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.
It are pretty fantasy titles anyway. Andrew has no any connection with York, William has not even studied in Cambridge, the relationship between Wessex and Edward is a mystery. This did not prevent them to be bestowed Duke of this and Earl of that.

The Duchies of Cornwall and Lancaster at least have a relevance because these are so much more than a fancy name.
 
Hmmm I was thinking of the Stafford line (Buckingham)...1400/1500's I thought they had a considerable amount of Plantagenet blood.



LaRae
 
Last edited:
Duke of Sussex has been thrown around so much, I kinda want them to surprise us
 
Hmmm I was thinking of the Stafford line (Buckingham)...1400/1500's I thought they had a considerable amount of Plantagenet blood.



LaRae

That would be the first creation, Humphrey (last paragraph). Humphrey Stafford. He was a Plantagenet but on the maternal side. His mother Anne was the daughter of Thomas, youngest son of Edward III. Her baptism was paid for by her uncle John of gaunt. Her mother was descended from Edward I as well. So humphreys mother has a double dose of Plantagenet blood. His father no.

Humphreys wife added some more Plantagenet blood but again on the maternal side. His wife Anne was the granddaughter of John of gaunt by his daughter Joan Beaufort.

the family kept marrying close to the Royal family, but while Plantagenet blood, in the female line. Humphreys son who died before him, was married to Margaret Beaufort, a great granddaughter of John of gaunt. Her son would be the second duke.

That is where Plantagenet unions end. The second duke married the sister of Elizabeth Woodville. And the third duke married the daughter of the duke of Northumberland. By the time the famous, third duke, got executed by Henry viii, their royal blood was pretty thin. Though not thin enough to save him from execution.

But certainly no where close enough anyone would ,mistake them as Royal princes. Their blood was remote to say the least.
 
Last edited:
Once Charles succeeds to the throne Harry ceases to be HRH Prince Henry of Wales and automatically becomes HRH The Prince Henry since his father would no longer have the title of Prince of Wales so any children Harry has will not be "of Wales". That designation would fall to any children of HRH The Duke of Cornwall & Cambridge once he is created Prince of Wales by his father King Charles III.

Then what would the designation of The Prince Henry's children be?
 
Then what would the designation of The Prince Henry's children be?

When Harry marries, he will be granted his own peerage. Like george and Charlotte, his kids will take his designation.

Example Harry marries and is named Hrh Duke of Sussex, Earl of Inverness, Baron Arklow

His children would be Hrh Prince Arthur of Sussex and princess Caroline of Sussex

His eldest son would be entitled, like James, to his father's secondary title.

I used the secondary titles of the last Duke of Sussex for example. If Harry was given the title Sussex, his secondary title wpuld be different. Andrew is Earl of Inverness. Commonly they get three titles. Edward only got two. But as he is intended to be Duke of Edinburgh. And that time he will be Duke of Edinburgh, Earl of Wessex, viscount Severn.
 
[...] Andrew is Earl of Inverness [...]..

Indeed, had Andrew a son and he was (like his young nephew James) not styled as a Prince, the pattern is clear, all royal dukes have an Earl as their heir. That will not be different with Harry, we may safely assume. Just freewheeling: Harry is created Duke of Clarence, Earl of Athlone, Etc.

HRH The Duke of Clarence (Prince Harry)
Heir: Lord [name] Mountbatten-Windsor, Earl of Athlone (by law: HRH Prince [name] of Clarence).

HRH The Duke of York (Prince Andrew)
Heir: Lord [name] Mountbatten-Windsor, Earl of Inverness (by law: HRH Prince [name] of York)

HRH The Duke of Edinburgh (Prince Edward)
Heir: Lord James Mountbatten-Windsor, Earl of Wessex (by law HRH Prince James of Edinburgh)

HRH The Duke of Gloucester (Prince Richard)
Heir: Lord Alexander Windsor, Earl of Ulster

HRH The Duke of Kent (Prince Edward)
Heir: Lord Nicholas Windsor, Earl of St Andrews
 
Last edited:
:previous: Not proper examples.

The sons of the Duke of Gloucester and Kent are not grandsons of the king, as Harry's kids will be. It is the Dukes themselves, before the deaths of their fathers, which are the proper example. As they were grandsons of the king at the time.

Prince edward was born Hrh Prince Edward of Kent, Earl of St Andrews.

Richard wasnt, as he had an older brother. He later would Hrh Prince Richard, Earl of ulster.

At no time, would they have been referred to as Lord Richard or Lord Edward. They are princes and would have been addressed as such.

James is an exception. His father asked he be addressed as a son of an Earl, and not as a Prince. If he had not, he would never have been referred to as Lord James.

If Beatrice had been a son named Albert keys say, he would not have been Lord Albert, Earl of Inverness. He would have been Hrh Pronce Albert of York, Earl of Inverness.

Harry's first son, would be Hrh Prince x of x. Using your example Hrh Prince Arthur of Clarence, Earl of althone. Though he Doyle be entitled to use the Earl title, it eluded be more customary for him to simply be referred to as Hrh Prince Arthur of Clarence. This is how Richard and Edward were commonly addressed before becoming dukes, though having the use if the secondary titled.

As he and his kids will have a more central roll, it very unlikely Harry would ask his children be addressed like Louise and James,
 
Prince edward was born Hrh Prince Edward of Kent, Earl of St Andrews.



Richard wasnt, as he had an older brother. He later would Hrh Prince Richard, Earl of ulster.



That's not accurate. You only use a subsidiary title of you have no title of your own; thus neither the Duke of Kent nor then Duke of Gloucester (nor for that matter, the Duke of Gloucester's elder brother, Prince William of Gloucester) ever used their father's subsidiary titles.

Likewise, Prince Charles has never been Earl of Merioneth, Prince William has never been Earl of Carrick or Earl of Chester, and Prince George has never been Earl of Strathearn.

Harry's eldest son will only be "Earl of Subsidiary Title" if he isn't a Prince in his own right (as grandson of a monarch); this will happen only if Harry has children during his grandmother's reign or chooses like his uncle to not have his children styled as the grandchildren of a monarch during his father's reign.
 
Indeed, had Andrew a son and he was (like his young nephew James) not styled as a Prince, the pattern is clear, all royal dukes have an Earl as their heir. That will not be different with Harry, we may safely assume. Just freewheeling: Harry is created Duke of Clarence, Earl of Athlone, Etc.

HRH The Duke of Clarence (Prince Harry)
Heir: Lord [name] Mountbatten-Windsor, Earl of Athlone (by law: HRH Prince [name] of Clarence).

HRH The Duke of York (Prince Andrew)
Heir: Lord [name] Mountbatten-Windsor, Earl of Inverness (by law: HRH Prince [name] of York)

HRH The Duke of Edinburgh (Prince Edward)
Heir: Lord James Mountbatten-Windsor, Earl of Wessex (by law HRH Prince James of Edinburgh)

HRH The Duke of Gloucester (Prince Richard)
Heir: Lord Alexander Windsor, Earl of Ulster

HRH The Duke of Kent (Prince Edward)
Heir: Lord Nicholas Windsor, Earl of St Andrews



Again, this is also not accurate. The courtesy title "Lord" is only granted to the younger sons of a Duke, not the eldest who uses the subsidiary title.

None of these children is Lord [Name] as each of them have the use of either a subsidiary title or (hypothetically) their own titles.

The sons of the Duke of Gloucester and the Duke of Gloucester are Major Alexander Windsor, Earl of Ulster and George Windsor, Earl of St Andrews (his first name is George, not Nicholas).

The son of the current Earl of Wessex and future Duke of Edinburgh is currently James Mountbatten-Windsor, Viscount Severn (sometimes styled as Lord Severn), who will one day be James Mountbatten-Windsor, Earl of Wessex.

If Harry has a son while his grandmother still reigns, his eldest will be [Name] Mountbatten-Windsor, Earl of [Wherever] to begin with.
 
Someone refresh my memory....it's probably been said here before I just can't remember!

Edinburgh. Is there a reason this title couldn't be held for Harry or is it just assumed it will go to Edward because he's Phillip's son?


LaRae
 
It was announced when Edward was made Earl of Wessex at the time of his wedding that he would become Duke of E at Phillip's death.
 
It has been announced that Edward will be created Duke of Edinburgh after the death of both his parents - assuming it is available and hasn't been inherited by someone who doesn't become the King. e.g. if Charles, William and George were all to predecease either Philip or The Queen then the crown would pass to Charlotte but Edinburgh would pass to Harry by right of inheritance.

Assuming that Charles inherits the Crown from his mother and Edinburgh from his father the intention is for him to create the Edinburgh title for Edward in keeping with the announcement made in 1999.

Of course Charles could go back on that announcement and give Edinburgh to whomever he likes but as the idea is in the public domain already it would seem a bit churlish of Charles to act in that way towards his little brother - knowing that it is his parents' wish.

The title can't be recreated until it has merged with the Crown and that can't happen while either Philip or The Queen is alive. When Philip dies - if he dies before the Queen - then Charles automatically adds all of Philip's titles to his own as Charles is the heir to both his mother's crown and his father's dukedom.

The line of succession to the Edinburgh title is - Charles, William, George, Harry, Andrew, Edward, James.
 
Last edited:
It was announced when Edward was made Earl of Wessex at the time of his wedding that he would become Duke of E at Phillip's death.

I rarely cross post and I do not want to drag this off topic. But there is that niggling announcement around her wedding about Camilla. People do go on and on about that in the Forums.

Sometimes I wonder if one of the "you can call me Joe" royals (this is how I think of the family members whose parents, at the birth of the kids said some version of, "forget the styles and titles") will grow up and want the Viscount (or whatever) back. Do they speak out? Granted, they have manners way beyond the normal human and so, might not ever bring it up, but still...
Let's not go off topic, but I just think these announcements always look less wise in the light of day a few years on.
Never say never, you know?
 
Ok so if I have this right: After the passing of Phillip (assuming he dies prior to the Queen) the title reverts to the Crown. By rights it belongs to Charles and after the death of the Queen then Charles can bestow the title to whomever he so chooses. The Queen can't do this though (right?) since they aren't 'hers' per se. Could Charles pass it along to someone else before he becomes King?

It sounds like Edward will be so titled. Now are his children going to be upgraded in this case since Edward will go from a Earl to a Duke or will the kids titles remain the same?


LaRae
 
Ok so if I have this right: After the passing of Phillip (assuming he dies prior to the Queen) the title reverts to the Crown. By rights it belongs to Charles and after the death of the Queen then Charles can bestow the title to whomever he so chooses. The Queen can't do this though (right?) since they aren't 'hers' per se. Could Charles pass it along to someone else before he becomes King?

It sounds like Edward will be so titled. Now are his children going to be upgraded in this case since Edward will go from a Earl to a Duke or will the kids titles remain the same?


LaRae

Assuming Philip dies prior to HMQ, his titles go to his heir, Prince Charles.

When HMQ dies and Charles becomes King, all his titles revert to the Crown.
Therefore D of Edinburgh title is free to be bestowed on Edward.
 
Philip dies. The Dukedom automatically go to Charles as Philip's heir. It's still the creation from 1947. The Queen dies, Charles becomes King. The Dukedom now is merged with the Crown and can be given out. The intent is for Charles to make Edward the Duke of Edinburgh. This would be a new creation for Edward.

The Dukedom merges with the Crown as long as Charles, William or George becomes King. If somehow Charlotte becomes Queen before the title merges with the crown then Harry would inherit Philip's dukedom.

