The Royal Forums Coat of Arms


Join The Royal Forums Today
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #2981  
Old 03-31-2017, 05:56 AM
muriel's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: London / Guildford, United Kingdom
Posts: 7,028
Quote:
Originally Posted by Westfield Bakery View Post
It would be nice for William to have a lavish ceremony. His wife and him should buy a home in Wales, because he's still William Wales in the Welsh people's eyes.

If William and Kate have a third child, they should name their child a Welsh name.
No need to buy a home on Wales, the duchy already has one that C&C use every summer.
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #2982  
Old 03-31-2017, 07:26 AM
Osipi's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: On the west side of North up from Back, United States
Posts: 9,389
I agree. The Cambridges don't need to purchase property in Wales just to accentuate the Prince of Wales title if/when William is created the PoW. They've lived in Wales for a few years and it was this alone that I think would endear the couple to the Welsh people. The Cambridges have very fond memories of the time they lived in Wales when William was stationed at Anglesey.
__________________

__________________
“In my walks, every man I meet is my superior in some way, and in that I learn from him.”
~~~Ralph Waldo Emerson~~~
Reply With Quote
  #2983  
Old 04-16-2017, 01:08 AM
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Mar 2017
Location: Westfield, New Jersey, United States
Posts: 140
If George VI had lived till to the 1980s, and Prince Charles and Princess Anne were still styled as:

Prince Charles of Edinburgh
Princess Anne of Edinburgh;


When Prince Charles married Diana, would she be known as Princess Charles of Edinburgh?

Would Princes William and Harry be "of Edinburgh" like their father?
Reply With Quote
  #2984  
Old 04-16-2017, 01:15 AM
JessRulz's Avatar
Administrator
Blog Editor
Royal Blogger
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 7,402


I am certain that Charles would have been given a Dukedom upon marriage, should that scenario have played out. Diana then would have been known as Duchess of xxx until George VI died and Elizabeth took the throne, when Charles would have become Duke of Cornwall/Prince of Wales. William and Harry would have been 'of' whichever Dukedom Charles was given.

It is the exact scenario that we have now with Elizabeth -- Charles -- William -- George.
__________________
**TRF Rules and FAQ**
Reply With Quote
  #2985  
Old 04-16-2017, 01:19 AM
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Mar 2017
Location: Westfield, New Jersey, United States
Posts: 140
Charles and Anne are still legally Prince and Princess of Edinburgh. They should be grateful to their father that they were born as the Edinburghs. Princes Andrew and Edward are also legally Princes of Edinburgh.

If Philip dies and Charles dies, William should make sure that his uncle receives the Edinburgh title and James is truly a Prince of Edinburgh.
Reply With Quote
  #2986  
Old 04-16-2017, 01:19 AM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 11,046
Exactly.

Charles would have been given his own Dukedom rather than remain as 'of Edinburgh' on marriage and so William and Harry would have been 'of xxxx' until they themselves married in which case they would have their own titles and their children would be 'of yyyy.

Anne would have remained as 'of Edinburgh' until marriage when she would have followed Princess Alexandra's precedence and dropped the 'of Edinburgh' and just been HRH Princess Anne, Mrs Mark Philips. On her divorce she would have dropped the 'Mrs Mark Philips' and become 'Mrs Anne Philips' and then become 'Mrs Tim Laurence' but kept HRH Princess Anne. Of course once the Queen did become Queen and decided to do so she would have been created HRH The Princess Royal.
Reply With Quote
  #2987  
Old 04-16-2017, 01:23 AM
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Mar 2017
Location: Westfield, New Jersey, United States
Posts: 140
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iluvbertie View Post
Exactly.

Charles would have been given his own Dukedom rather than remain as 'of Edinburgh' on marriage and so William and Harry would have been 'of xxxx' until they themselves married in which case they would have their own titles and their children would be 'of yyyy.

Anne would have remained as 'of Edinburgh' until marriage when she would have followed Princess Alexandra's precedence and dropped the 'of Edinburgh' and just been HRH Princess Anne, Mrs Mark Philips. On her divorce she would have dropped the 'Mrs Mark Philips' and become 'Mrs Anne Philips' and then become 'Mrs Tim Laurence' but kept HRH Princess Anne. Of course once the Queen did become Queen and decided to do so she would have been created HRH The Princess Royal.
What if Charles turned down a dukedom or a earldom, he seems rather shy. Would William and Harry been "of Edinburgh", or would they have been "Lords"?
Reply With Quote
  #2988  
Old 04-16-2017, 01:43 AM
HRHHermione's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Boston, United States
Posts: 2,893
Questions about British Styles and Titles

Quote:
Originally Posted by Westfield Bakery View Post
What if Charles turned down a dukedom or a earldom, he seems rather shy. Would William and Harry been "of Edinburgh", or would they have been "Lords"?


Charles, as heir, was automatically Duke of Cornwall the second George VI died and the Queen ascended the throne. He was named Prince of Wales at age five or six. He never had an opportunity to turn one down.

Edited to add: sorry, I missed that this was speculative, a "What If" George VI had lived until Charles was married. I suspect he never would have turned down a Dukedom because he was always in the direct line and doesn't have the same freedom to dispense with titles that his sister had for her children and Edward has for his.
Reply With Quote
  #2989  
Old 04-16-2017, 02:50 AM
Ish's Avatar
Ish Ish is offline
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Vancouver, Canada
Posts: 3,358
Quote:
Originally Posted by Westfield Bakery View Post
Charles and Anne are still legally Prince and Princess of Edinburgh. They should be grateful to their father that they were born as the Edinburghs. Princes Andrew and Edward are also legally Princes of Edinburgh.



If Philip dies and Charles dies, William should make sure that his uncle receives the Edinburgh title and James is truly a Prince of Edinburgh.

Charles and Anne are not still "Prince and Princess of Edinburgh" as no such title has ever existed.

They were at one point in their lives Prince Charles of Edinburgh and Princess Anne of Edinburgh, but ceased to be such when they gained a higher title (as heir apparent, for Charles, and the child of a monarch for Anne).

Likewise, William is no longer "of Wales" as he has his own title, and thus doesn't use a territorial designation based on his father's title.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Westfield Bakery View Post
What if Charles turned down a dukedom or a earldom, he seems rather shy. Would William and Harry been "of Edinburgh", or would they have been "Lords"?

If George VI had lived to see the birth of his great-grandsons, then William and Harry would have been born Lord William Mountbatten-Windsor and Lord Henry Mountbatten-Windsor, as the sons of a British Prince, regardless of what Charles' titles were (be it Prince Charles of Edinburgh or The Duke of Wherever). The 1917 LPs didn't grant royal title to the grandchildren of the heiress presumptive, and the 1948 LPs didn't grant royal title to the grandchildren of the Duke and Duchess of Edinburgh.
Reply With Quote
  #2990  
Old 04-16-2017, 03:00 AM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 11,046
However it is likely that George VI would have issued new LPs to cover the children of Prince Charles, just as he did in 1948.

If we look at history had George VI still been alive in 1981 he would have had an heiress presumptive who would have their own heir apparent.

If we then try to work out a title for Charles I would suggest looking at the title/s given the last time before that that the heir had an heir of age. Queen Victoria gave her eldest son's eldest son Clarence and the second son York.

George VI would, very probably, have used one of those two titles for Charles (remember this is before Andrew married) and possibly Clarence so that York was still available for the 2nd son.

George III never bothered with a title for his grand-heir (Charlotte of Wales) but then she was a girl and he didn't give a title to Leopold either but he was already a Prince in his own right and by then George IV was Prince Regent.

This is, of course, pure speculation based on nothing much at all.
Reply With Quote
  #2991  
Old 04-16-2017, 12:28 PM
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Mar 2017
Location: Westfield, New Jersey, United States
Posts: 140
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ish View Post
Charles and Anne are not still "Prince and Princess of Edinburgh" as no such title has ever existed.

They were at one point in their lives Prince Charles of Edinburgh and Princess Anne of Edinburgh, but ceased to be such when they gained a higher title (as heir apparent, for Charles, and the child of a monarch for Anne).

Likewise, William is no longer "of Wales" as he has his own title, and thus doesn't use a territorial designation based on his father's title.




If George VI had lived to see the birth of his great-grandsons, then William and Harry would have been born Lord William Mountbatten-Windsor and Lord Henry Mountbatten-Windsor, as the sons of a British Prince, regardless of what Charles' titles were (be it Prince Charles of Edinburgh or The Duke of Wherever). The 1917 LPs didn't grant royal title to the grandchildren of the heiress presumptive, and the 1948 LPs didn't grant royal title to the grandchildren of the Duke and Duchess of Edinburgh.
They are still Princes and Princesses of Edinburgh. Charles is also the Prince/Great Steward of Scotland. They're the children of the Duke. Happy Easter, everyone, by the way.
Reply With Quote
  #2992  
Old 04-16-2017, 12:57 PM
Skippyboo's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Atlanta, United States
Posts: 4,094
Questions about British Styles and Titles

No they aren't. They lost their of Edinburgh when their mother became Queen. Look at Prince Michael. He is HRH Prince Michael of Kent. If the Queen's children were of Edinburgh still. Andrew and Edward would have been styled with the of Edinburgh until they married and got their peerages. But they were not. Harry will lose his of Wales too when Charles becomes King or he gets a peerage. Princess Margaret was born of York but she didn't remain of York for the rest of her life because it drops when her father became King.
Reply With Quote
  #2993  
Old 04-16-2017, 01:16 PM
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Mar 2017
Location: Westfield, New Jersey, United States
Posts: 140
Quote:
Originally Posted by Skippyboo View Post
No they aren't. They lost their of Edinburgh when their mother became Queen. Look at Prince Michael. He is HRH Prince Michael of Kent. If the Queen's children were of Edinburgh still. Andrew and Edward would have been styled with the of Edinburgh until they married and got their peerages. But they were not. Harry will lose his of Wales too when Charles becomes King or he gets a peerage. Princess Margaret was born of York but she didn't remain of York for the rest of her life because it drops when her father became King.
They should be. British royals have lots of titles. Charles is also Prince and Great Steward of Scotland, therefore Harry should be known as a Prince of Scotland as well.

Royal titles and styles are very important.

I believe that all male-line children, grandchildren, and siblings of a monarch should be styled with HRH Prince/Princess ____________.

Harry's children should be HRH. As the grandchildren of the monarch (Charles), the children of the sibling of the monarch (William).
Reply With Quote
  #2994  
Old 04-16-2017, 01:56 PM
Skippyboo's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Atlanta, United States
Posts: 4,094
The children of the sibling of the monarch doesn't mean anything. Margaret's children aren't HRHs, Peter and Zara don't become HRHs when Charles becomes King.

The Great Steward of Scotland is just a title for the heir apparent. Charles doesn't even use it. He uses the Duke of Rothesay when in Scotland.
Reply With Quote
  #2995  
Old 04-16-2017, 02:04 PM
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Mar 2017
Location: Westfield, New Jersey, United States
Posts: 140
Quote:
Originally Posted by Skippyboo View Post
The children of the sibling of the monarch doesn't mean anything. Margaret's children aren't HRHs, Peter and Zara don't become HRHs when Charles becomes King.

The Great Steward of Scotland is just a title for the heir apparent. Charles doesn't even use it. He uses the Duke of Rothesay when in Scotland.
It should be (male-line only). The royal rules should be changed. It's the 21st century.
Reply With Quote
  #2996  
Old 04-16-2017, 04:28 PM
Ish's Avatar
Ish Ish is offline
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Vancouver, Canada
Posts: 3,358
Quote:
Originally Posted by Westfield Bakery View Post
They are still Princes and Princesses of Edinburgh. Charles is also the Prince/Great Steward of Scotland. They're the children of the Duke. Happy Easter, everyone, by the way.
Your understanding of British titles is rather inaccurate.

There is no such title as Prince of Edinburgh, nor Princess of Edinburgh. Likewise, there is no Prince/Princess of York, Prince/Princess of Gloucester, Prince/Princess of Kent, Prince of Cambridge and so on.

British Royals are Princes/Princesses of the United Kingdom, nothing more. The heir apparent may also hold the titles Prince of Scotland and Prince of Wales (Prince of Wales is not an automatic title though), but other than the heir apparent no British Prince or Princess holds any title that makes them a "Prince of Location" other than the UK as a whole.

It is custom for the children of British Royal Dukes to use their father's title as a territorial designation - hence, the children of the Duke of Edinburgh use "of Edinburgh" as their territorial designation, and so on with the children of the Prince of Wales, Duke of York, Duke of Gloucester, Duke of Kent, Duke of Cambridge, and so on. The children of the monarch use no territorial designation whatsoever, and territorial designations are dropped when further titles are acquired.

Thus, Charles and Anne were born HRH Prince Charles of Edinburgh and HRH Princess Anne of Edinburgh, as the children of the Duke and Duchess of Edinburgh, but ceased to be "of Edinburgh" when they became the children of the monarch; Andrew and Edward were never "of Edinburgh" as they were born children of the monarch.

William was born "of Wales" as a child of the Prince of Wales, but ceased to be "of Wales" when he became Duke of Cambridge. Harry will likely cease to be "of Wales" when he marries, as he will likely receive his own dukedom then. His children will never be "of Wales". They will not be born Princes/Princesses of the United Kingdom if they are born while the Queen is alive - the LPs in existence right now only allow for the children and male-line grandchildren of the monarch, and the children of the eldest son of the Prince of Wales to be HRHs; Harry's children will only be HRHs once Charles is King.
Reply With Quote
  #2997  
Old 04-16-2017, 04:41 PM
Ish's Avatar
Ish Ish is offline
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Vancouver, Canada
Posts: 3,358
Quote:
Originally Posted by Westfield Bakery View Post
It should be (male-line only). The royal rules should be changed. It's the 21st century.
You're suggesting that the rules be changed to expand who is an HRH based on gender?

And then claiming that that should happen because it's the 21st century? That's a little... out of wack with the overall trend towards royal titles in Europe.

The trend is towards limiting the expansion of royal titles outside of the main line, but also introducing equal male and female inheritance. The Brits are a bit behind on that; they've allowed for equal female inheritance to the throne, but have not yet expanded titles to be inherited through female lines, nor restricted titles to be limited to just the main line. We're likely to see one, if not both of those happen in time.
Reply With Quote
  #2998  
Old 04-16-2017, 05:49 PM
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Mar 2017
Location: Westfield, New Jersey, United States
Posts: 140
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ish View Post
Your understanding of British titles is rather inaccurate.

There is no such title as Prince of Edinburgh, nor Princess of Edinburgh. Likewise, there is no Prince/Princess of York, Prince/Princess of Gloucester, Prince/Princess of Kent, Prince of Cambridge and so on.

British Royals are Princes/Princesses of the United Kingdom, nothing more. The heir apparent may also hold the titles Prince of Scotland and Prince of Wales (Prince of Wales is not an automatic title though), but other than the heir apparent no British Prince or Princess holds any title that makes them a "Prince of Location" other than the UK as a whole.

It is custom for the children of British Royal Dukes to use their father's title as a territorial designation - hence, the children of the Duke of Edinburgh use "of Edinburgh" as their territorial designation, and so on with the children of the Prince of Wales, Duke of York, Duke of Gloucester, Duke of Kent, Duke of Cambridge, and so on. The children of the monarch use no territorial designation whatsoever, and territorial designations are dropped when further titles are acquired.

Thus, Charles and Anne were born HRH Prince Charles of Edinburgh and HRH Princess Anne of Edinburgh, as the children of the Duke and Duchess of Edinburgh, but ceased to be "of Edinburgh" when they became the children of the monarch; Andrew and Edward were never "of Edinburgh" as they were born children of the monarch.

William was born "of Wales" as a child of the Prince of Wales, but ceased to be "of Wales" when he became Duke of Cambridge. Harry will likely cease to be "of Wales" when he marries, as he will likely receive his own dukedom then. His children will never be "of Wales". They will not be born Princes/Princesses of the United Kingdom if they are born while the Queen is alive - the LPs in existence right now only allow for the children and male-line grandchildren of the monarch, and the children of the eldest son of the Prince of Wales to be HRHs; Harry's children will only be HRHs once Charles is King.
Territorial designations are beautiful. I love it. Yes, I do stand by my comment that this is the 21st century, and the royal style rules should be changed.

Had Diana be Princess Charles of Edinburgh, I wonder what would have happened--if Charles had turned down a peerage. I do believe that Harry should turn down a peerage--if he wants. He may want his wife to be Princess Henry of Wales--in honor of his mother and father, the Waleses.

It's a good discussion however. Extremely important.
Reply With Quote
  #2999  
Old 04-16-2017, 05:57 PM
Lumutqueen's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
Royal Blogger
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Carlton, York, United Kingdom
Posts: 18,408
A territorial designation is not a surname, it doesn't hold the same "honour" that passing down a surname to your children does.
Nothing would have been different if Diana had been "Princess Charles of Edinburgh", as she never could have been as the title doesn't exist and never will. I don't know how other posters could be any clearer.
__________________
We Will Remember Them.
Reply With Quote
  #3000  
Old 04-16-2017, 06:04 PM
Osipi's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: On the west side of North up from Back, United States
Posts: 9,389
Quote:
Originally Posted by Westfield Bakery View Post
Had Diana be Princess Charles of Edinburgh, I wonder what would have happened--if Charles had turned down a peerage. I do believe that Harry should turn down a peerage--if he wants. He may want his wife to be Princess Henry of Wales--in honor of his mother and father, the Waleses.

It's a good discussion however. Extremely important.
Problem with Princess Henry of Wales is that when Charles becomes King, Harry's wife would just be The Princess Henry. No territorial designation at all. Most likely the title of The Prince of Wales will be bestowed on William by his father and therefore, Kate will be The Princess of Wales.

I really don't see Harry refusing a dukedom upon marriage. Actually, in the peerage of the UK, a duke is the highest you can go. A prince is not a peer.

I think I got that right.
__________________

__________________
“In my walks, every man I meet is my superior in some way, and in that I learn from him.”
~~~Ralph Waldo Emerson~~~
Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
british royal family, consort, kate, queenmother, spouse, styles and titles


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Titles and Styles of Harry, his Future Wife and Children Aussie Princess Prince Harry and Prince William 1896 11-14-2017 06:35 PM
Diana's Styles and Titles florawindsor Diana, Princess of Wales (1961-1997) 750 10-25-2017 04:30 PM
Styles and Titles Nahla10 Ruling Family of Dubai 50 06-02-2017 03:28 PM
Non-British Styles and Titles Lord Sosnowitz Royal Ceremony and Protocol 735 01-30-2017 02:39 PM
Abdication Beatrix and Inauguration WA: Titles, Names, Succession, Precedence Princess Robijn King Willem-Alexander, Queen Máxima and family 67 05-24-2013 04:14 PM




Popular Tags
best outfit birthday carl gustaf chris o'neill crown princess mary crown princess victoria current events cymry denmark duchess of brabant earl of snowdon fashion poll general news hereditary grand duchess stéphanie hereditary grand duke guillaume infanta cristina infanta leonor infanta sofia italy iñaki urdangarín king felipe king felipe vi king philippe king willem-alexander letizia liechtenstein lord snowdon monarchy news picture of the week prince alexander prince carl philip prince daniel prince felix prince gabriel prince harry prince nicholas prince oscar princess beatrice princess claire of luxembourg princess estelle princess leonore princess madeleine princess mary princess of asturias princess sofia princess victoria queen elizabeth ii queen letizia queen letizia casual outfits queen letizia daytime fashion queen letizia fashion queen mathilde queen maxima queen maxima casual wear queen maxima daytime fashion queen maxima fashion queen maxima hats queen maxima style queen rania queen rania casual outfit queen silvia soderberg spanish royal family state visit stephanie sweden swedish royal family the duchess of cambridge casual wear victoria



Copyright 2002- Social Knowledge, LLC All Rights Reserved.

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 08:38 AM.

Social Knowledge Networks

eXTReMe Tracker
Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2017
Jelsoft Enterprises