or Charles is going to want the Stripper Princess out on the BP balcony.

It is not that simple. As I mentioned in another thread, quoting the official explanatory notes for the Succession to the Crown Act (from legislation.gov.uk), the practice under the Royal Marriages Act was that government ministers were supposed to be previously informed of proposed marriages of people close to the Crown and the Queen was supposed to seek formal advice from her ministers before granting her consent. Under the new act, the explanatory notes say that the government expects the aforementioned practice to continue, meaning the government will previously consider any proposed bride for Harry and will then advise the Queen on the suitability of the marriage. I believe that kind of vetting goes beyond simply preventing him from marrying a stripper in Vegas.

[Rudolph]

A person who (when the person marries) is one of the 6 persons next in the line of succession to the Crown must obtain the consent of Her Majesty before marrying.

(2)Where any such consent has been obtained, it must be—

(a)signified under the Great Seal of the United Kingdom,

(b)declared in Council, and

(c)recorded in the books of the Privy Council.


The act is quite clear. It's the consent of the Sovereign that is required. Once the consent has been obtained then she declares it to the Privy Council .

It is The Queen, not the government which gives consent.

[Mbruno]

Originally Posted by Rudolph

A person who (when the person marries) is one of the 6 persons next in the line of succession to the Crown must obtain the consent of Her Majesty before marrying.

(2)Where any such consent has been obtained, it must be—

(a)signified under the Great Seal of the United Kingdom,

(b)declared in Council, and

(c)recorded in the books of the Privy Council.


The act is quite clear. It's the consent of the Sovereign that is required. Once the consent has been obtained then she declares it to the Privy Council .

It is The Queen, not the government which gives consent.

Again, please read the official explanatory notes to the act on legislation.gov.uk, which I quote below.

19.Subsection (1) provides that any of the first six people in the line of succession to the Crown must obtain the consent of Her Majesty prior to their marriage. This effects a substantial decrease from the number of people affected by the Royal Marriages Act 1772. The recent practice under that Act is for Ministers to be informed of a proposed marriage of a person close in the succession to the Throne, and to have the opportunity of giving formal advice to Her Majesty as to whether consent should be given. The Government expects this practice to continue.

Source: Succession to the Crown Act 2013

As I said before, I don't think the government cares (too much) about whom Harry marries (as Harry is relatively unimportant as 5th in line), but the practice is very clear: Meghan, or any other person whom Harry chooses as his bride, will be vetted by the government and the government will advise the Queen as to whether that person is suitable or nor before the Queen decides to consent to the union or not.

[Lumutqueen]

Somehow I think this is just "in writing" and not in practice. It's for The Queen to decide and that's quite clear.

And beside that, who cares?!

[Curryong]

Why would the Queen refuse Harry consent anyway? There is nothing in Meghan's past or present that would cause such a thing to happen.

[O-H Anglophile]

Originally Posted by Curryong

Why would the Queen refuse Harry consent anyway? There is nothing in Meghan's past or present that would cause such a thing to happen.

well, you know--she's "American" and an actress...

[Pranter]

Harry has American blood already from his mother's side...and a number of noble families have Americans in their bloodlines. That's a non-issue.

At least some of the BRF are known for their ability to mimic and act, love of acting.

The divorce is another non-issue thanks to Charles.


I don't think there's anything that we know about that would bar approval from the Queen for the marriage.


LaRae

[O-H Anglophile]

Originally Posted by Pranter

Harry has American blood already from his mother's side...and a number of noble families have Americans in their bloodlines. That's a non-issue.

At least some of the BRF are known for their ability to mimic and act, love of acting.

The divorce is another non-issue thanks to Charles.


I don't think there's anything that we know about that would bar approval from the Queen for the marriage.


LaRae

I agree with you, my comment was sarcasm. That's why I included the laughing emoticon.

[Pranter]

Originally Posted by O-H Anglophile

I agree with you, my comment was sarcasm. That's why I included the laughing emoticon.

Yes I caught that...I was heading them off at the pass...cause you know what's going to be said next.


LaRae

[Vicomte de Valjean]

I think that "Duke of Ross" would be a more fitting title for Harry. It has gravitas and hasn't been created since 1514. "Duke of Sussex" sounds boring and doesn't have any history before 1801. "Duke of Albany" is nice too, but it still exists (even if it was suspended and has never been reclaimed).

[Kitty1224]

Originally Posted by Vicomte de Valjean

I think that "Duke of Ross" would be a more fitting title for Harry. It has gravitas and hasn't been created since 1514. "Duke of Sussex" sounds boring and doesn't have any history before 1801. "Duke of Albany" is nice too, but it still exists (even if it was suspended and has never been reclaimed).

Your right, Duke of Ross is nice. But I think Duke of Clarence is better.

[Mbruno]

Originally Posted by Vicomte de Valjean

I think that "Duke of Ross" would be a more fitting title for Harry. It has gravitas and hasn't been created since 1514. "Duke of Sussex" sounds boring and doesn't have any history before 1801. "Duke of Albany" is nice too, but it still exists (even if it was suspended and has never been reclaimed).

I'd be very surprised if Harry didn't get either Sussex or Clarence as his dukedom.

[Kitty1224]

Originally Posted by Mbruno

I'd be very surprised if Harry didn't get either Sussex or Clarence as his dukedom.

I rather it be Clarence since the media will have a great time making fun of SusSEX since Harry is known as the playboy prince.

[O-H Anglophile]

Originally Posted by Kitty1224

I rather it be Clarence since the media will have a great time making fun of SusSEX since Harry is known as the playboy prince.

Let;s not go in that juvenile direction again, the last time the thread was shut down by the mods.

[Curryong]

Id really, really rather Harry have Sussex than Clarence, whatever fun the DM has with it! Previous Dukes of Clarence were killed in the Tower, died from pneumonia in their twenties or were crass idiots with at least ten illegitimate children like the future William IV. It's been quite an unlucky Dukedom.

[Pranter]

I think all the dukedom's have had their share of bad luck.


LaRae