Edward and Sophie are very involved with the DoE Awards Scheme that's a telling indication that's pending a catastrophic event Edward will become DoE.

A title can only be recreated if there are no heirs or it merges with the Crown. There are plenty of heirs to Philip's title. So it has to merge to be recreated.
 
Last edited:
Ok so if I have this right: After the passing of Phillip (assuming he dies prior to the Queen) the title reverts to the Crown. By rights it belongs to Charles and after the death of the Queen then Charles can bestow the title to whomever he so chooses. The Queen can't do this though (right?) since they aren't 'hers' per se. Could Charles pass it along to someone else before he becomes King?

It sounds like Edward will be so titled. Now are his children going to be upgraded in this case since Edward will go from a Earl to a Duke or will the kids titles remain the same?


LaRae

Not quite.

Assuming the DoE passes during the Queen's lifetime, then his titles pass on to his heir, Charles, who would (among many other titles) be the 2nd Duke of Edinburgh.

When Charles becomes King all his titles will revert to the crown - some will automatically be recreated for William (i.e. the title Duke of Cornwall is automatically created when the conditions are met). It's then that Charles can recreate the title Duke of Edinburgh for whoever he wants to create it for - it's been said that will be Edward, although Charles is under no obligations to do so.

If Charles, as Duke of Edinburgh, dies without becoming King then the title will pass on to William, then George. If somehow Charles, William, and George were to pass before the Queen then Charlotte would be the Queen's heir, but Harry would inherit the Duke of Edinburgh title (and thus it wouldn't be merging with the crown in order to be recreated for Edward). If, however, something were to also happen to Harry (even if he simply never had sons), the title would in time go to Edward and James.

If the Queen predeceased the DoE, then Charles would become King and the title Duke of Edinburgh would automatically merge with the crown on the DoE's passing, unless something happened to cause Charlotte to be on the throne when the DoE passes, in which case Harry would become DoE.
 
Andrew is still between Harry and Edward for inheriting the Dukedom. The odds of Charles, William, George all dying before the Queen and Philip are very small.
 
The line of succession to the Edinburgh title is:

Charles, William, George, Harry, Andrew, Edward and then James.

Only merging the title with the Crown can change this order as it would break it.

If it didn't merge with the Crown i.e. Charlotte became Queen and Harry inherited Edinburgh then it would pass either to Harry's son/s in birth order or to Andrew on Harry passing and then to Edward's line as Andrew has no sons.

As it is likely to merge with the Crown - either in the person of Charles or William - both of whom would have been included in any discussions about the future disposition of this title in 1999 - then it is likely to be recreated for Edward as per the already announced request of HM and Philip. It is highly unlikely that either Charles or William would choose to so publicly dishonour the known wishes of Elizabeth II or her consort.

We must remember that the original LPs from 1947 said 'heirs male of the body' would inherit this title which means that the title passes automatically to Charles. If Charles is King then it ceases to exist and is available for re-grant. If Charles is still Prince of Wales he would add all three of Philip's titles to his already bulging list and be Prince of Wales, Earl of Chester, Duke of Cornwall, Duke of Rothesay, Duke of Edinburgh, Earl of Merioneth, Baron Greenwich et. al. It would be interesting to see if he then used Duke of Edinburgh when in Edinburgh or stuck with Duke of Rothesay as the heir to the throne in Scotland.
 
Last edited:
Andrew is still between Harry and Edward for inheriting the Dukedom. The odds of Charles, William, George all dying before the Queen and Philip are very small.

If something were to happen to cause Andrew to inherit the Dukedom, then it's only a matter of time before Edward or James inherited it; the title can only be inherited by the male line and Andrew has no sons.

If Harry ended up inheriting and didn't have sons, then in time it would go to Edward or James (depending on who dies first), as the title can only be inherited in the male line, Andrew doesn't have sons, and in the scenario Harry never has sons.
 
Considering we are discussing the death of Philips son, grandson and great grandson all before him, this topic seems overly morbid.

Philip dies. Charles is Duke of Edinburgh until he becomes king. Then recreated fir Edward. Plain and simple. No need to imagine morbid amounts of death.

Be nice if the Brits took a page from the Spanish, at least with new creations, and made them equal inheritance. Considering the throne is. But sadly I doubt they will ever be do forward thinking.
 
Really folks if you are squeamish about discussing how titles pass down move along to another thread already. No one wishes anyone dead.


Interesting...so if the Queen passes prior to Phillip he looses his DoE status? Hadn't thought of that.


LaRae
 
Really folks if you are squeamish about discussing how titles pass down move along to another thread already. No one wishes anyone dead.


Interesting...so if the Queen passes prior to Phillip he looses his DoE status? Hadn't thought of that.


LaRae



No he doesn't. The DoE title is Philip's. He has it until he dies. It doesn't matter if the Queen is alive or dead.
 
Phillip will be The Duke of Edinburgh until he dies. Even if The Queen predeceases him.

It's just if Charles is already King, the dukedom will merge with the Crown after his father passes rather than Charles inheriting it.
 
So, when Charles becomes king, William is automatically Duke of Cornwall?

Then, is he still Duke of Cambridge? Which title does he use? Or neither, because he can then be made Prince of Wales?

(I admit I find titles very confusing).
 
Yes, William is automatically the Duke of Cornwall when Charles becomes King. William keeps his Cambridge title. So for a point in time William is Duke of Cornwall and Cambridge. Charles has to name William Prince of Wales. Once William is PoW that will be the primary title. George, Charlotte and future kids would be of Wales then.

However, the Duke of Cornwall title would be used when carrying out engagements on Duchy stuff like if William was opening a senior center in Cornwall. Also in Scotland, he would use the Duke of Rothesay title when carrying out engagements in Scotland like his father does now.

Harry's future kids titles are pretty straight forward - just look at the titles of Andrew and Edward's kids. That's the 2 options for Harry's kids
 
Ah ok must of misread something above about the DoE title.




LaRae
 
Considering we are discussing the death of Philips son, grandson and great grandson all before him, this topic seems overly morbid.



Philip dies. Charles is Duke of Edinburgh until he becomes king. Then recreated fir Edward. Plain and simple. No need to imagine morbid amounts of death.



Be nice if the Brits took a page from the Spanish, at least with new creations, and made them equal inheritance. Considering the throne is. But sadly I doubt they will ever be do forward thinking.



On the issue of the Brits taking a Spanish approach... I don't know how the Spanish do their titles, but I could see the Brits in time adopting equal inheritance for future titles.

I doubt we'll see the Queen address it, and I think if Harry marries in her lifetime his titles will have the same male inheritance rules. But the DoE title for Edward... I could see that being created with an allowance for female inheritance; I think full equal inheritance will only happen if Edward, Sophie, and Charles feel that Louise is more likely to have future involvement with the DoE Award than James.

I don't think Andrew's titles will be addressed to allow Beatrice to inherit in any way. But I do think that by the time George and Charlotte are of age and situation to receive titles, the issue will be addressed. I also think that if Harry only has daughters, the issue might be addressed in his lifetime, depending on their role and public opinion.

The fact is though, that other than Harry and Edward (via the DoE title), no one in Britain is likely to get a new hereditary title in the next 20 years or so.
 
There will be a gap because the next generation needs to grow up or get born. There was a large gap between the creation of Edward's titles and William's.

If everyone starts being able to inherit a title. All of the historical past titles will run out because you are going to give out more than you get back. Basically the only ones you get back is where a direct heir gets a title as a grandchild like William did. Other than that you need a title holder to have no children or one child that then have no children. Once the title makes it 3 or 4 generations in its probably not going to go extinct especially if both genders can inherit.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom