Titles and Styles of Harry, his Future Wife and Children

[Denville]

I ca
However, I can't remember the paps and media following his nightlife or his girlfriends much, apart from Koo. Maybe he didn't go out to clubs much, maybe my memory's fading, but I can't remember a fandom. Of course Andrew's youth was pre Internet/Twitter age, and that really makes a difference.

He was fairly popular, but not I think as much covered by the papers as Charles was, during his dating years. By the time Andrew got to the dating years, Charles was married and Diana was the mega popular star of the show.. and her two little darling boys.
So Although he was liked and his courtships (if you could call them that) were followed I dont think he was mega popular. He was good looking, he had been in the war, but he was also seen as arrogant and too full of himself and not very bright. He married Sarah and she was very popular for a bit, but Andy was off on naval service and I think he wasnt as well liked by the public or press as she was during her first years.
She was a lively attractive young woman, who was based in London, he was a rather dull man who was based at sea...

Then Sarah shot herself in the foot and ended up out of the family and Andrew seemed to disappear from any real coverage. He was getting older, and fatter. He wasn't in the Navy, and he was connected with Sarah who was now very much disliked. He seems ot have embarked on a bachelor lifestyle with a lot of young women, but it did not get much coverage. So I think the same thing could happen to Harry if he's seen as still messing around iwht a lot of women and not settling into anything as he gets older.

 

[Osipi]

I dont believe that Edward wanted to be an earl, it was problaby a decision taken at the time of low popularity for the RF, in the years after Diana's death.
He was the fourth child and third son, and there were several people ahead of him in the line, so there was only the slimmest possibliity that he woudl ever be king..

By all accounts I've seen, it was Edward and Sophie that requested the decision as to titles and styles with the understanding that eventually Edward would be created the Duke of Edinburgh. The story goes that Edward chose Wessex from a favorite movie of his, "Shakespeare in Love", which had a character named the Earl of Wessex.

This choice had nothing whatsoever to do with Diana's death or the popularity of the BRF. It was an arrangement made within the family with the monarch's approval. This basically could happen with Harry also if he felt strongly about something.

 

[Denville]

I've never heard of this. It seems pretty ridiculous that Edward would choose a title out of a film.. for goodness sake??
Im sure if he did do that the queen would have told him not to be so stupid. What next?

And why would Edward want to have a lesser title on his marriage than his brothers had received? I think he would see it as a slight.. and probalby was only pacified by knowing that he woudl eventually be Duke of Edinburgh.

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

they are women. They dont transfer a title to thier children.

Unless a special remainder has been created. HRH Princess Arthur of Connaught née Alexandra MacDuff was able to pass the Dukedom of Fife to her nephew James Carnegie.

Lady Patricia Knatchbull née Mountbatten, the Countess Mountbatten of Burma, Baroness Romsey, Dowager Lady Brabourne, will be able to pass her Mountbatten and Romsey peerages to her son, Lord Nicholas Knatchbull, the 8th Baron Brabourne.

 

[Denville]

Unless a special remainder has been created. HRH Princess Arthur of Connaught née Alexandra MacDuff was able to pass the Dukedom of Fife to her nephew James Carnegie.

Lady Patricia Knatchbull née Mountbatten, the Countess Mountbatten of Burma, Baroness Romsey, Dowager Lady Brabourne, will be able to pass her Mountbatten and Romsey peerages to her son, Lord Nicholas Knatchbull, the 8th Baron Brabourne.

In certian circumstances yes, a woman can inherit a peerage- or transfer a peerage, but it is the exception rathter than the rule as you know.
However I dont know of any Princesses transferring theri royal rank to their children. Anne was offered a peerage for Mark, which they refused. But her children would not have a princely rank.

 

[Mbruno]

The children of Edward and Sophie will become children of a royal Duke (alike the Earl of Ulster and the Earl of St Andrews). I can understand the choice for that. A duke is the higest rank in the British peerage, so the children remain in the highest echelons of society. Imagine that Prince Henry takes the same road as his uncle Edward and imagine he will become Duke of Clarence, Earl of Athlone. The "sideline royal family" would look like this:

HRH The Prince Henry, Duke of Clarence
Lord [name] Mountbatten-Windsor, Earl of Athlone

HRH The Prince Edward, Duke of Edinburgh
Lord James Mountbatten-Windsor, Earl of Wessex

HRH Prince Richard, Duke of Gloucester
Lord Alexander Windsor, Earl of Ulster

HRH Prince Edward, Duke of Kent
Lord Nicholas Windsor, Earl of St Andrews

I can see the systematic in this. In such a scenario they are -de facto- limiting the persons who are a Prince of the United Kingdom to those not furtherer related to a Sovereign than two degrees of consanguinity. De jure it remains three degrees of consanguinity. That Prince Henry is the second son is not very relevant. Princess Margaret was also a second child. Princess Anne was also a second child.

I don't understand your point. Prince Harry's children will be related to King Charles III (or George VII) by two degrees of consanguinity just like George and Charlotte. In fact, their degree of consanguinity to Charles will be the same as their cousins'.

Anyway, I go back to my previous point. Being a prince, at least in the past, had nothing to do with the amount of work one does or the number of public engagements one has, but rather with membership of the Royal House (royalty, as I said, was just a part of the class system, like nobility). "Grandchldren " on the other hand was just a cutoff point used to mark where the Royal House ended and the distinction between male and female line was in accordance with the old patrilineal concept that the monarch's grandchildren in female line belonged to their father's family rather than the royal family.

To me, the Dutch post-Beatrix are the ones who are being inconsistent. Prince Constantijn's children were members of the Dutch Royal House when they were born as they were related to Queen Beatrix by two degrees of consanguinity. Yet, they were not made princes or princesses, which is odd, as a member of the Royal House should be either king/queen or prince/princess (or equivalent like infante/infanta).

Note though that the Dutch law on membership of the Royal House allows the monarch, by royal decree, to extend membership of the Royal House exceptionally to any person who is the line of succession (Art. 4) and those aforementioned people can still be made Prince/Princess of the Netherlands (Art. 8(e)).

 

[Iluvbertie]

I've never heard of this. It seems pretty ridiculous that Edward would choose a title out of a film.. for goodness sake??
Im sure if he did do that the queen would have told him not to be so stupid. What next?

And why would Edward want to have a lesser title on his marriage than his brothers had received? I think he would see it as a slight.. and probalby was only pacified by knowing that he woudl eventually be Duke of Edinburgh.

It was commonly reported at the time of the marriage including during the commentary on the marriage.

I remember watching the wedding with my family and we commented on that story as we had watched that exact movie the day before and felt that it would be a good title to see re-established even suggested that Edward might become Duke of Wessex at his wedding as he was keen on the theatre. We were half right.

It was reported at the time that he chose to be an Earl with the understanding that IF the title is available then he will be created Duke of Edinburgh when both The Queen and Philip have died as it has to merge with the crown first and that can only happen when Charles is King and when Philip is also deceased.

Of course if a tragedy were to happen and Charles, William and George were all to predecease Philip then the Edinburgh title would pass to Harry and Charlotte would become Queen and thus the Edinburgh title wouldn't be available for Edward.

 

[Denville]

The York girls were popular as children - they were girls and there were pictures of them lots of times. Andrew was very popular in his 20s and 30s and his girls were seen as even adding to his popularity.

But then then they grew up and they weren't the most beautiful of princesses and the public decided that only the Wales boys should be liked - because they are Diana's sons.

No, I think it helped but it wasn't the primary reason. It was more to do iwht the fact that Will and Harry are in the line to be king.
They are the sons of thte next king.. Bea and Eugenie are only the daughters of a second son and one who was getting less and less popular.
Fergie became so unpopular that her daughters were to an extent sharing in that lack of popularity. They didn't get much coverage, and sicne they grew up, neither of them has shown any signs of wanting to do anyting very much. It seems like they doa few engagements here and there and dabble in jobs the way a lot of rich girls do. They dont have to work, so there's a story that they are getting some new job and then before you know it, they've taken 20 holidays in a year and are moving on to the next job..

Will and Harry aren't IMO as active as they could be, but they are more active than the York girls. They have had their careers mapped out, whereas B and Eug have nothing planned.. Will and Harry both knew that they'd have a spell in the Military and then a gradual move towards royal work.. and that means a certain amount of press coverage and popularity.. Harry was a soldier and that made him noticed and popular.
If Beatrice or Eugenie did anything worth noticing them for, such as taking a serious interest in the arts for example, maybe getting intot film production or the like, they woudl get coverage for that.. but they dont do anything that is really publicity friendly.
I certainly dont know of anyone who dislikes them, but they are not much thought of.

 

[Denville]

It was commonly reported at the time of the marriage including during the commentary on the marriage.

I

Edward.

sorry Commentary by whom?

 

[Iluvbertie]

sorry Commentary by whom?

The TV people who were doing the commentary we watched in Australia of the wedding - don't remember the names after all these years - don't even remember which channel it was on but whoever was commenting on the wedding from St George's were the people reporting it.

 

[Denville]

I
Anyway, I go back to my previous point. Being a prince, at least in the past, had nothing to do with the amount of work one does or the number of public engagements one has, but rather with membership of the Royal House (royalty, as I said, was just a part of the class system, like nobility). "G
T

N(Art. 8(e)).

that's true and I dont think it has changed ,in the eyes of the British RF. Being a prince/ss is a rank, and not to do with whether you do the "charity and other royal work". And I think for the moment it will stay that way.
Perhaps in another 20 years, it will be like
"If you are not intending to get on the duty roster, you will just be "Lady Mary Mountbatten Windsor", and lead a relatively ordinary life..and not be a royal (though of course you'll stil be a member of the Royal family). (nad hopefully the press wont chase you TOO much).
.. but if you are intending to do the royal duties, you'll be HRH Princess Mary.. and have the usual honours that go with that.
But right now, I think that regardless of whether Harry becomes a full time royal or not, and teh same with his children, he will still be HRH P Harry and they will be HRH prince/princess X of Sussex...
and whether Bea and Eugenie ever do royal duties or not, they are still HRH Princesses B and Eug of York..and always will be.

 

[Rudolph]

Before 1917, who was a prince or princess was more or less determined by custom and whim.

It wasn't until George V that we get the template that is used today. I don't think it's a stretch to say that after a 100 years maybe the Letters Patent need to amended to reflect the society of the 21st century.

We don't know Harry's view. He may take a practical and pragmatic view and say because his children won't be major players in the Firm, it makes more sense to not have them as royal highnesses. To give them greater freedom to chart their own course.

But regardless, Harry's children will still have their place of precedence and still be in the line of succession.

 

[Curryong]

How do we know Harry's children won't be major players in the family 'firm'? William only has one sibling and may well seek some help as the years go on.

George has only one sibling, at the moment. The Cambridges might have another child, they might not. Charlotte may be married and living overseas in another thirty to thirty five years or just not want to participate in Royal duties. We don't know.

When George becomes King and looks around for some help with his duties, who, besides his then elderly Uncle (and Aunt) is there going to be? If George has adult children when he becomes King, all well and good. If he hasn't any or they're too young, it's going to be mighty lonely, and extremely busy, at the top.

 

[Pranter]

Because if they don't have titles and don't do engagements they're private citizens which makes life a lot easier.



He was when he was their age, comparing a 50+ year old divorcee to his two young nephew doesn't match.



.

Them being private citizens would not matter. They will still be of very great interest to the media and public.


Not comparing Andy now to the Wales boys now. I'm talking about that the comparable ages. Andrew has never had the level of interest that the Wales boys have.

I remember when Andrew was younger.

LaRae

 

[tommy100]

It probably won't keep the press at bay but I wouldn't be at all surprised if Harry tries to keep them from having (or at least using) HRH status. It would certainly help the children lead more private lives, none of the Queen's grandchildren have completely private lives but Zara and Peter do so much more than W&H and B&E do, for starters people can moan about their HRH status.
Personally if I was Harry I would want to do anything to keep my kids lives as private as possible, you're right it might not work but who would blame him for trying.

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

I don't understand your point. Prince Harry's children will be related to King Charles III (or George VII) by two degrees of consanguinity just like George and Charlotte. In fact, their degree of consanguinity to Charles will be the same as their cousins'.

[...].

So is Edward, he is also related to a Sovereign within two degrees of consanguinity. According the current LP Edward's children are entitled to be HRH Prince (Princess) of the United Kingdom but instead become children of a (royal) Duke. My point was that if for Henry the same path is followed, de facto the title HRH Prince (Princess) of the United Kingdom becomes limited to royals whom are closely related to a Sovereign. De jure nothing changes. After all Lady Louise and Lord James are, de jure, still entitled to be a Prince or Princess indeed.

That was the point I tried to make: the monarchy making the circle of Princes and Princesses of the United Kingdom narrower by not changing the LP but in practice treating children of junior Princes as sons and daughters of a (royal) Duke indeed.

 

[Lumutqueen]

Them being private citizens would not matter. They will still be of very great interest to the media and public.


Not comparing Andy now to the Wales boys now. I'm talking about that the comparable ages. Andrew has never had the level of interest that the Wales boys have.

I remember when Andrew was younger.

LaRae

What I meant was being private citizens offers a lot more protection for Henry's children against the prying paps. William and Catherine have to go through so much red tape in regards to pictures printed of the children. I never said there wouldn't be interest in Henry's children, of course there will be, but not having titles will make their lives a lot easier IMO.

In their age Charles and Andrew were probably as popular as William and Henry. Only difference now is we have instant technology at our finger tips. The press are a lot more disrespectful of royal boundaries than they were previously.

Harry would hardly want his children to be treated as less important than they should be in terms of status.
I dont believe that Edward wanted to be an earl, it was problaby a decision taken at the time of low popularity for the RF, in the years after Diana's death.
At any rate Im sure Edward was not too happy to get a lesser title..

Again, have you seen the guy you're talking about in interviews? I imagine all he cares about for his future children is that they are happy and healthy. It's so clear from Henry's numerous interviews that he hates his title and the burden it puts on him. Why would he wish that on his children when he could avoid it?

As I write below I believe Edward wanted to be an Earl, he will eventually be a Duke so he and Sophie took the decision to make the most of the family time they have and focus on their children. With a dukedom, they'd both have been pushed to do more.

I've never heard of this. It seems pretty ridiculous that Edward would choose a title out of a film.. for goodness sake??
Im sure if he did do that the queen would have told him not to be so stupid. What next?

And why would Edward want to have a lesser title on his marriage than his brothers had received? I think he would see it as a slight.. and probalby was only pacified by knowing that he woudl eventually be Duke of Edinburgh.

Here is an article from RoyalCentral an incredibly knowledgable royal reporter.
Why Is Prince Edward An Earl, Not A Duke? – Royal Central

Here is a Telegraph article relating to the same story;
Royal wedding: Prince William asks the Queen not to make him a duke - Telegraph

A fact in The Sunday Post when he turned 50;
39. On his wedding day the Queen gave Edward the title Earl of Wessex. He had he picked up on the title while watching the film Shakespeare in Love in which Colin Firth plays a character with that name.


Evidently The Queen didn't tell him it was not so stupid, because he has the title. Prior to the creation for Edward, Wessex was last created in the 11th Century. It has no royal lineage at all.

It's evident that Edward asked for a "lesser" title because he is the third son, and youngest child and was well aware when he married that he and his children wouldn't be needed. The title has allowed him to be with his family as they grow up and has allowed James and Louise to have a quiet upbringing. Whilst they are lower down in succession, there is interest in them because they are young royals.

 

[Mbruno]

Again, have you seen the guy you're talking about in interviews? I imagine all he cares about for his future children is that they are happy and healthy. It's so clear from Henry's numerous interviews that he hates his title and the burden it puts on him. Why would he wish that on his children when he could avoid it?

As I write below I believe Edward wanted to be an Earl, he will eventually be a Duke so he and Sophie took the decision to make the most of the family time they have and focus on their children. With a dukedom, they'd both have been pushed to do more.




Here is an article from RoyalCentral an incredibly knowledgable royal reporter.
Why Is Prince Edward An Earl, Not A Duke? – Royal Central

Here is a Telegraph article relating to the same story;
Royal wedding: Prince William asks the Queen not to make him a duke - Telegraph

A fact in The Sunday Post when he turned 50;
39. On his wedding day the Queen gave Edward the title Earl of Wessex. He had he picked up on the title while watching the film Shakespeare in Love in which Colin Firth plays a character with that name.


Evidently The Queen didn't tell him it was not so stupid, because he has the title. Prior to the creation for Edward, Wessex was last created in the 11th Century. It has no royal lineage at all.

It's evident that Edward asked for a "lesser" title because he is the third son, and youngest child and was well aware when he married that he and his children wouldn't be needed. The title has allowed him to be with his family as they grow up and has allowed James and Louise to have a quiet upbringing. Whilst they are lower down in succession, there is interest in them because they are young royals.

The point where I believe we differ is in the definition of "royal". To me, a "royal" by definition must be necessarily a king/queen, or prince/princess, or something equivalent to that (grand duke, infante, etc.). A relative of the monarch who is not a prince/princess or equivalent is not a royal to me. In my opinion, it was wrong, unprecedented and against the law to deprive James and Louise of royal status.

 

[Rudolph]

There is no statute or Act of Parliament governing royal styles and titles in Britain. It's a matter of common law.

It may have been unprecedented with James and Louise but it's not against the law. Since Queen Victoria's time the ability to confirm or limit royal styles has been the Sovereign's personal prerogative.

There are many reasons Harry may not want his children with grand royal titles. He only needs to look to his cousins to see the benefit.

 

[Denville]

The point where I believe we differ is in the definition of "royal". To me, a "royal" by definition must be necessarily a king/queen, or prince/princess, or something equivalent to that (grand duke, infante, etc.). A relative of the monarch who is not a prince/princess or equivalent is not a royal to me. In my opinion, it was wrong, unprecedented and against the law to deprive James and Louise of royal status.

They are royal. Just they dont use their royal titles. I dont think it is a big deal for them, because they are well down the line of succession and I dont think it is expected that they wil be doing royal duties. And George V clearly felt that it was silly to allow every distant relative to a King to be called Prince/ss and cut it back. Good idea.
But Harry's children will be very close to the throne.. so they will be Princes etc and he will be A royal duke

 

[Skippyboo]

The closest Harry's first child will be to throne is fifth baring some sort of disaster. Peter Philips was once fifth in line too. Any future children from the Cambridges and then their grandchildren will push Harry and his line further away from the throne.


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community

 

[Osipi]

They are royal. Just they dont use their royal titles. I dont think it is a big deal for them, because they are well down the line of succession and I dont think it is expected that they wil be doing royal duties. And George V clearly felt that it was silly to allow every distant relative to a King to be called Prince/ss and cut it back. Good idea.
But Harry's children will be very close to the throne.. so they will be Princes etc and he will be A royal duke

Nothing is written in stone. Can't check the "Royal Titles and Styles" manual for the ins and outs of a royal prerogative. Harry could request to be created the Earl of Ginger and Beer and his son X, Viscount Pretzel (just an example. I'm craving a ginger beer right now) and should the monarch (Queen or Charles) agree with Harry's request, it would be done.

Probably will not happen as we've seen William requesting not to be a duke and it was denied but it wouldn't surprise me one bit that when Charles comes to the throne, only the Monarch and Consort, heir apparent and wife/husband and children and then the oldest child of the heir apparent will be HRH.

One big reason that we're overlooking here as far as royal titles and styles go too is that there has been a major change in the line of succession. With Anne as the second child of a monarch, she could not pass down any kind of title to her children. In the future, if George only has girls, the eldest girl will be heir apparent because of the change in ruling of primogeniture. Instead of all the muddle if daughters then can pass royal titles down through the matriarchal line, it would be much simpler and more streamlined to define a "royal" by proximity to the throne rather than by blood lineage.

Just a few thoughts.

 

[LauraS3514]

The closest Harry's first child will be to throne is fifth baring some sort of disaster. Peter Philips was once fifth in line too. Any future children from the Cambridges and then their grandchildren will push Harry and his line further away from the throne.


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community

In 1819 Princess Alexandrina Victoria of Kent was born fifth in line to the throne. While the circumstances were a little unprecedented, they did happen.

 

[LauraS3514]

Bea and Eugenie are only the daughters of a second son and one who was getting less and less popular.
Fergie became so unpopular that her daughters were to an extent sharing in that lack of popularity. They didn't get much coverage, and sicne they grew up, neither of them has shown any signs of wanting to do anyting very much. It seems like they doa few engagements here and there and dabble in jobs the way a lot of rich girls do. They dont have to work, so there's a story that they are getting some new job and then before you know it, they've taken 20 holidays in a year and are moving on to the next job..

Princess Eugenie has been steadily employed since shortly after she graduated from university. Her first job was with an art auction company in New York, and now she works full-time at a gallery in London. Two jobs only, and she went straight from one to the other.

Princess Beatrice does not a have steady employment record, but she does do a lot more charity work that is not reported on by the mainstream press. We here at TRF learn about some of these thanks to members who scour local papers for stories - such as her work with the dyslexic charity and the theater company in York. She may, and I say may because none of us know her, want to do more and has been turned down. Those who have actually met her at these events report that she is an absolutely lovely young woman, well-prepared, friendly and interested in the work. She may, again, want to marry and be a stay-home mum. We don't know.

As far as "holidays" go, a closer look at dates show that most of the "holidays" reported on by the Daily Mail and similar papers are actually weekends - maybe a bit more posh than most of us regular folks can enjoy but not that out of the ordinary for those with a little more disposable income and/or well-to-do friends.

Beatrice and Eugenie pay for the "sins" of their parents. They can't win: if they don't have a full-time job that meets with the approval of the press they're "spongers off the public" and if they have jobs they're "taking them away" from "someone who actually needs one." Some of the comments under the latest "Eugenie to marry" stories are vicious -and some of the kinder ones state that at least she'll get off the public payroll. Of course, neither Eugenie or Beatrice have ever been ON the public payroll, but facts never get in the way of a good (non) story...

 

[EllieCat]

Beatrice and Eugenie pay for the "sins" of their parents. They can't win: if they don't have a full-time job that meets with the approval of the press they're "spongers off the public" and if they have jobs they're "taking them away" from "someone who actually needs one." Some of the comments under the latest "Eugenie to marry" stories are vicious -and some of the kinder ones state that at least she'll get off the public payroll. Of course, neither Eugenie or Beatrice have ever been ON the public payroll, but facts never get in the way of a good (non) story...

This is so true and so indicative of today's society in that people feel they can say whatever they like online, mean and hateful things about somebody they've never met. It's just so wrong; i feel for them. All they ever do is smile nicely for the camera; they seem very nice girls, Eugenie works full time as far as i can see, and i believe Beatrice would have been happy going Royal work, but that does not appear to be happening.

Re Prince Harry; i believe his children will be Prince and Princesses. I see no problem with having Prince/Princesses doing the job, or not doing the job (if they are not required). I would like to see (though I doubt this would ever happen) all the grandchildren of a Monarch to be Prince/cesses. Then the style would drop off at the greatgrandchildren level. Just like the non-Royal Dukes have their children styled as Lord and Ladies, but only one of them will actually take on the Dukedom.

Should the styles Prince/esses end up as being only for working members of the Firm, rather than where they stand in conjunction with the Monarch, then those who marry in and do the job should also be Prince/esses usuing their own names (e.g. Princess Sophie).

Anyway, I like Harry and hope all goes well for him.

 

[Ish]

As per the current LPs, if Harry has (legitimate) children during the reign of the Queen they will be styled as the children of a Duke - Lord and Lady [Given Name] Mountbatten-Windsor. It's only during Charles' reign that they'll become HRH Prince and Princess [Given Name] of [Territory].

A lot can happen between now and then. Something could happen to prevent Charles from becoming King. Something could prevent Harry from having legitimate children. A repeat of the feelings that were present during the 90s could happen that would cause Harry to chose to have his children styled as the children of a Duke instead of as Royals (a lot of Edward's decision had to do with the times and the mood of the public). The Queen could live to be 120, and Harry's teenage or adult children could not want to change their titles and ask to remain Lords and Ladies.

 

[Curryong]

Yes, and Charles could come to the throne in the next few years, after Harry has married and become Duke of Sussex. Charles could then decide that all his grandchildren, including Harry's offspring, should be HRHs.

 

[Skippyboo]

As King, all of Charles's grandkids would be entitled to be HRH Prince/Princess because he only has sons. Harry can just choose for his kids not to use the HRH like his uncle did.




Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community

 

[Osipi]

Anything could happen. That's the beauty of the royal prerogative. I think a lot depends on Charles and how much he wants to change things or how much he wants things to stay as traditions have dictated. He's not talking so we have no clue.

I think this all is part and parcel of a Confucius curse. "May you live in interesting times".

 

[Mbruno]

There is no statute or Act of Parliament governing royal styles and titles in Britain. It's a matter of common law.

It may have been unprecedented with James and Louise but it's not against the law. Since Queen Victoria's time the ability to confirm or limit royal styles has been the Sovereign's personal prerogative.

There are many reasons Harry may not want his children with grand royal titles. He only needs to look to his cousins to see the benefit.

The Queen cannot overrule Letters Patent from a former sovereign by a court circular. That is unlawful.