I agree that there are too many queens. While the Kingdom of America wouldn't necessarily adopt the Salic Law, they would probably definately uphold the belief that the Crown would pass from father to son, with daughters being the exception when no sons are available.
I think you are a little too all over the board with the titles. There would probably be a pecking order of titles because of importance. In Britain the eldest son of the Monarch is the Prince of Wales, then there is the Duke of York, Princess Royal, etc. One only makes reference to being the "1st Duke of Etc." usually in geneaology or family reference, its not part of the title.
Also:
Father: Henry Friar (Lord Henry)
it would be more proper to say:
Father: Henry Friar, Lord Huntington (the title of where he is lord of)
In my own American Monarchy ATL, the Heir Apparent bears the title of Crown Prince and Prince of America. Tho Prince of Columbia has a certain ring to it also. The other children of the Monarch are Royal Dukes and their titles incorporate state names, ie. the Duke of New York and the Duchess of North Carolina. Tho their full titles would remain, Prince George, Duke of Pennsylvannia. The children of the Royal Dukes would incorporate place names from the particular state of the parent into their titles. The eldest son of a Royal Duke would be a Duke, tho any brother or sister would be titled Marquis or Marquese, and the titles for succeeding generations will slowly peter out at Baron or Baroness.
General plot:
HM King of America
HRH the Crown Prince
HRH Prince, the Duke of Pennsylvannia
Marquis of Allentown
Viscount Lansford
Earl of Windber
Baron Renovo
Also, in true Hannoverian fashion, there would probably be a repetition of certain names - most likely George, William or Frederick. Conservative names, so I think Nathan and Colin, will probably be right out. At least for the first century or so.
In the end the best source is DeBrett's at:
http://www.debretts.co.uk/
for the way peerages and nobility should go.