Prince Harry Created Duke of Sussex: May 19, 2018


If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Status
Not open for further replies.
If you are referring to Louise and James that is not what BP has told me. I sent them a letter to ask and they sent me a reply - which I have posted elsewhere on this forum stating that Louise and James have been deprived of HRH by The Queen's Will being made known.

At the moment we don't have the Letters Patent for Harry's title but we do have The Queen's Will having made known so Harry is Duke of Oxford.

There are three ways for titles to be created:

1. Letters Patent
2. Royal Warrant
3. The Queen's Will - this is what was done for Louise and James (and currently for Harry's Sussex title).
That's new to me 🤣

I was referring to your communication with the palace in my previous post.
 
I see your reasoning. However, when William and Catherine got married the rules for the line of succession were still that a son would be higher in line of succession than a daughter regardless of the birth order. That change was only agreed upon 6 months after their marriage.

Had that change not been applied the eldest son would have been the future heir, so there had not been a need to issue LPs as there would not have been the risk of a daughter who would be a future monarch being outranked by a younger brother lower in the line of succession.

Still, I don't believe no annoucement on Harry's wedding day means LPs are less likely. Perhaps the queen will do nothing but I don't see more reason to believe that she won't.

It's indeed a different situation but it shows that changes in titles are common - whether it is a compelling argument is up for debate ;) . Furthermore, I also provided examples of family members styled as ladies at birth being upgraded to princess.

The opposite also happened: (royal) highnesses that were downgraded to 'courtesy titles'.

And I'm not denying anything you've said. I'm just pointing out why this is a very specific case that makes the Queen issuing LPs more plausible than some seem to think.


The palace begs to differ. They state that they are not royal highnesses as the queen's will has been made known.

I still think it would be very inconsistent for the queen to make the decision that her grandchildren who were entitled to being prince and princess not to be granted that title and on the other hand granting that same title to great grandchildren who only need to wait a little while for them to be entitled that title (assuming that Charles one day will be king, otherwise there wouldn't be a good reason to make them princes and princesses at all). I would assume there was some reasoning behind the decision that was made, so unless she has a very good reason (something else than 'Charles likes his son better than his brother'), it could be interpreted as a snub to Edward: your children aren't important enough but any potential great-grandchildren by Harry are.

To your first point, I thought I remember reading different. Whatever the case, it doesn't change the main point, which is that there are inconsistencies all over the place based on both precedence and personal preferences. Andrew's daughters are HRH but Edward's children aren't. Should that be interpreted as a snub to Edward? What about the great grandchildren "spares" Charlotte and Louis? Does the queen issuing LPs covering them suggests she loves them more or that they are more important than her grandchildren?
 
Still, I don't believe no annoucement on Harry's wedding day means LPs are less likely. Perhaps the queen will do nothing but I don't see more reason to believe that she won't.
That's fine with me. It seems that we at least agree that the fact that no announcement was made doesn't make it almost a certainty that LPs will be issued. She may or she may not.

And I'm not denying anything you've said. I'm just pointing out why this is a very specific case that makes the Queen issuing LPs more plausible than some seem to think.
I assume you refer to the argument that they will become royal highnesses as soon as Charles ascends the throne? That is currently indeed the expectation but could change 😄

To your first point, I thought I remember reading different. Whatever the case, it doesn't change the main point, which is that there are inconsistencies all over the place based on both precedence and personal preferences. Andrew's daughters are HRH but Edward's children aren't. Should that be interpreted as a snub to Edward? What about the great grandchildren "spares" Charlotte and Louis? Does the queen issuing LPs covering them suggests she loves them more or that they are more important than her grandchildren?
I agree the choice for Edward's children not to be HRH was not consistent.

The queen didn't decide that the spares would need to be royal highnesses (and yes, they are more important than (great)grandchildren by a non-future monarch!). Rather, she figured that it would be bad optics if George had been Georgie that both girls would have been Lady Georgie and Lady Charlotte, while higher in the line of succession (including future queen Georgie) while younger brother Louis would have been HRH prince Louis of Cambridge as the eldest son of the eldest son of the prince of Wales. So, the LPs were issued to make sure that the eldest child of William and Catherine would be a royal highness independent of gender. Moreover, I like that siblings are styled the same but I'm not sure that was a consideration for the queen...
 
To your first point, I thought I remember reading different.

I wasn't sure on this issue so wrote directly to BP who wrote back that Louise and James were not entitled to HRH due to The Queen's Will having been made known.

Other people have said other things - which is why I wrote in person - to get it from the 'horse's mouth' as they say.

I believe the reason they went this way was so as not to strip HRH from either Andrew's daughters or the Queen's cousins but in time that may very well be the intention - that only the children of the heir will be HRH. That is even more relevant now that Charlotte remains higher in the line of succession than Louis but under the 1917 LPs Charlotte can't pass on HRH but Louis will be able to do so. To get a smaller royal family they need fewer people getting HRH and that is why I believe this approach was taken in 1999.
 
I assume you refer to the argument that they will become royal highnesses as soon as Charles ascends the throne? That is currently indeed the expectation but could change 😄

Of course but such decisions are always based on expectation, yeah?


I agree the choice for Edward's children not to be HRH was not consistent.

The queen didn't decide that the spares would need to be royal highnesses (and yes, they are more important than (great)grandchildren by a non-future monarch!). Rather, she figured that it would be bad optics if George had been Georgie that both girls would have been Lady Georgie and Lady Charlotte, while higher in the line of succession (including future queen Georgie) while younger brother Louis would have been HRH prince Louis of Cambridge as the eldest son of the eldest son of the prince of Wales. So, the LPs were issued to make sure that the eldest child of William and Catherine would be a royal highness independent of gender. Moreover, I like that siblings are styled the same but I'm not sure that was a consideration for the queen...

Yes and this goes back to my point, which is that these decisions are made based on the circumstances of the royal, their position, their feelings about titles, etc. So if the Queen did issue LPs for Harry's children, my first thought wouldn't be to interpret it as snub to Edward and I doubt Edward would see it that way either.
 
I still think it would be very inconsistent for the queen to make the decision that her grandchildren who were entitled to being prince and princess not to be granted that title and on the other hand granting that same title to great grandchildren who only need to wait a little while for them to be entitled that title (assuming that Charles one day will be king, otherwise there wouldn't be a good reason to make them princes and princesses at all). I would assume there was some reasoning behind the decision that was made, so unless she has a very good reason (something else than 'Charles likes his son better than his brother'), it could be interpreted as a snub to Edward: your children aren't important enough but any potential great-grandchildren by Harry are.


You’ve overlooked why the Wessex children don’t have titles; first it is always important to remember that the decision that Edward and Sophie’s children would not have titles was made in the 1990s, when support for the monarchy was at a low. Second, it’s also important to remember that at the time, Edward and Sophie were not expected to take up royal duties. Thirdly, and most importantly, the decision has always been presented as one made by Edward, Sophie, and the Queen together. The titles of any of William or Harry’s children - when there is more support for the monarchy, when the Cambridges and Sussexes are working royals, and when (assuming, on Harry and Meghan’s behalf) the parents want their children to have titles - should not be impacted in any way by a decision made by Edward and Sophie almost 20 years ago.

Secondly, for the overall argument of whether or not a lack of a statement at the time of Harry and Meghan’s wedding means anything, we should actually look at how the royal family works. LPs typically aren’t issued for people who aren’t conceived yet. The LPs for the Cambridge children were issued when Kate was pregnant with George. The LPs for the then-Edinburgh children (who would have otherwise been styled as the children of a Duke) were not issued until the then Princess Elizabeth was pregnant with Charles. Going further back, Princesses Alexandra and Louise of Fife were teenagers before their grandfather issued LPs to make the royals, and the three eldest children of the then-Duke of York (later George V) were all born before Queen Victoria issued LPs elevating them to HRH status.

In all likelihood, the BRF found no reason to issue any statement as for the time, any children born to Harry and Meghan will have the titles of the children of a Duke - there’s no need to issue a statement saying that children that aren’t conceived yet are going to have the style that they’re already intended to have based on the current LPs, nor is there any reason to expect LPs to be issued to elevate them at this point, as again no child is conceived yet.

If it is the intention that the Queen will elevate any future Sussex children, it is fair to expect the LPs will be issued during Meghan’s first pregnancy - just based on the precedent set during Kate’s first pregnancy and the Queen’s first pregnancy. At the same time, if it is the intention that any future Sussex children will not be elevated to the HRH title/styling when Charles is King, I would likewise expect such a statement during (or shortly after) Meghan’s first pregnancy - just so that it’s established before Charles becomes king. If, on the other hand, some course of events happen wherein Harry and Meghan don’t have children until Charles is king, then no LPs would be needed, but again I don’t think any statement about “downgrading” the children would be made until Meghan is pregnant. Ditto in the event that something happens to Charles before he becomes King, I think any LPs elevating future Sussex children would still not be issued until they’re at least conceived (with either the Queen elevating them or William doing so when he becomes king).
 
I wasn't sure on this issue so wrote directly to BP who wrote back that Louise and James were not entitled to HRH due to The Queen's Will having been made known.

Other people have said other things - which is why I wrote in person - to get it from the 'horse's mouth' as they say.

I believe the reason they went this way was so as not to strip HRH from either Andrew's daughters or the Queen's cousins but in time that may very well be the intention - that only the children of the heir will be HRH. That is even more relevant now that Charlotte remains higher in the line of succession than Louis but under the 1917 LPs Charlotte can't pass on HRH but Louis will be able to do so. To get a smaller royal family they need fewer people getting HRH and that is why I believe this approach was taken in 1999.

I think this is what some people would like to see but I don't really see a reason to believe that this is/was the thought process.

Edward was a very specific case, with him being the last of four children, not a senior working royal at the time, and not exactly popular either, thus there would not even be much of murmur over his children not being styled HRH.
 
If you are referring to Louise and James that is not what BP has told me. I sent them a letter to ask and they sent me a reply - which I have posted elsewhere on this forum stating that Louise and James have been deprived of HRH by The Queen's Will being made known.

At the moment we don't have the Letters Patent for Harry's title but we do have The Queen's Will having made known so Harry is Duke of Oxford.

There are three ways for titles to be created:

1. Letters Patent
2. Royal Warrant
3. The Queen's Will - this is what was done for Louise and James (and currently for Harry's Sussex title).

I've found the letter that you mentioned having posted, and agree that it makes clear the interpretation given by Buckingham Palace.

The letter is as follows:

Dear xxxxx (sorry not making public my name)

Thank you for your request for clarification about the question of the styling of the children of HRH The Earl of Wessex.

You are correct in your interpretation of the announcement made in 1999.

The Queen's Will was made known on HRH The Earl of Wessex's wedding day and as such none of his children do now, nor will in the future, have the style of HRH Prince or Princess. As Her Majesty is the fount of all honours all that is needed for a style to be given or taken, except for a substantive peerage, is that Her Majesty's Will is made known.

Thank you for your interest in this subject.



The announcement on the Wessexes' wedding day stated that their future children would not be "given the style" Royal Highness. The announcement did not explain the reason, but it said that the decision was made by the Queen, with the agreement of the couple.


Title of HRH The Prince Edward

The Queen has today been pleased to confer an Earldom on The Prince Edward. His titles will be Earl of Wessex and Viscount Severn. The Prince Edward thus becomes His Royal Highness The Earl of Wessex and Miss Sophie Rhys-Jones on marriage will become Her Royal Highness The Countess of Wessex.

The Queen, The Duke of Edinburgh and The Prince of Wales have also agreed that The Prince Edward should be given the Dukedom of Edinburgh in due course, when the present title now held by Prince Philip eventually reverts to the Crown.

The Queen has also decided, with the agreement of The Prince Edward and Miss Rhys-Jones, that any children they might have should not be given the style His or Her Royal Highness, but would have courtesy titles as sons or daughters of an Earl.
 
You’ve overlooked why the Wessex children don’t have titles
I interpret it differently; that's something different than overlooking it :flowers:

Secondly, for the overall argument of whether or not a lack of a statement at the time of Harry and Meghan’s wedding means anything, we should actually look at how the royal family works. LPs typically aren’t issued for people who aren’t conceived yet. The LPs for the Cambridge children were issued when Kate was pregnant with George. The LPs for the then-Edinburgh children (who would have otherwise been styled as the children of a Duke) were not issued until the then Princess Elizabeth was pregnant with Charles. Going further back, Princesses Alexandra and Louise of Fife were teenagers before their grandfather issued LPs to make the royals, and the three eldest children of the then-Duke of York (later George V) were all born before Queen Victoria issued LPs elevating them to HRH status.

In all likelihood, the BRF found no reason to issue any statement as for the time, any children born to Harry and Meghan will have the titles of the children of a Duke - there’s no need to issue a statement saying that children that aren’t conceived yet are going to have the style that they’re already intended to have based on the current LPs, nor is there any reason to expect LPs to be issued to elevate them at this point, as again no child is conceived yet.

If it is the intention that the Queen will elevate any future Sussex children, it is fair to expect the LPs will be issued during Meghan’s first pregnancy - just based on the precedent set during Kate’s first pregnancy and the Queen’s first pregnancy. At the same time, if it is the intention that any future Sussex children will not be elevated to the HRH title/styling when Charles is King, I would likewise expect such a statement during (or shortly after) Meghan’s first pregnancy - just so that it’s established before Charles becomes king. If, on the other hand, some course of events happen wherein Harry and Meghan don’t have children until Charles is king, then no LPs would be needed, but again I don’t think any statement about “downgrading” the children would be made until Meghan is pregnant. Ditto in the event that something happens to Charles before he becomes King, I think any LPs elevating future Sussex children would still not be issued until they’re at least conceived (with either the Queen elevating them or William doing so when he becomes king).

With all of the above I agree. I was mainly 'protesting' the idea that because nothing was announced it MUST mean that LPs will be issued in due time.

I am sure the have some ideas about how they want to go about any titles for Harry's children (if he would have any) and if that means that the Sovereign's will needs to be made known or LPs issued they will indeed most likely do so when (and if) Meghan is pregnant.
 
I wasn't sure on this issue so wrote directly to BP who wrote back that Louise and James were not entitled to HRH due to The Queen's Will having been made known.

Other people have said other things - which is why I wrote in person - to get it from the 'horse's mouth' as they say.

I believe the reason they went this way was so as not to strip HRH from either Andrew's daughters or the Queen's cousins but in time that may very well be the intention - that only the children of the heir will be HRH. That is even more relevant now that Charlotte remains higher in the line of succession than Louis but under the 1917 LPs Charlotte can't pass on HRH but Louis will be able to do so. To get a smaller royal family they need fewer people getting HRH and that is why I believe this approach was taken in 1999.

They could've easily issued a new LP and not make it retroactive. This Queen doesn't deviate from tradition unless there is a reason for her to. And when she deviates, she does it on a case by case basis. I believe Edward and Sophie wanted it, and given that they weren't intended to be full time royals at that time and expected to carry on a private career contributed to that.

Now my personal belief is that any Sussex children would remain titled as that of a duke and not receive HRH when Charles becomes king. I just can't see Meghan and Harry would want HRH for their children when they will lead a private life. And I believe in this type of circumstance, even though the sovereign has the final word, the parents' wish would likely be respected. But they've certainly left the door open to a possibility.
 
Last edited:
I interpret it differently; that's something different than overlooking it :flowers:

With all of the above I agree. I was mainly 'protesting' the idea that because nothing was announced it MUST mean that LPs will be issued in due time.

I am sure the have some ideas about how they want to go about any titles for Harry's children (if he would have any) and if that means that the Sovereign's will needs to be made known or LPs issued they will indeed most likely do so when (and if) Meghan is pregnant.

JMO, but I think HM has been OK with letting her children make the choice on this - and when the time comes she has taken action, if needed with a LP or formal announcement. She is far more patient about sharing her intentions that we are waiting to know them.

I think she wisely understands that Charles may not agree entirely with the practice of "we will let people choose." Time will tell and again, JMO - my read on him.

For Harry and Meghan, this would mean we will probably know for sure when they have children. Because I also believe Charles will signal this in subtle ways, but follow his Mum in making formal announcements (LPs) in the fullness of time.
 
Well, here it is; and nothing unusual either:

https://www.thegazette.co.uk/notice/3071743




Crown Office
Publication date:
19 July 2018, 12:04
Edition:
The London Gazette
Notice ID:
3071743
Notice code:
1108
Crown Office
In accordance with the direction of HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN Letters Patent have passed the Great Seal of the Realm, dated the 16th July 2018 granting unto Her Majesty’s Grandson, His Royal Highness Prince Henry Charles Albert David of Wales, K.C.V.O., and the heirs male of his body lawfully begotten the dignities of Baron Kilkeel, Earl of Dumbarton, and Duke of Sussex.




So that settles that... (we hope 😄 )
 
:previous:

Thank you, Duke of Leaside. Not surprising, but has it been confirmed who decided that the remainder be heirs male (the Queen, the Sussexes, or the Government)?
 
We'll see what happens when Meghan gets pregnant. Depending on when this is, it might not even be necessary to elevate a child to HRH status.
 
So they are just following a pattern of it getting later and later. When it comes to George's turn (if he's not the Prince of Wales when he marries), we might need to wait six months at this rate. Louis' might take a year. Silliness. :whistling:

Now, I'm waiting for the next round of "Feminist Meghan surprised her daughters won't inherit title" :lol:
 
Now, I'm waiting for the next round of "Feminist Meghan surprised her daughters won't inherit title" :lol:

Please give it a rest with all this feminist munbo jumbo

After all the peer is Prince Harry, Duchess of Sussex is a courtesy title derived from her husband.
If she was so hell bent to adhere to her so called feminist agenda as it is claimed, she could have turned down this style and asked to be the peer in her own right. Last time I checked, She is the Duchess of Sussex and she is not making any fuss about it. I've got the feeling that some people are projecting their twisted agenda just to create controversies and angles of attack to somehow bring her down. She never expressed any view about sexism within the peerage system. For God's sake, let the girl just be married to the man she loves. This is the only truth the rest is mere hateful speculation and this is getting tiring.
 
Last edited:
:previous: In no way was Jacqui24 attacking the Duchess of Sussex...she is a geat supporter and defender of Meghan on this site for which I applaud her wholeheartedly!:lol:

She was just referring to what the idiotic tabloids and maybe the American media will print when Meghan's first pregnancy is announced.:whistling:
 
:previous:

Thank you, Duke of Leaside. Not surprising, but has it been confirmed who decided that the remainder be heirs male (the Queen, the Sussexes, or the Government)?

I'm not even sure a decision was needed as this follows tradition - had the queen wanted to deviate she most likely would have discussed it with the government. And surely the Sussexes were not in a position to make a decision on their title as they don't grant titles but just received them..
 
We'll see what happens when Meghan gets pregnant. Depending on when this is, it might not even be necessary to elevate a child to HRH status.


There is no reason to elevate them to HRH status from birth and I doubt that will be done.


Well, here it is; and nothing unusual either:

https://www.thegazette.co.uk/notice/3071743




Crown Office
Publication date:
19 July 2018, 12:04
Edition:
The London Gazette
Notice ID:
3071743
Notice code:
1108
Crown Office
In accordance with the direction of HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN Letters Patent have passed the Great Seal of the Realm, dated the 16th July 2018 granting unto Her Majesty’s Grandson, His Royal Highness Prince Henry Charles Albert David of Wales, K.C.V.O., and the heirs male of his body lawfully begotten the dignities of Baron Kilkeel, Earl of Dumbarton, and Duke of Sussex.




So that settles that... (we hope 😄 )




Technical question: what is the difference between a "dignity" and a "title" ?
 
Last edited:
There is no reason to elevate them to HRH status from birth and I doubt that will be done.







Technical question: what is the difference between a "dignity" and a "title" ?


As for a reason to elevate them from birth: maybe Charles wants them to have the rank by birth they will have once he is king?


According to Wiki (I know...) the word dignity is a synonym for name, state, degree, style, title or honour.


Plus this posting in the gazette is just the announcement that Letters Patent (which means: public announcement of the transfer of the dignity) have been created. Since 1992 the exact words on the Letters Patent are fixed according to Wiki:
The form of letters patent for creating peerages has been fixed by the Crown Office (Forms and Proclamations Rules) Order 1992 (SI 1992/1730). Part III of the schedule lays down nine pro forma texts for creating various ranks of the peerage, lords of appeal in ordinary, and baronets.


As the complete Letters Patent have not been published as far as I know, it could well be that they contain a special reminder for the inheritance of daughters in case no son is being born. Or for the firstborn to inherit, no matter the gender. That wouldn't change the fact that the Letters Patent for the creation of a Duke, Earl and Baron pro forma are all for the person to be elevated and their male offspring. Because that's the tradition. So the announcement in the Gazette would be true but still Harry's female kids could inherit - we just won't know till someone sees the actual Letters Patent.
 
Last edited:
The LPs have been published - 'heirs male of his body lawfully begotten' - as seen in Post #132 above.

That is the complete Gazette entry and so the complete LP for the creation of the Sussex title for Harry.

If he only has daughters - like Andrew - the title won't be passed on. If he has a daughter first and then a son - like Edward - the son will inherit and not the daughter who will have no claim on the title.
 
The LPs have been published - 'heirs male of his body lawfully begotten' - as seen in Post #132 above.

That is the complete Gazette entry and so the complete LP for the creation of the Sussex title for Harry.


No, that is not right. The notice in the Gazette only announced that Letters Patent have been created.



According to The Crown Office (Forms and Proclamations Rules) Order 1992


Letters Patent creating Dukes read in their standard text as follows:


uksi_19921730_en_008



Harry's are surely a variant thereof, because he as a Royal Duke cannot take a seat in parliament. But as this depends completely on the will of HM, she can make as many changes as she want. Still the announcement in the Gazette would read the same, but there could be special reminders in the text of the document.


So no, we don't know what the queen actually granted Harry apart from the fact that he got the dignity of being Duke of Sussex (plus the other titles) and that his male heirs lawfully begotten can inherit. We don't know if his female heirs can inherit, too and in which way the line of succession to his titles is organized.



Of course, probably it's just the normal Letters Patent without special reminders but it could be different and we don't know that.
 
It would be misleading to publish one thing while something else would be the case. So, unless clear evidence is presented that the Gazette entry is incorrect I don't see a reason to assume that the inheritance of his titles is something else than males heir to the body lawfully begotten.
 
The Gazette is the paper of formal record. The announcements of State never contain the preamble and fancy language of the Letters Patent.

We are provided with all the relevant information. Letters Patent were passed under the great seal of the realm to grant Harry a dukedom and the remainder is to his heirs male.

That’s a wrap folks.
 
Last edited:
The Gazette is the paper of formal record. The announcements of State never contain the preamble and fancy language of the Letters Patent.

We are provided with all the relevant information. Letters Patent were passed under the great seal of the realm to grant Harry a dukedom and the remainder is to the heirs male.

That’s a wrap folks.


I'm not sure they'd announce special reminders in the Gazette, though. Did they do it with Lord Mountbatten?


Plus there are even cases where something is only announced in the Gazette and not in the actual Letters Patent but is obviously still valid, as there is no special form required to express the will of HM.
http://www.heraldica.org/topics/britain/prince_highness_docs.htm#1957
 
Last edited:
Well the remainder is what it is. ‘Special’ or otherwise. It’s to the heirs male lawfully begotten. The Gazette just didn’t make it up.
 
As for a reason to elevate them from birth: maybe Charles wants them to have the rank by birth they will have once he is king?
...

We won't find this out until Meghan becomes pregnant, if I'm reading along in this thread correctly. ;)

There's no way to 100% know M&H's feelings on the matter until a child is conceived and further action is taken or not taken. If no further action is taken, I would assume that in accordance with Prince Charles' expressed desire to streamline the royal family, that M&H's children will hold titles due the offspring of a Duke.

We all know how much Prince Harry struggled himself with being known as a prince (especially during his twenties), until he came to grips with his royal heritage and realized that he had status and a platform to make a difference for others.

That said, we still do not know for sure what the Sussexes' desires might be for their future offspring. Perhaps it will be decided to wait until Prince Charles becomes King and then elevate the status of M&H's offspring. Or, once Meghan conceives, LP may be issued for M&H's children to be styled HRH Prince/Princess. Or, once styled Earl/Lady at birth, they will retain those titles for life in order to ease huge burdens of limelight attention.

Seemingly, there's a lot that will go into a final decision being made. Or, perhaps a final decision has already been made, with the desires of the Sussexes playing a major part.
 
If no further action is taken any children they may have will be royal highnesses when Charles ascends the throne. So, the ways for them not to end up as royal highnesses are (next yo not being born): Charles doesn't ascend the throne or the Sovereign's will is made known (in one way or another) that they won't (but instead most likely be styled as children of a non-royal duke).
 
:previous: Right, but further action could be taken when Meghan becomes pregnant for the Queen to make M&H's offspring HRH Prince/Princess from birth. Or right, nothing will be done and they will automatically be styled as children of a duke, and once Prince Charles inherits the throne, their titles might be elevated, or not if M&H have decided differently.

I'm not sure why you are saying 'non-royal' though since Harry is definitely royal.
 
Last edited:
Well the remainder is what it is. ‘Special’ or otherwise. It’s to the heirs male lawfully begotten. The Gazette just didn’t make it up.


What the Gazette reported was the "traditional" text. Which is true - no special reminder would exclude the "heirs male lawfully begotten". That it doesn't mention any special reminders does not mean there aren't any.
I totally agree that in all likelihood that is the way the Letters Patent were given by HM's wishes. But we don't know for sure, till someone actually sees the Letters Patent for Harry. That's all I wanted to express.
We simply cannot discuss something we don't know for real if it is the whole truth. IMHO, of course.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom