Titles and Styles of Harry, his Future Wife and Children

[Skippyboo]

That is right. All of William kids will be HRHs. The children of George will be HRHs. Children of younger sons are eligible to be HRHs but may not use it like Edward and Sophie. Children of daughters aren't eligible for HRHs.

If George was a girl, she would be Queen one day so William would have to issue LPs making her kids HRHs like King George VI did for then Princess Elizabeth before Charles was born.

 

[ff462]

The Earl of Clarence may be tied up but Queen Victoria herself created her grandson Duke of Clarence after creating her youngest son Earl of Clarence so both titles existed in the UK in the 1890s with no problems.

I was really confused about why that happened. I always thought that if a title referred to a place, then no other person could also have that place as part of their title. If you think about what the titles actually originally meant, it doesn't really make sense - surely there should only be one lord of the manor?

In any case, it would be awesome if Harry did become the Duke of Clarence or Albany.

 

[Ish]

I think an argument could be made that the reason why it was okay for there to be a Duke of Clarence and an Earl of Clarence was because the Earldom was a subsidiary title for a Dukedom that had been granted to a man whose son was now a German Duke. This meant that the subsidiary title wouldn't actually ever be used - the son of Charles Edward, Duke of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha and 2nd Duke of Albany, would be titled "Hereditary Prince of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha" not "Earl of Clarence".

That said, while the title Duke of Clarence can be seen as open despite the still extant state of the Earldom of Clarence, the title Duke of Albany is no more available than the Earl of Clarence is.

 

[Spheno]

Prince Albert Victor was Duke of Clarence and Avondale (one dukedom), not Duke of Clarence.

 

[sndral]

I wonder if part of the reason Edward chose as he did for his children was because he was the fourth child and 3rd son as opposed to being the second son.
Queen Elizabeth had 4 children, Edward being the youngest. All of the Queen's children perform full time royal duties. Additionally, she has cousins doing so as well and now her grandsons William (and his spouse) and Harry. Plus, for many years of her reign her mother was very active too.
Charles, when he becomes King will still have his 3 siblings performing royal duties as well as his two sons and their spouses - the cousins will be gone, no Queen mum, and his sons' children will probably be too young to undertake duties.
William, however, will only have one sibling helping him - Harry, plus William's own children when they are old enough, thus it makes sense to me for Harry's children to be HRHs as William will not have 3 siblings to share the work as Charles will have and there might be more need going forward for nieces and nephews to help out than currently exists for Beatrice, Eugenie, Louise and James.
Of course if William decides to have, say, 4 children instead of the 2 apiece the Queen's children have had, then the scenario is different and lessens the need for Harry's to be HRHs.

 

[Iluvbertie]

I really love it when people say that when Charles is King his mother's cousins will all be gone - The Duke of Gloucester is only 4 years older than Charles so should very much be still around.

Richard will be 70 this year, Birgitte - 68, Camilla - 67 and Charles 66.

Going forward - Charles will start his reign, in all probability with - Richard, Birgitte, Camilla, Anne, Andrew, Edward, Sophie, William and Kate doing full-time duties while Harry will still be in the army and who knows if he will be married by then so 9 full-time while The Queen currently has 13.

William may still have his uncles Andrew and Edward with Sophie plus Kate and Harry and maybe a wife for Harry when his reign starts. Depending on how long into the future that is maybe George but maybe not so start the reign with 6 or 7 or even fewer depending on the ages of Andrew and Edward at the time e.g. if it is 30 years in the future he won't have them either so will need George, who may or may not be married and maybe a second child, who if a girl won't have a spouse to help either. Spouses of girls who aren't going to be The Queen continue their own careers so can't count on the spouse of William's younger children.

Having set the precedent that the cousins of the monarch aren't going to be needed with Beatrice and Eugenie it then would be fair to say that Harry will raise his kids with the same expectation that Beatrice and Eugenie will show - thus no I don't think they will be raised to help their cousin, George (assuming there even are any children for Harry).

I think a major reason why Edward made the decision he did for his children was all to do with the fact that at the end of the 90s the BRF were on the nose and the idea of adding more HRHs just wouldn't wash. In addition the intention was that Edward and Sophie would continue to work full-time outside the Firm - which they did until the end of 2001 when it was announced that they would be starting to support The Queen for the Jubilee. It has amazed me that this full-time working couple manage the number of engagements they did in 2000 and 2001 while still holding permanent jobs.

 

[sndral]

I really love it when people say that when Charles is King his mother's cousins will all be gone - The Duke of Gloucester is only 4 years older than Charles so should very much be still around.

Richard will be 70 this year, Birgitte - 68, Camilla - 67 and Charles 66.

.....

Perhaps I should have phrased it differently, as there's really no predicting how long they will live and be fit enough to carry out duties. I'm not positive Charles will outlive his mother, frankly.
On paper, Charles may outlive his mother's cousins, as his parents are both still living which is not the case for the parents of the cousins.
I considered the cousins to be:
Prince Richard, Duke of Gloucester, aged 69, who's father died at age 74 (and mother at age 102.)
Prince Edward, Duke of Kent, aged 78, who's father died young in an aircrash but who's mother died at age 61.
Princess Alexandra aged 77.
Some females in the families are long lived, Queen Mary 85, Queen mother 101, Princess Alice 102. Others less so, Princess Margaret 71, Princess Mary 67.
I cannot find a male, except Prince Phillip, who lived to 80 - King George V 70, King Edward VIII 77, Prince Henry, Duke of Gloucester 74, King Edward VII 64, George VI 56.

 

[Iluvbertie]

How about...

Christian IX of Denmark - aged 88 - born 1818 and died 1906 (and Charles has two lines of descent from him through both his mother and father) (Charles great-great-grandfather through Philip and great-great-great-grandfather through The Queen

The Queen Mother's father - aged 89; and her grandfather aged - 79 - only a few months short of 80 and that was in the 19th Century

Queen Mary's grandfather - 81 - again in the 19th Century

There are long-lived genes from men in Charles' ancestry - just not from the Kings of the UK - due to a number of factors - heavy drinkers and smokers and the stresses of leading their nations at war - Edward VII, George V and George VI were all heavy smokers and Prince Andrew of Greece was also a heavy drinker.

Charles has always taken very good care of his health and drinks an occasional drink and doesn't smoke - so the major reason why the male ancestors died early aren't there in his case while he does have males ancestors in earlier generations that lived very long lives in times when the medical care wasn't as good as it is now.

His immediate ancestors:

Father - still going - aged 92
Mother - still going - aged 88
Paternal grandfather - aged 62
Paternal grandmother - aged 86
Maternal grandfather - aged 56
Maternal grandmother - aged 101

Average age of these 6 is already 80 and going up

Paternal great-grandparents - aged - 69 (assassinated), 75, 67, 87
Maternal great-grandparents- 70, 84, 89, 74

So going back through three generations the average age is 78 and going up and there is one assassination in there so not natural causes for that one - given the ages of George I of the Hellenes siblings at death - 67, 85, 80, 79, 80 it is reasonable to assume that given the natural course of events he would have lived another 10 years or so which would take that average age up to close to 79.

I see no reason to assume, based on these ages amongst his ancestors and knowing that those that died early were the ones who smoked and/or drank to excess - which he has never done, that he won't live at least to the average age of his immediate ancestors - or 80 and given the reason for his grandfathers early deaths to assume that had they taken care of their health that they too would have lived longer e.g. George VI's two brothers who didn't die in the war, or as a child, who both lived into their 70s - Edward VIII and Henry so genetically the evidence is there for him to have that longer life as well but for his own poor health decisions. Prince Andrew's brothers aren't as consistent though - 54, 88, 66 and 52 but still evidence of the over 80s genes coming through on that side of the family again.

 

[Queen Camilla]

(Edward) John Spencer, 8th Earl Spencer (1924-1992) was the father of Diana, Princess of Wales and Prince Henry's maternal grandfather. Scenario:

Suppose Diana had been the only child of the 8th Earl Spencer.
Would Prince Harry have been able to become the new Earl Spencer upon his grandfather's demise?​

​

If peerage is correct, then John Spencer's 1st cousin would have become the 9th Earl Spencer.

Captain George Cecil Robert Maurice Spencer b. 14 July 1932 son of Captain Hon. George Charles Spencer b. 15 August 1903, d. October 1982 son of Charles Robert Spencer, 6th Earl Spencer b. 30 October 1857, d. 26 September 1922

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

I'm not positive Charles will outlive his mother, frankly.

Why not? I am always amused when people point to the longevity of the Windsors (Queen Elizabeth, Princess Alice, Countess of Athlone, etc.).

But in him, Prince Charles has the DNA of his mother Elizabeth Windsor who has an old age, the DNA of his father Philip of Greece and Denmark who as an old age, the DNA of his grandmother Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon who had a very old age.

The Prince is known as an ascetic man with an outspoken viewpoint on organic and sustainable food, harmony with nature, etc. There is really no reason to believe why the Prince of Wales would not be able to reach the age of his very durable parents.

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

(Edward) John Spencer, 8th Earl Spencer (1924-1992) was the father of Diana, Princess of Wales and Prince Henry's maternal grandfather.

Scenario:
Suppose Diana had been the only child of the 8th Earl Spencer.
Would Prince Harry have been able to become the new Earl Spencer upon his grandfather's demise?
​

Impossible. For the very simple reason that the dignities of Earl Spencer and Viscount Althorp are only heritable by the "heirs male of the body" of Lord John Spencer, 1st Earl of Spencer, Viscount of Althorp (1734-1783). And even when these dignities could be passed via Diana's body, even then it is impossible that Harry would become the new Earl Spencer because he has an older sibling before him.....

When Diana's father had no son, then the most close senior male line descendant would inherit these dignities.

Diana's father Lord Edward John Spencer, 8th Earl Spencer had no brother. So we have to go up to Diana's paternal grandfather Lord Albert Edward John Spencer, 7th Earl of Spencer. He had two brothers of which the youngest had issue. So the research first focuses on that youngest brother and his issue. If not succesful, then the search continues in the genealogical tree of the Spencer family by going to Diana's paternal great-grandfather, etc.

 

[Queen Camilla]

I cannot find a male, except Prince Phillip, who lived to 80 - King George V 70, King Edward VIII 77, Prince Henry, Duke of Gloucester 74, King Edward VII 64, George VI 56.

Edward VII was 68 years old when he died.

 

[Iluvbertie]

When you look at the longevity of Charles' ancestors it should be noted that at the age of 65 he has only lived longer than 2 of his 14 immediate forebears - his two grandfathers.

Given the medial care available to many of these people in the 19th and 20th centuries compared to today it is clear that he has many long-lived genes coming into his make-up.

His 14 immediate ancestors:

1 over 100
1 into the 90s
5 into the 80s
3 into the 70s
3 into the 60s - one of whom was assassinated aged 69 and add himself to that set
1 into his 50s.

People who only look back as far as his grandfathers I think are ignoring lifestyle factors for these two men and the fact that so many earlier generations lived so much longer at a time when even wealthy people with access to the best of health care were dying from diseases that tend not to be such big killers today - e.g. his great-great-grandmother, Alice dying from diphtheria and his great-great-great-grandfather dying from typhoid (yes a killer in the third world still but not in the UK) so even some of his earlier progenitors who died relatively young died of diseases that wouldn't kill today.

 

[padams2359]

I know he isn't perfect, but I would like to see Harry made Duke of Windsor at the time of his marriage. Windsor is the family name, and it is currently associated with such a negative event. It is a new age, and search engines are the way people do research. It is time for new info to pop up when researching Windsor, and specifically Duke of Windsor.

 

[Iluvbertie]

Won't happen - the title is simply too diseased within the family to be used for anyone other than another black sheep who runs away from his family responsibilities as did the first Duke of Windsor.

 

[Furienna]

Yeah, you would think that people would be ready to accept a new duke of Windsor by now. But still, that's not the case. Edward VIII was the current queen's uncle, so even though more than seventy years have passed, it's still a sensitive subject. But when you consider that "Windsor" is the royal family's actual surname, it would be weird too to have just one of them be called "the duke of Windsor".

 

[CyrilVladisla]

Prince Henry could be given the title of The Duke of Connaught.
​

 

[Skippyboo]

Connaught is in Ireland so it probably won't be chosen.


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community

 

[Ish]

Connaught is in the Republic of Ireland, so it would be hugely inappropriate for a British Royal to be created Duke of Connaught.

 

[biru]

when Harry get married, will he choose the duke title by himself or it's the Queen herself that will give him the title? because I had read somewhere that William chose the title Duke of Cambridge by himself, so I think maybe Harry would do the same thing as well

 

[Iluvbertie]

The Queen and Harry will discuss the choice of title. The Queen won't dictate to Harry and he can't demand what he will have.

I imagine that The Queen will have a list of available dukedoms that have been used by royals in the past and could be used again (ruling out Windsor, Connaught, Albany and Cumberland due to the various reasons already discussed) and also ask him if he has any ideas for himself - as Edward did when he revived Wessex that hasn't been used for centuries - and then come up with a series of titles on which they can both agree.

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

It would be a nice combination when the Prince is created Duke of Clarence and holds residence in... Clarence House. After all it was once build for a Duke of Clarence (the later William IV).

 

[biru]

The Queen and Harry will discuss the choice of title. The Queen won't dictate to Harry and he can't demand what he will have.

I imagine that The Queen will have a list of available dukedoms that have been used by royals in the past and could be used again (ruling out Windsor, Connaught, Albany and Cumberland due to the various reasons already discussed) and also ask him if he has any ideas for himself - as Edward did when he revived Wessex that hasn't been used for centuries - and then come up with a series of titles on which they can both agree.

thank you for the explanation.

so, does anyone knows which duke title that hasn't been used right now? I used to talk to my friends about this before, and she said since William's title is Duke of Cambridge, maybe Harry will have Duke of Oxford after he got married

 

[Spheno]

thank you for the explanation.

so, does anyone knows which duke title that hasn't been used right now? I used to talk to my friends about this before, and she said since William's title is Duke of Cambridge, maybe Harry will have Duke of Oxford after he got married

Sussex
Oxford is not is not available
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earl_of_Oxford_and_Asquith

 

[Fürstin Taxis]

David Walliams and Prince Harry's double act - Telegraph

Later, as the members of the Royal family were leaving the stage after the speeches, Walliams looked at Harry and wondered if he was missing something. “I mean your father has Wales, your brother has Cambridge – not as big, but still quite nice – but you don’t have anything… how about Croydon? Prince Harry of Croydon?”

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

Older royal dukedoms no longer in use:

Albemarle (there is an Earl of Albemarle)
Clarence & Avondale / Clarence & St Andrews (there is an Earl of St Andrews)
Connaught & Strathearn (there is an Earl of Strathearn)
Hereford
Ross
Sussex
Windsor

I have left out the disputed dukedoms (Albany, Cumberland & Teviotdale).

 

[cepe]

I liked the idea that Edward had of using an old "Kingdom" name; I also like the idea of something new. Here are a few more old "Kingdoms"

Mercia (Duke of Mercia sounds good)
Deira
Anglia
Lindsey
Strathclyde

Never happen tho'

 

[biru]

Sussex
Oxford is not is not available
Earl of Oxford and Asquith - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

ooops, thanks. just found out that there's is Earl of Oxford

I like Sussex and Ross. Btw, is that possible if Harry choose the duke title from one of the cities in Scotland/Wales? I mean, Edinburgh and Rothesay are in Scotland, right?

 

[Mirabel]

I liked the idea that Edward had of using an old "Kingdom" name; I also like the idea of something new.

I don't; it seems like something out of Hollywood rather than a proper title- rather fake.

 

[wyevale]

I'm pretty sure the title chosen will be Sussex.. safely in England, and not subject to the vagaries of Nationalist referenda....