To not understand why Prince Harry’s child...

[WellingtonPark]

...won’t be given the title of prince or princess?

Apparently PH and MM’s child will be given a lord or lady title instead.

Why is that? Beatrice and Eugenia are princesses after all.

Or will the child be bumped up to prince/princess when the queen dies?

Isn’t it time to do away with this nonsense.

How do you know all of those ins ands outs royal claptrap and titles? The Queen would be proud of ya. I rather like her. Rest are a bit meh

Slightly off topic, but say William dies next week, what would that mean for the line of succession? Would Harry become heir, or would George just jump up a slot?

If something happened to William, then George would be next.

I think it’s interesting, but I can understand that it’s not everyone’s cup of tea.

The line of succession is:
Charles
William
George
Charlotte
Louis
Harry
(Baby Sussex when he or she arrives)
Prince Andrew
Beatrice
Eugenie
Prince Edward
James, Viscount Severn
Lady Louise Mountbatten-Windsor
Princess Anne
Peter Philips
Savannah Phillips
Isla Phillips
Zara Tindall
Mia Tindall
Lena Tindall
David Armstrong-Jones, Earl of Snowdon
Charles Armstrong-Jones, Viscount Linley
Lady Margarita Armstrong-Jones
Lady Sarah Chatto
Samuel Chatto
Arthur Chatto
Duke of Gloucester
And many more down the line

I don’t think it’s been mentioned; but if baby Sussex is a boy, he will be known as the Earl of Dumbarton one of Prince Harry’s subsidiary titles

The letters patent of 1917; allow for only the eldest son of the eldest son of the Prince of Wales to be an hrh and Prince. Ie Prince George; as mentioned up thread.
New letters patent were issued in 2013 when Kate was pregnant to allow for a girl to be a princess. Without them, if Charlotte had been born first she would have been Lady Charlotte Mountbatten Windsor. This applies to “All the children of the eldest son of the Prince of Wales”.

So all the Cambridge children, but not the Sussex children.
So when Harry & Meghan have their children, they will be Lords & Ladies. There is no provision in letters patent for them to be hrh Prince/ss.
When Charles accedes the throne, I suspect their titles will remain unchanged, a bit like the children of the Earl of Wessex who are technically hrh Prince & Princess but only use the Lady & Viscount titles.

So if baby Sussex is a girl; she will be Lady X Mountbatten Windsor.

Slightly off topic, but say William dies next week, what would that mean for the line of succession? Would Harry become heir, or would George just jump up a slot?

If William died then George would move up a spot.

Harry would be on standby until George was 18 as he’d be, as the next adult in line, the one to act as regent should George ascend before becoming an adult.

Must be horrible waiting for your parent to die Before no can have the form job

Top job*

Would Harry definitely be Regent in that case. Is it always the next adult in line.
Was there not a worry that Queen Victoria’s mother could have been Regent if William IV died before Victoria turned 18?

I don’t think it necessary would be Harry. I think in the past when a child became king, a regency council was set up, but who is on the council is up to the discretion of those in charge.

Victoria’s mother would have been regent because she had been specifically named as such in the event of William IV’s death before Victoria turned 18, by the 1830 Regency Act.

Until 1937, Regency Acts were passed naming a specific person when a regency was needed, but when George VI succeeded after the Abdication of Edward VIII, the current queen was heir-presumptive and under 18, and the Regency Act of 1937 was passed, making the general rule for the future that the Regent should be the next person in the line of succession who was of age, and a British subject living in the UK.

Although there was also an Act in 1953 which would have made Prince Phillip Regent, instead of Margaret, if one of his children had succeeded when under age, but this has now lapsed.

So if William died before George was of age, Harry would become Regent unless he had moved abroad, or unless Parliament decided to pass an act making different arrangements.

If Wills died, George becomes 2nd in line and would likely be king a lot sooner, although hopefully Charles would survive until George is of a good age to be a young monarch but not a child-ruler.

The regent wouldn't necessarily be Harry although he might do a lot more public duties. There's usually a council and I have no idea where that would leave Kate in terms of control over her own son and her royal role.

Coincidentally, I've also just been reading about the last Romanian regency which did include the uncle (Prince Nicholas) of the child-ruler (Michael), and someone famously said that all Nicholas did was smoke cigarettes.

If Charles dies and William becomes King before George is 18, there may well be an Act of Parliament similar to the 1953 one, making the King’s consort (ie Kate) Regent in the event of William’s death.

Harry would be the regent unless he’d moved abroad or lost his place in the line of succession. The regent is the next in line who is over 21 and a counsellor of state.

The amendment to the regency act allowing Prince Phillip to be regent for his children if under 18, or the Queen if she were unfit and had no children or grandchildren in line, dies when he does. It is very clearly worded that it only applies to him (& was clearly mostly about keeping any responsibility away from Princess Margaret!).

The Council of State usually takes charge when the monarch is abroad or temporarily incapacitated, and are given their authority in each specific case by Letters Patent.

The members of the Council were laid down by the 1937 Act, and are the Monarch’s Consort and the first four people in the line of succession who are of age, British subjects and living in Britain. So currently they are DOE, Charles, William, Harry and Andrew.

When Charles becomes King, they would be Camilla, William, Harry, Andrew and Beatrice (unless, of course George is of age by then!)
If William became King before George is of age, the Counsellors would be Kate, Harry, Andrew, Beatrice and Eugenie.

Of course, it’s always possible that Parliament will make different arrangements - when George VI died, the Queen Mother was made a Counsellor, though she was no longer Consort of the reigning monarch nor in the line of succession. Whether Parliament would do the same for Camilla when Charles dies is unknown.

Ah ok- so Philip is an exception (Princess Margaret strikes again) and it would definitely be Harry as next adult in line. In that respect, I didn't think it would be Kate as she's obviously not in the succession, but as the "mother of the Monarch" in that situation I wondered if she might become important or at least the "public face" of a regency and allow Harry more freedom. It's been a long time since the UK had one so I'm wondering what would be an acceptable solution to the RF AND public/perception opinion.

Is the fact that Philip was already a Prince by birth also an important distinction compared to Kate in this instance?

@Exfury - I think the amendment has already lapsed because none of Phillip’s children with the Queen are now minors.

It was stated at the time the Act was passed that Margaret would be Regent if Phillip died before Charles was of age, and that this ‘was not an Exclusion Act’. Which probably meant that it was. Though it might also have been seen as a concession to Philip, seeing that he had lost the right to give his children his surname. Or maybe I’ve been watching too much of The Crown...

They could make another exception for Kate and draw up another act.

I don’t see it though, I think there was difference with Philip being royal, and to be frank, male. Princess Margaret was a young female with controversial tastes. I think the sidelining of her was partly about appeasing Philip and partly about her being seen as unsuitable for the responsibility.

When the Queen became the heir it was her uncle, not her mother, who was to be her regent and I think that has more parallels to William and Kate.

@RustyBear it wouldn’t be enacted now, but it hasn’t lapsed afaik. They tend to write these things to cover the doomsday scenarios so this one would still come into play if there was some horrific event. Never likely to be used, but still there.

I don’t think so, ExFury, because it specifies that Phillip would only be Regent if the Queen died before any of her and Phillip’s children were of age, not their grandchildren or great-grandchildren. So the doomsday scenario would have to include Phillip and Elizabeth having another child and all the others and their heirs dying! If that was claimed to happen the Warming Pan affair would be totally eclipsed in royal scandals!

It certainly would be interesting to see if there is a similar Act if William becomes King before George is 18, naming Kate as potential Regent. If there is not, it would give a lot of weight to the idea that Phillip was only named to exclude Margaret, though whether because she was female or deemed unsuitable would be debatable (and no doubt hotly debated on social media!)

@rustybear do come and join us on the Royal Style and Gossip thread we talk about frocks but there’s lots of discussion about the intricacies of the RF. Your knowledge would be most interesting!

But if I had a choice between being rich or being titled I know which I'd choose.........

Although Meg and Harrys froglet will be both, naturally.

@CurlyWurlyTwirly - thanks, I’ll take a look. Though my knowledge is probably nearly as much Jean Plaidy/Google as the Politics & the Constitution option I took in my history degree (over 40 years ago, so I need to keep up to date)