Well, Harry was royal (i.e. a member of the royal family) but not noble (a member of the nobility) before he married. Now he is both, since he has a title of nobility - namely, Duke of Suffolk.
Just to add; British nobility is narrowly circumscribed. Until Lady Diana Spencer married the Prince of Wales, she was a commoner. She was the daughter of an earl but, while an earl is not a commoner, his children have only courtesy titles, and they are commoners.
As UDS said, he got it because Mary would not rule as queen alone.
To put it another way, he got it the old-fashioned way: he earned it, by invading, chasing the former king (James II) out of the country, and being the clear choice for king of the powerful group of Englishmen that invited him to invade. Military force has often trumped strict hereditary claims. The only reason there was a vacancy on the throne was because of his military invasion, leading James II to leave, taking the Prince of Wales with him.
If you went by hereditary claims, William was fourth in line: James II’s heir apparent was James, Prince of Wales; then Mary; then Anne, then William. If you insist on saying that he was second behind Anne, then you’re acknowledging that by invading, William had excluded James II and James, Prince of Wales, from the succession.
Yes, her father was German. Her mother, however, was Princess Mary Adelaide of Cambridge, daughter of the Duke of Cambridge and grand-daughter of King George III. George III and the Duke of Cambridge were both born in Britain. Princess Mary Adelaide was born in Hanover, because her father, the Duke of Cambridge, was serving there as Viceroy on behalf of King George IV and then William IV. That didn’t make Prince Mary Adelaide a German princess, anymore than the children of other officials serving abroad are considered not to be of the nationality of their parents.
Mary of Teck was born in the UK and lived there almost all her life, except for when her parents went abroad for a few years to save expenses. Her mother was a member of the British Royal Family and got a parliamentary grant to help cover her living expenses, which was not typically granted to non-British nobility.
The church has no say in whether Camilla is Queen or not.
As others have noted, Camilla will be Queen, it’s just mooted that they royal family may decide not to refer to her as such, much as they don’t refer to her as the Princess of Wales, even though she is.
Prince Philip is not King because, in our sexist world, King trumps Queen, and you can’t have that when the monarch is Elizabeth, not Philip. It’s a ranking thing, is all.
Mary of Teck was an English woman with strong German family connections (including a German father), but she was a German princess - as in, her princessiness was 100% German; a German title awarded by a German sovereign, and descending to her from her German father.
She was also a citizen of Wurttemburg from birth (as the daughter of a father with Wurttemburger citizenship) as well as being a British subject (both by virtue of being born in the UK, and by virtue of being a descendant of Sophia of Hannover, and a Protestant).
There’s no complication. She’s the legally married consort of Harry, and as such qualifies for Queendom, should the occasion arise.
Any complications arising from her divorced status would have come up at the engagement, and the Queen could have refused her consent, but she did not.
Anyone reading this thread might well come to the conclusion that British Royalty is much like the English language; inclusive and happy to adopt foreign imports whenever it is useful or desirable.
As far back as 2005, Prince Charles issued a “pained denial” of the story that he would reign as George VII, and “privately, senior officials were scornful” of the idea.
But one of his middle names is Arthur, so perhaps he’ll reign as King Arthur.
Well, quite, it’s properly called King Regnant, as opposed to King Consort. Act of Parliament - because Parliament can make this stuff up whenever they like - meant they became King Regnant.
I think you’ve said this before, but I see no reason why. So we’ve had one bad Charles (there was nothing particularly bad about Charles II), you could say that about any number of other monarch’s traditional names… Henry, William, Edward, Mary.
They always knew Charles was going to be King, so if it bothered the monarchy, they’d have picked something else when he was born.
Actually Phillip only became King of Spain in 1556 - well after his marriage to Mary - but he was granted the title of King of England in 1554.
William of Orange also wasn’t a king previously. His previous title was ‘His Highness The Prince of Orange, Stadtholder of Holland, Zeeland, Utrecht, Gelderland and Overijssel’ until he became King Regnant of England and Scotland.
Technically, Philip was already a king when he married Mary because Charles V had made him King of Naples and Jerusalem, specifically so that he would be of equal rank with his bride.
Hang on a second, the Royal Collection has in recent months mounted two major exhibitions at the Royal Academy and the Queen’s Gallery in London to show how wonderful both Charles I and Charles II were. It was almost as if it was a deliberate ploy to prepare the way for a Charles III.
Charles has repeatedly denied he’d choose George as his regnal name. If he ever does become King - his mother has a shot at outliving him, she appears to be invincible - I am pretty sure he’ll be Charles III.
I have to agree it would be very weird for a man who’s been world famous as Charles for well over half a century to suddenly go by George for the 10-20 years he might last as King. His name is practically a brand now, affixed as it is to any number of charitable endeavours. I just can’t see that happening due to Charles I being a doofus. The situation with his grandfather was rather different, in that
For really obvious reasons, Albert / George VI found himself in a position where the monarchy was in bad straits and a return to some semblance of tradition was really important, so tying his name to his father’s was wise
While he was publically known as Albert, he hadn’t been in the public eye for as long or as prominently as Charles has; it’s kind of like if Prince Andrew had unexpectedly become King around twenty years ago.
There is, to some extent, a reluctance to use the name Albert, due to either Victoria’s wishes, the perception it’s unlucky, or both, or maybe just that it’s been forever since a ruling King had a new first name.