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.
The Queen didn't overrule anything. Letters Patent regarding royal styles aren't legally binding. I'm not talking about peerages, but royal styles and titles.

Some things to remember. The sovereign and the sovereign alone decides royal styles for members of his or her family. The advice of ministers isn't used here.

Another thing is the title of 'prince/ss' in Britain is a title of courtesy denoting nothing more than a certain degree of relation to the sovereign.

The title of prince/ss confers no legal protections or status that can be defended in a court of law.

The best way to look at the Letters Patent of 1917 is it serves as a template and nothing more.

It's the sovereign's will and pleasure that matters, not how his or her will is expressed.

And back to Harry, I'm not suggesting Harry's children will be denied the title by Charles, I'm simply suggesting Harry himself my ask for them not to be royal highnesses.
 
Last edited:
The Queen didn't overrule anything. Letters Patent regarding royal styles aren't legally binding. I'm not talking about peerages, but royal styles and titles.

Some things to remember. The sovereign and the sovereign alone decides royal styles for members of his or her family. The advice of ministers isn't used here.

Curious, I thought you were one the TRF members who thought an act of Parliament would be needed for Camilla to be princess consort rather than queen.

And, of, course, letters patent are a legal instrument that is legally binding. They are even used for the appointment e.g. of the Governor-General of Canada.
 
Let us agree that -like the children of his uncle the Earl of Wessex- the children of Prince Henry of Wales will become entitled to the title Prince(ss) of the United Kingdom indeed, with HRH as a form of address.

And that -like the children of his uncle the Earl of Wessex- also the children of Prince Henry of Wales probably will not be known with this title and form of address but alternatively will become known as Lord (Lady) indeed: such an eventual de facto situation does not take away the rights de jure.
 
Nothing is written in stone. Can't check the "Royal Titles and Styles" manual for the ins and outs of a royal prerogative.
....
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.

I never knew that William didn't want a Dukedom. When was this happening?
 
Curious, I thought you were one the TRF members who thought an act of Parliament would be needed for Camilla to be princess consort rather than queen.

And, of, course, letters patent are a legal instrument that is legally binding. They are even used for the appointment e.g. of the Governor-General of Canada.


Mbruno, sometimes I wonder if you really believe what you're saying or if you're just deliberately provoking a fight....

It is debated whether or not the Queen has the power to strip a person who is not yet born of titles they'll have via just her "will", as happened with the Wessex children (as the declaration about the titles of the children of the Earl and Countess of Wessex was made upon their marriage, not the birth of their first child). That means that there is a debate as to whether legally the Wessex children are HRH Princess Louise of Wessex and HRH Prince James of Wessex, but go by the courtesy titles owed to them as children of an Earl or if they are legally not HRHs at all.

Either the Queen has the power to strip them of the titles, or her declaration was that they would be known by their lesser titles instead. It is not in any way illegal for them to be known by lesser titles - no one debates the legality of Camilla being called HRH The Duchess of Cornwall instead of HRH The Princess of Wales, when she holds both titles.

Personally, I think in regards to the Wessexes, this was done with deliberate uncertainty. By having the actual titles of the children vague and up for debate, the Queen has left room for the Wessexes to one day he styled as Royals with little fuss about it if and when the time comes that it is desirable for them to be styled as such.

As for Camilla's future titles, that's a different can of worms. It is one thing to say someone who isn't born yet will go by a set of titles. It is another thing to take away a title from a person already holding it (which Camilla will the INSTANT her husband becomes king). Creating morganatic law within Britain and denying a woman a courtesy title owed to her by marriage requires an act of parliament. Granting Camilla a lesser title in her own right and having her go by that instead of Queen, while still retaining the title of Queen would not.
 
I never knew that William didn't want a Dukedom. When was this happening?

Before the wedding. Just keep in mind, we don't KNOW this, we choose to believe it or not. It all depends on what leaks/reports/versions you think are credible. :ermm:
 
Before the wedding. Just keep in mind, we don't KNOW this, we choose to believe it or not. It all depends on what leaks/reports/versions you think are credible. :ermm:

That sounds not very credible to me because Prince William was going to become Duke of Cornwall, Duke of Rothesay etc. anyway, on his way to be one of the most titled Peers in the United Kingdom.
 
Curious, I thought you were one the TRF members who thought an act of Parliament would be needed for Camilla to be princess consort rather than queen.

And, of, course, letters patent are a legal instrument that is legally binding. They are even used for the appointment e.g. of the Governor-General of Canada.

In the absence of statute we look to common law. Common law evolves in different areas, in different ways.

Camilla as queen has it's own thread and involves not just royal styles but also marriage and a wife taking her husband rank upon marriage so I won't get into that here.

As for Harry's children. Letters Patent issued without the advice of ministers isn't legally binding. It expresses nothing more than the sovereign's will.

Being a prince just means you're related to the sovereign. As of 1917 it means you're either a son of a sovereign, a male line grandson of a sovereign or the children of the eldest son of The Prince of Wales. That's it.

It confers no rights or privileges that can be defended in a court of law. Nothing 'legal' about it. It isn't a peerage.

At any time and for any reason the Queen can change who is a prince or princess. She can do it by Letters Patent, she can do it by Royal Warrant, she can do via a press conference, she can shout it from a rooftop.

The means by which she expresses her will in this particular area of common law isn't important. It's her will that matters. She is the only person who decides such matters.

Is she says Harry's children will be styled as prince/ss, that's what happens. If she says they won't be prince/ss, that's also what happens.
 
Last edited:
I never knew that William didn't want a Dukedom. When was this happening?

IMO absolute nonsense,. This story abt William was going round a few yaers ago that he did not want a dukedom and that he wanted Kate to be known as Princess Catherine. Its absolute baloney IMO. He is not such an idiot (Ones hopes) as to think he could buck the trend of his being given a dukedom when he married or to think that K could be made Princess Catherine. I dont rate his intelligence high but I dont think he's so stupid.
Im sure he would not even want to "not have a dukedom" and Im sure it was the same with Edward, that he accepted the Earl of Wessex title, because of the feeling at the time that the RF should be less "grandiose" and in the expectation that he would be a royal duke later on

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

I would think so.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
IMO absolute nonsense,. This story abt William was going round a few yaers ago that he did not want a dukedom and that he wanted Kate to be known as Princess Catherine. Its absolute baloney IMO. He is not such an idiot (Ones hopes) as to think he could buck the trend of his being given a dukedom when he married or to think that K could be made Princess Catherine. I dont rate his intelligence high but I dont think he's so stupid.
Im sure he would not even want to "not have a dukedom" and Im sure it was the same with Edward, that he accepted the Earl of Wessex title, because of the feeling at the time that the RF should be less "grandiose" and in the expectation that he would be a royal duke later on

That's the beauty of opinions. One can hold onto whatever one thinks regardless of facts presented.

Its true that its just a rumor that went around about William though. He "may* have asked to have those titles and styles but as he's said himself in a video interview, "you don't mess with your grandmother". :D

One thing that we have to remember here too is that people that actually swim day to day in the royal fishbowl may not see things the same as the everyday Joe Schmoe on the street. The grandiose titles and being known as royalty or other titles may seem the epitome of great status whereas the royal fishies just might think how nice it would be to have the freedom Joe Schmoe has. No one pays him any mind, he comes and goes as he pleases and can pick his nose in public if he wants and its not blasted instantly all over the globe.

The grass is not always greener on the other side of the fence.
 
What facts? Edward harldly asked for the Earl of wessex because he had seen it in a movie.. It woudld be ridiculous. he got the Earl of Wessex becuase it has a royal connection. The fact that it was announced that he would in due course be Duke of Edinburgh shows that the Queen wasn't happy witht his merely being an earl.
And if William really asked for Kate to be titled Princess Catherine he must be much stupider than i thought him to be.
 
What facts? Edward harldly asked for the Earl of wessex because he had seen it in a movie.. It woudld be ridiculous. he got the Earl of Wessex becuase it has a royal connection. The fact that it was announced that he would in due course be Duke of Edinburgh shows that the Queen wasn't happy witht his merely being an earl.
And if William really asked for Kate to be titled Princess Catherine he must be much stupider than i thought him to be.

Whatever. :whistling:

To repeat what Lumutqueen has posted, there is no royal connection to the title of Earl of Wessex. It hasn't been used since the 11th century.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wessex
 
Last edited:
Let's now move on please - back to "Titles and Styles of Harry, his Future Wife and Children" - thanks.
 
The Queen cannot overrule Letters Patent from a former sovereign by a court circular. That is unlawful.


She can, and has done so, via her own LPs - e.g. in 2012 when she issued the LPs giving HRH to all William's children not just the eldest son. Then she overturned the LPs of George V from 1917.

George VI also overturned his father' LPs by issuing his own LPs governing the children of Elizabeth herself.

The arguments about the Wessex children is whether or not LPs are needed to strip them of their rights as HRHs or whether 'The Queen's Will' is enough. Another example of this is that William was referred to officially in the CC as Duke of Cambridge for nearly a month before the actual LPs were issued on the 26th May. The Queen made her will known on the 29th April and so that was seen as enough for that to be the start date of that title but the actual documents weren't signed and sealed until the end of May. Compare that to Andrew and Edward whose LPs were signed and sealed on their wedding days.
 
Whatever. :whistling:

To repeat what Lumutqueen has posted, there is no royal connection to the title of Earl of Wessex. It hasn't been used since the 11th century.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wessex

But that's just the way things cycle, isn't it? I mean, we think of Kent as having a very strong association with the royal family because it has been a royal dukedom for the last 150 years, but for 700 years it wasn't.*

These long-dormant titles with only the slightest (if any) royal history are given to lesser royals so that their branch of the family will have titles that continue even after their line has ceased to be royal, and then the next generation revives a new round of dormant titles, which briefly makes them royal again before their line passes into the non-royal aristocracy...wash, rinse, repeat. Some manage to stay close to the crown, through strings of bad luck, like the Duke of York, but most don't.

If I were a superstitious person, I'd say it's a relief for that Harry won't get to be Duke of York. If you look at the history of that title, it really is all younger sons of kings, but that's only because it's also a rather extraordinary string of dukes who ended up on the throne because their older brother died young and dukes who had no sons to inherit the title. Things tend to go badly for Yorks or their older brothers. Well, and Edward Plantagenet, who seized the throne. There always seems to be drama or trauma when there's a Duke of York. Andrew's may be the tamest of the bunch.

*Kent was created as an earldom for a Godwinson, then William the Conqueror gave it to his brother, Odo. I'm pretty sure the Kent title wasn't associated with a royal again until the reign of George III.
 
Kinda like the Duke of Clarence...not such good things or happy times associated with that title.
 
Could Prince Harry receive the title of Duke of St. Andrews?
 
Could Prince Harry receive the title of Duke of St. Andrews?

I don't think so as the title Earl of St Andrews is already in use.

It is currently the courtesy title used by the eldest son and heir to HRH Duke of Kent.

Full style is HRH Duke of Kent, Earl of St Andrews and Baron Downpatrick.
 
Anyway, a Scottish Dukedom is hardly likely to be given to any of the Queen's or King Charles's male descendants as another referendum on Scottish independence is probable in the future, and may succeed.
 
Anyway, a Scottish Dukedom is hardly likely to be given to any of the Queen's or King Charles's male descendants as another referendum on Scottish independence is probable in the future, and may succeed.

last time, they said they wanted to keep the Queen as Head of State :whistling:

In the recent flurry of chat about Harry getting married, the consensus by Royal journalists was Duke of Sussex
 
Harry will pretty much be assured to get a Scottish title. They use them when in Scotland. But the chances of it being his primary title are minimal. Philip, and Edward likely, will be the exception. They all get a list of titles.

William has Cambridge (England), Strathearn (Scotland) Carrivkfergus (NI)
Charles has Scottish and English subsidiary
Andrew has York (England) Inverness (Scotland) and a northern Irish
As an earl Edward only has two, his subsidiary Severn is welsh
Philip has Edinburgh, Merioneth which is in Wales, and Greenwich for England
Duke of Kent has St. Andrews for Scotland and Downpatrick for Northern Ireland
Duke of Gloucester has ulster for Northern Ireland and culloden fir Scotland
 
Does Buckingham hold titles in the other countries as well?


LaRae
 
Harry will pretty much be assured to get a Scottish title. They use them when in Scotland. But the chances of it being his primary title are minimal. Philip, and Edward likely, will be the exception. They all get a list of titles.

William has Cambridge (England), Strathearn (Scotland) Carrivkfergus (NI)
Charles has Scottish and English subsidiary
Andrew has York (England) Inverness (Scotland) and a northern Irish
As an earl Edward only has two, his subsidiary Severn is welsh
Philip has Edinburgh, Merioneth which is in Wales, and Greenwich for England
Duke of Kent has St. Andrews for Scotland and Downpatrick for Northern Ireland
Duke of Gloucester has ulster for Northern Ireland and culloden fir Scotland
Andrew's NI title is Baron Killyleagh
 
Does Buckingham hold titles in the other countries as well?


LaRae

There hasn't been a duke of buckingham since the 1800s nor has it been granted to a royal Prince. But no, in previous creation, the subsidiary titles were local, usually stemming from an elevation of a lower title.

It is with Royal dukes we see this, though possibly with others. Albert victor was duke of Clarence and Avondale, later of which is Scottish, and had an Irish earldom.

Among Victoria kids
Alfred was Duke of Edinburgh, but had ulster for Ireland and Kent for England
Arthur had Connaught and Strathearn which are Irish and Scottish, but subsidiary Sussex for England.
Leopold had Albany which is Scottish. Arklow which is Irish and Clarence English.

Kids of George III had double title, and Irish subsidiary
Frederick was duke of York and Albany, Scottish and English.
William was Clarence for England and St. Andrews for Scotland,
Edward was English Kent and Scottish Strathearn
Ernst had Cumberland English, treviotdale Scotland
Augustus was English Sussex and Scottish Inverness
Adolphus was English Cambridge and Scottish culloden
 
Last edited:
Could be added that Edward VII's sons were Albert Victor, Duke of Clarence (England) and Avondale (Scotland), Earl of Athlone (Ireland) and George, Duke of York (England), Earl of Inverness (Scotland), Baron Killarney (Ireland).

Like his father, George VI was Duke of York, Earl of Inverness, Baron Killarney.
 
I included Albert victor, I did miss George though. Andrew broke the mood in duke of York, in having a different irish title. Of course, since Killarney is in the Republic of Ireland, when Andrew was made duke of York, it required a change in Irish title.
 
Last edited:
Could be added that Edward VII's sons were Albert Victor, Duke of Clarence (England) and Avondale (Scotland), Earl of Athlone (Ireland) and George, Duke of York (England), Earl of Inverness (Scotland), Baron Killarney (Ireland).

Like his father, George VI was Duke of York, Earl of Inverness, Baron Killarney.

This still happens, the distribution over Realms:

Edward will be Duke of Edinburgh (Scotland), Earl of Wessex (England) and Viscount Severn (Wales)

Andrew is Duke of York (England), Earl of Inverness (Scotland) and Baron Killyleagh (Ireland)

Philip is Duke of Edinburgh (Scotland), Earl of Merioneth (Wales) and Baron Greenwich (England)

William is Duke of Cambridge (England), Earl of Strathearn (Scotland) and Baron Carrickfergus (Ireland).
 
Hmmm so they could use Buckingham although not likely and, it was used by close relations of the monarch 'back when' even if they weren't (well some thought they were perhaps) royal princes.


LaRae
 
This still happens, the distribution over Realms:

Edward will be Duke of Edinburgh (Scotland), Earl of Wessex (England) and Viscount Severn (Wales)

Andrew is Duke of York (England), Earl of Inverness (Scotland) and Baron Killyleagh (Ireland)

Philip is Duke of Edinburgh (Scotland), Earl of Merioneth (Wales) and Baron Greenwich (England)

William is Duke of Cambridge (England), Earl of Strathearn (Scotland) and Baron Carrickfergus (Ireland).

Ish was just adding to my list which included all the current ones including Gloucestet and Kent, as well as former ones going back to the sons of George III.
 
Hmmm so they could use Buckingham although not likely and, it was used by close relations of the monarch 'back when' even if they weren't (well some thought they were perhaps) royal princes.


LaRae


The last time the duke of buckingham was created was in 1822 when the then Marques of buckingham, a politician, was elevated to duke. There was no personal connection to the Royal family. The title went extinct two generations later. The current earl temple of stow is his descendent. Buckingham, was only main in male remainder and died out. But Stowe was created allowing for male descendants of the female line, so has continued to this day.

That was the fourth creation. The third creation was another politician, lord privy to Queen Anne, who was elevated for service. His only remote royal blood connection was he was a descendent of a second cousin of Henry viii.

Second definitely had no Royal blood. It Was created for George villiers who was reportedly a lover, and certainly a favorite courtier if James I.

The first creation is the closest you get. Humphrey was a great grandson of Edward III. His mother was the daughter of Edwards youngest son Thomas. He died in the early days if the war of the roses. His grandson who succeeded him is rumored to have been the one to kill the princes in the tower. He turned traitor on Richard III, leading a rebellion for Henry vii and was beheaded by Richard. The widows duchess was a sister to elizabeth woodpile, and later married jasper Tudor. It was their son, the third duke, who is likely the one everyone pictures when you say duke of buckingham. He is the onebhenry viii executed.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom