Prince Henry/Prince Harry of Wales

[Превед]

Yeah, the Duke of York is always he younger brother of the reigning King, right?

When Edward, 4th Duke of York, became King Edward IV, he succeeded his third cousin once removed (Henry VI). That must be the furthest the Dukedom of York ever has been from the reigning line.

[Kalafrana]

Indeed, but it was conquest, not inheritance!

Ann

[CHRISinUSA]

While it's traditional for a younger son of a monarch to become Duke of York, that's only when the title is available!

I can't imagine that Prince Henry of Wales will ever become Duke of York.  The present Duke of York is only 54 - excepting any unfortunate accident or illness he is likely to be around for another 30 to 40 years.  By the time of his death when the Dukedom of York falls extinct and is available to be granted anew, Harry will have been long married and probably will have grown children (maybe even grandchildren). 

Harry will most likely be granted some other dukedom when he marries. 

[amelia]

I agree with you ChrisinUS.

[IvanVII]

One other thought is if William and Kate have another son, Harry could indeed get a different dukedom and "Duke of York" may lay in abeyance until that child marries. By that time it may be very likelly that William will be king.

[TimM]

I guess we'll just have to wait and see.

[CHRISinUSA]

Quite true, although the timing suggests that even William's second son (assuming he has one) might not become Duke of York.   

Let's say this new baby is a second son, and that he is granted a dukedom on his marriage 30 years from now.  Given the Windsors' longevity, the current Duke of York has a good chance of still being around (he'd be about 84 or 85 years old, still younger than his parents are today).

Then again - anything can happen.  There might not even be a monarchy in 2045.  Or the granting of new peerages may have ceased by then. 

[Превед]

The only reason for Harry to be made a duke would be to give his children "a handle in front of their names", wouldn't it? The oldest son Lord Y / Earl of Y and eventually duke and the younger sons and the daughters  Lord / Lady X Mountbatten-Windsor instead of plain Mr. / Ms. X Mountbatten-Windsor?

Besides there is not much point in being a duke, especially for a royal who already is high up the pecking order. Dukes, royal or not, no longer have the automatic right to sit in the House of Lords (the whole point of the original peerage) and their current right of electing and be elected to sit in the House of Lords will probably soon be discontinued. (Interestingly, the massive creation of life peers during the last decades has probably halted the drive to create an upper house with regular elections.)

And it's a long time ago (centuries) since a peerage was granted with any lands attached to it. (With the exception of the Duchy of Cornwall.)

[Kalafrana]

Not quite. The 1917 Royal Warrant provides that male line grandchildren of a monarch are Prince/Princess and HRH (though for some reason the Earl of Wessex has chosen not to have his children use it). when the Prince of Wales succeeds Prince Harry will be the son of a monarch and his children therefore grandchildren of a monarch. Children of a male line grandson of a monarch are Lord and Lady in any case. E.G. Prince Michael of Kent is a grandson of George V, and his children are Lord Frederick Windsor and Lady Gabriella Windsor. The difference with a dukedom is that the eldest son uses his father's second title by courtesy, so that the Duke of Kent's elder son is the Earl of St Andrews (his elder son uses the third title and is Baron Downpatrick), while the younger son is Lord Nicholas Windsor and the daughter Lady Helen Taylor, nee Windsor.

Ann

[TimM]

This is fascinating.  I never realized how complex the Royal line could be.

[mcdnab]

If Harry marries and has children before the death of his grandmother the Queen then it is likely she will issue Letters Patent stating they will be Prince or Princess of Great Britain etc - (as the eventual grandchildren of a sovereign they will eventually be entitled to that anyway as has been pointed out) - she issued patents stating that all the children of the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge would be HRH and Prince or Princess of Great Britain etc - as the 1917 patent only created the eldest son of the eldest son of the Prince of Wales HRH and if Prince George had been a girl she would merely have been Lady.

The modern habit of creating younger prince's Royal dukes on marriage is in part to avoid their largely non-royal wives having awkward titles and styles or being mis-titled by the press - HRH Princess Edward of GB (HRH The Countess of Wessex), HRH Princess Andrew (HRH The Duchess of York) etc - without the title the press and most of the public would have gone with Princess Sophie or Princess Sarah just as they went with Princess Diana instead of The Princess of Wales.

Title wise there is a bit of a dearth of traditional ones left now - the Earl of Wessex has been promised Edin on his parents death, Gloucester, Kent, Cambridge and York are all in use with only York likely to become extinct but not for several decades.
Of the historical titles y Clarence (which has no strong association with a place) is free and it was last used along with Avondale for Edward VII's eldest son.
Cumberland and Albany are technically available given they are suspended titles but are unlikely on those grounds
Sussex used for one of the son's of George III is free

[Kalafrana]

I think Clarence is unlikely, as it has an unfortunate history.

Another of George III's sons was Duke of Suffolk, so that is available.

[mcdnab]

Yes Clarence does have an unfortunate history attached to it.

Duke of Suffolk was last created in 1551 for Henry Grey son in law of Charles Brandon and father of Lady Jane Grey.
The current Earldom of Suffolk was created for the branch of the Howard family in 1603 and is still extant - it is unlikely that you would in the modern world create a dukedom with the same territorial designation as an existing other title unless it were for the same person.

The title you are thinking of is Sussex i suspect which I mentioned above.

[RoyalWatcher]

Happy birthday to the most down to earth prince on the planet! Happy 31st Birthday, Prince Harry!

[Превед]

Принц переквалифицировался в садовники. Временно.

А не в управдомы, как у классика. Велкобританские киношники заставили исхудавшего в африканских джунглях принца Гарри Уэльского сыграть эпизодическую роль садовника в короткометражном фильме на церемонии открытия Чемпионата мира по рэгби 2015.
Денег за актерское мастерство принцу не предложили. Во имя искусства, так сказать.
=
Prince turned into gardener. Temporarily.

But not into a janitor, like in the classic. (? ? ?) British filmmakers made Prince Harry of Wales, emaciated in the African jungles, play a cameo role as a gardener in a short film at the opening ceremony of the Rugby World Cup of 2015. The prince was not offered money for his acting. It was in the name of art, so to speak.

See http://ru-royalty.livejournal.com/3371105.html
Video here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z3Mbd9W9u50&feature=youtu.be

A funny skit, but doesn't the Prince exhibit a too posh accent for an early 19th-century gardener? And was there really a black pupil (and black parents or members of staff) at Rugby in 1823? For example the first black school boy at Etonian didn't enroll untill 1964. Revisionist is what it is - the powers that be trying to paint a bleak past more colourful (pun intended) and inclusive than it was. Even though the idea seems to have been to include former rugby stars among the spectactors.