Titles and Styles of Harry, his Future Wife and Children


If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Status
Not open for further replies.
Diana was never "The Princess Charles".
 
Diana was never "The Princess Charles".

She was never styled "The Princess Charles," but she was "The Princess Charles." (Charles has never ceased to be The Prince Charles.) She was also, for example, the Countess of Carrick, but nobody ever called her that. For another example, Camilla is currently Princess of Wales, but she has elected not to style herself that.
 
Legally, the wife of Prince Charles is:

HRH The Princess Charles
the wife of a son of The Sovereign of these Realms

HRH The Princess of Wales & Countess of Chester
the wife of The Prince of Wales and The Earl of Chester in Wales when created by The Sovereign

HRH The Duchess of Cornwall
the wife of The Duke of Cornwall, automatically held by the heir and eldest son in England

HRH The Princess Charles, The Duchess of Rothesay
the wife of The Prince Charles, Duke of Rothesay, automatically held by the heir and eldest son in Scotland

HRH The Princess Charles, The Countess of Carrick
the wife of The Prince Charles, Earl of Carrick, automatically held by the heir and eldest son in Scotland

Baroness Renfrew and Princess of Scotland
as a style only ("Baron of Renfrew, Lord of the Isles and Prince & Great Steward of Scotland" are not titles in the Peerage of Scotland, but traditionally granted to the eldest son of the Scottish King)
 
Doubtless this has been discussed elsewhere previously, but nevertheless I have a question! If William marries before the Queen dies, and is made "Duke of X" upon his marriage, and his children are therefore "Prince and Princess of X", will the titles of his children change upon his investiture as Prince of Wales?
 
Doubtless this has been discussed elsewhere previously, but nevertheless I have a question! If William marries before the Queen dies, and is made "Duke of X" upon his marriage, and his children are therefore "Prince and Princess of X", will the titles of his children change upon his investiture as Prince of Wales?

I think so, if he is invested as Prince of Wales (I think there's some question about whether that may actually happen with William). If he marries and is made, for example, Duke of Cambridge (making a son Prince Somebody of Cambridge), I think a son would become Prince Somebody of Wales should William be made The Prince of Wales during Charles's reign.

If William was not made Prince of Wales, he'd still become Duke of Cornwall, though. I think Cornwall would take precedence over any other dukedom, so the imaginary son would become Prince Somebody of Cornwall automatically on Charles's becoming king. Is that right, title experts?
 
If created a Duke upon marriage while The Queen still reigns, William's eldest son would take the style of HRH Prince X of X per the Letters Patent of 1917. The rest of his children would be styled as the children of a Duke (Lord/Lady Mountbatten-Windsor) until The Queen died.

Once Charles became King, William's children would automatically be elevated to HRH Prince/Princess of the UK as grandchildren of The Sovereign in the male line. Since William would automatically become The Duke of Cornwall as the heir to the throne, his children would be styled as "HRH Prince/Princess X of Cornwall and X" depending on which dukedom he was given as the spare.

For example, if he is created The Duke of Cambridge by The Queen, his eldest son would be "HRH Prince X of Cambridge". Once he is the heir, all of his children would be "HRH Prince/Princess X of Cornwall and Cambridge". When he is created Prince of Wales, the children would be "HRH Prince/Princess X of Wales".
 
Just a note which has been implied but I wanted to make clear:

William will become Duke of Cornwall the instant his father becomes King but he may not ever be created Prince of Wales as that is not an automatice title. Each creation is a new one.

In addition, if Charles died before the Queen then William won't become Duke of Cornwall as that title is reserved for the eldest son of the monarch who is also the heir to the throne. He could still be created Prince of Wales however e.g. George III was never Duke of Cornwall but was created Prince of Wales.

Another thing - there is no need for an investiture as Prince of Wales. Charles was created Prince of Wales in 1958 but not invested until 1969. He was, however, The Prince of Wales from 1958.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Is Rothesay under the same conditions as Cornwall (eldest son of the monarch who is the heir), or would William still automatically receive that dukedom should Charles predecease The Queen?
 
Is Rothesay under the same conditions as Cornwall (eldest son of the monarch who is the heir), or would William still automatically receive that dukedom should Charles predecease The Queen?


My understanding it that yes it is.

Wikipedia tends to support my understanding:

An Act of the Parliament of Scotland passed in 1469 governs the succession to most of these titles. It provides that "the first-born Prince of the King of Scots for ever" should hold the dukedom. If the first-born Prince dies before the King, the title is not inherited by his heir – it is only for the first-born son, like the Duchy of Cornwall — nor is either inherited by the deceased duke's next brother, unless that brother also becomes heir-apparent. Though the Act specified "King," eldest sons of Queens Regnant subsequently also held the dukedom. The interpretation of the word "Prince", however, does not include women. The eldest son of the British Sovereign, as Duke of Rothesay, had the right to vote in elections for representative peers from 1707. (The 1707 Acts of Union between the Parliament of Scotland and Parliament of England formally unified both kingdoms to create the Kingdom of Great Britain). This right continued until 1963, when the UK Parliament abolished the election of representative peers.

Duke of Rothesay - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

At the end of this entry it lists all the holders and George III isn't listed as a holder which again supports the idea that it is a title only held by the heir apparent to the throne who is also the eldest son of the monarch.
 
Does anyone know what titles Prince Harry will get when he marries or when Prince Charles becomes King? Has the Queen reserved any titles for Prince Harry?
 
Does anyone know what titles Prince Harry will get when he marries or when Prince Charles becomes King? Has the Queen reserved any titles for Prince Harry?


We have no idea.

The title given to Prince Edward (Wessex) was out of left field so it is possible that any title given to Harry could also be something unexpected.


It is even possible, although doubtful, that Harry mightn't get any title at all.

We do know a list of unavailable titles but the monarch can create any title she/he likes.
 
I cannot imagine that Harry won't have any title except he would abstain from it, because there will be only two children of the future King. All four sons of King George V. were styled Dukes - except John, but he died too young - and Princess Mary was styled Princess Royal. So I would be suprised if Harry only would remain Prince Henry. But please correct me, if I'm wrong :flowers:
 
I have a feeling Harry will receive another title, but not necessarily because of the size of the family -- I think another major factor is his possible future wife's title. If he didn't receive a dukedom or earldom, his wife would be Princess Henry. That's worked okay for Princess Michael of Kent, but I don't know if it would do as well for the daughter-in-law of the sovereign.
 
It would probably be best for Harry to recieve a title as the media ( and most of the public) will call his wife Princess X anyway.
 
I have a feeling Harry will receive another title, but not necessarily because of the size of the family -- I think another major factor is his possible future wife's title. If he didn't receive a dukedom or earldom, his wife would be Princess Henry. That's worked okay for Princess Michael of Kent, but I don't know if it would do as well for the daughter-in-law of the sovereign.

Yes, thats another fact which would make it possible, that he will receive another title. But as RoyalistRiley posted, the press will create its "own" title nevertheless, like with Diana, which never was styled "Princess Diana".
 
They might, I suppose, but I don't remember anyone ever calling Sarah, Duchess of York "Princess Sarah" while she was married to Andrew. I think that press mistake mostly happened with Diana, and her regularly-used title was as a princess, just not as "Princess Diana."
 
:previous:

Right. Well, they had "Fergie" instead, as I remember right. :D
 
Second Sons usually get Duke of York


Only when that title is vacant and as Prince Andrew is only 49 it is highly unlikely to become vacant in the next 20 - 40 years.

As a result either Harry will have to wait that long or get a different title (remember that Queen Victoria gave her own second son Duke of Edinburgh even though the Duke of York title was available, with the previous holder having died in 1828.

Of course that also assumes that Andrew doesn't marry again and have a son to inherit the York title from him.

It is a strange title in that it has not passed to the second generation since the late middle ages with the holder either becoming King or dying leaving no legitimate male heirs.

Another possibility is that if they change the succession laws regard equal inheritance for the throne they may also make a blanket change to LPs allowing for gender blind succession to all titles (and I think they should - if they do it for the top job then it should apply to all titles) in which case Beatrice would inherit the York title as her father's eldest child.
 
Yeah, Beatrice should inherit the York title, and Harry could get another dukedom.
 
Most Dukedoms follow male-preference primogeniture, some do not. I believe the York title is of the former.:flowers:
 
Most Dukedoms follow male-preference primogeniture, some do not. I believe the York title is of the former.:flowers:

Under the current LPs that is the case.

If, however, they are going to change the inheritance laws for the Crown why shouldn't they change all the LPs to allow for females to have equal inheritance to all titles thus allowing Beatrice to be Duchess of York in her own right.

It probably won't happen but I think it should. Why should a title become extinct just because there isn't a male heir? Seems very unfair to me.
 
But would PB be Duchess of York? Isn't a duchess the wife of a duke?
She could also be a duchess in her own right, just like a queen usually is a king´s wife, but she could also be a queen in her own right, like the current queens of the UK, Denmark and the Netherlands are.
 
Under the current LPs that is the case.

If, however, they are going to change the inheritance laws for the Crown why shouldn't they change all the LPs to allow for females to have equal inheritance to all titles thus allowing Beatrice to be Duchess of York in her own right.

It probably won't happen but I think it should. Why should a title become extinct just because there isn't a male heir? Seems very unfair to me.
:flowers: I can't see it happening any time soon, Daughters are taught their place from the moment of their birth. It would leave many Dukes open to challenges from their older sisters!:flowers: Very many of our present Dukes would shudder to face the prospect of the title and estates passing into the hands of a daughter and possibly her husband. :flowers:
 
:flowers: I can't see it happening any time soon, Daughters are taught their place from the moment of their birth. It would leave many Dukes open to challenges from their older sisters!:flowers: Very many of our present Dukes would shudder to face the prospect of the title and estates passing into the hands of a daughter and possibly her husband. :flowers:

I think you have hit on the crux of the problem. :flowers:
 
:flowers: I can't see it happening any time soon, Daughters are taught their place from the moment of their birth. It would leave many Dukes open to challenges from their older sisters!:flowers: Very many of our present Dukes would shudder to face the prospect of the title and estates passing into the hands of a daughter and possibly her husband. :flowers:


Just because the title males would be upset doesn't mean it shouldn't happen.

Obviously I am not suggesting that current title holders would or could be challenged by older sisters but rather that those who have an eldest child who is a daughter should see that title pass to that daughter rather then to the eldest son, at the same time as the change is made to the gender succession to the crown. If a woman can be Queen Regnant it doesn't hold up that a woman couldn't handle the estates of a titled family - the present Queen has managed to handle the Duchy of Lancaster estate so that argument doesn't hold water.

It would be a radical change and many aristocrats would hate to see change but if change is going to be made to the succession to the top title then, I believe, it should happen all the way.
 
:previous: The problem I see with Daughters able to inherit the title, is the ability of a woman to have children by a multitude of men, if she so wishes. Would we then see the eldest child named Viscount Winston - Smythe - Rumbold - Chalmondley and the next Marlborough - Grosvenor - Harringdon - Bloome? I hate to admit it but following the male line does in some ways make sense.:flowers:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom