Questions about British Styles and Titles 1: Ending 2022

[BrazilianEmpire]

So I guess it will be appropriate to grant the title Princess Royal, only when the eldest daughter IS NOT THE HEIR, and skip the title for the generation if the eldest daughter is the heir..
Anyways, we dont have to worry about that atleast for the next 30 years..

Yeah, we reached the same conclusion.

If the eldest daughter is the heir, she's Princess of Wales, and the Princess Royal title will not be used in that generation.

If the eldest daughter is the second child, she'll be the Princess Royal.

 

[BrazilianEmpire]

And about the Duchy of Conrwall? They'll change the law so that Duchy can be passed to eldest child and heir?

 

[vkrish]

Although I dont remember any specific mention of it in recent articles about Primogeniture, I stronglyy feel Duchy of Cornwall will simple go to the first child, even if its a girl.
In fact, the moment William becomes King, his 1st-born daughter (heiress-APPARENT) will become Duchess of Cornwall. She will be proclaimed/crowned/simply announced Princess of Wales at the King's pleasure and leisure..
Cornwall title is absolutely automatic, Wales one isnt..
I dont think they need another law to change that females can inherit Cornwall title. Its part of the deal. Not sure, though..

 

[BrazilianEmpire]

Although I dont remember any specific mention of it in recent articles about Primogeniture, I stronglyy feel Duchy of Cornwall will simple go to the first child, even if its a girl.
In fact, the moment William becomes King, his daughter ( heiress-APPARENT) will become Duchess of Cornwall. She will be proclaimed/crowned/simply announced Princess of Wales at the King's pleasure and leisure..
Cornwall title is absolutely automatic, Wales one isnt..
I dont think they need another law to change that females can inherit Cornwall title. Its the part of deal. Not sure, though..

I believe law states that the Duchy of Cornwall can only be passed to the Sovereign's oldest son and heir.

If nothing changes, we may have a constitutional impass in the future: if William have a daughter then a son. She'll be the heir, but not eldest son. He'll be the eldest son, but not the heir.

 

[Lumutqueen]

And about the Duchy of Conrwall? They'll change the law so that Duchy can be passed to eldest child and heir?

According to the Bill itself the only laws with provisions that will be altered are these;

Act of Settlement: in regards to Roman Catholicism.

Royal Marriages Act 1772: would be repealed entirely so that the six closest members in the line of succesion would be required to ask for marital permission. Marriages legally void under the Royal Marriages Act 1772 would be treated as never having been void, if certain conditions are met.

Provisions in Acts of Union 1707, Acts of Union 1800, several clauses in the Bill of Rights 1689 the Act of Settlement 1701 regarding Catholics will be altered.

Treason Act 1351 and Regency Act 1937 would be altered.

I have read no plans to alter the Duchy of Cornwall, in a way this title could remain for the eldest son. The Duchy of Cornwall title is automatic unlike the POW so it may be trickier to alter.

In fact, the moment William becomes King, his 1st-born daughter (heiress-APPARENT) will become Duchess of Cornwall. She will be proclaimed/crowned/simply announced Princess of Wales at the King's pleasure and leisure..

The dukedom of Cornwall can only be held by the oldest living son of the monarch who is also heir apparent. In the event of a Duke of Cornwall's death, the title merges in the Crown even if he left surviving descendants. The monarch's grandson, even if he is the heir apparent, does not succeed to the dukedom. Similarly, no female may ever be Duke of Cornwall, even if she is heiress presumptive or heiress apparent to the throne.

 

[BrazilianEmpire]

I have read no plans to alter the Duchy of Cornwall, in a way this title could remain for the eldest son. The Duchy of Cornwall title is automatic unlike the POW so it may be trickier to alter.

But the Duke of Cornwall can be only the Sovereing's oldest son and heir.

So, we'll only see this title when the eldest son is also the heir.

 

[vkrish]

Why are they not resolving this issue.. That will be catastrophic, for Royals atleast. If a non-heir son inherits it, within 2-3 generations, the Duchy of Cornwall will become totally private..

 

[SLV]

But the Duke of Cornwall can be only the Sovereing's oldest son and heir.

But the Duke of Cornwall can be only the Sovereing's eldest son and heir.

So, we'll only see this title when the eldest son is also the heir.

Can't a LP change this?

 

[vkrish]

But the Duke of Cornwall can be only the Sovereing's oldest son and heir.

But the Duke of Cornwall can be only the Sovereing's eldest son and heir.

So, we'll only see this title when the eldest son is also the heir.

Oh, good solution.. So when William becomes King, Duchy of Cornwall merges to Crown and continue so till a monarch has "an eldest son and heir"..Cool..

 

[BrazilianEmpire]

Can't a LP change this?

I don't think Letters of Patent can go against the Laws.

 

[BrazilianEmpire]

Why are they not resolving this issue.. That will be catastrophic, for Royals atleast. If a non-heir son inherits it, within 2-3 generations, the Duchy of Cornwall will become totally private..

But the eldest son will not be able to pass the title to his own eldest son, because he'll no be the Sovereing's heir.

 

[Iluvbertie]

Why are they not resolving this issue.. That will be catastrophic, for Royals atleast. If a non-heir son inherits it, within 2-3 generations, the Duchy of Cornwall will become totally private..

A non-heir can't inherit.

The DoC has to fulfil two criteria:

1. he has to be the heir apparent.
2. he has to be the eldest living son of the monarch.

The DoC will not become a private Duchy.

If we go back to George III. From the death of his father, Frederick, he was the heir apparent but never Duke of Cornwall as he wasn't the eldest living son of the monarch.

If Charles died before The Queen, William also couldn't be the Duke of Cornwall as he wouldn't be the eldest son of the monarch. On the other hand he will automatically add Cornwall to his Cambridge titles and become HRH The Duke of Cornwall and Cambridge the instant the Queen dies and his father becomes King.

 

[BrazilianEmpire]

Oh, good solution.. So when William becomes King, Duchy of Cornwall merges to Crown and continue so till a monarch has "an eldest son and heir"..Cool..

It's a good solution, but not the best one.

I prefer to see a Duchess of Cornwall in her own right.

 

[Iluvbertie]

Can't a LP change this?

Changing LPs requires an Act of Parliament not other LPs.

Other LPs can be issued but if the second LPs clash with the original ones there would be problems.

 

[vkrish]

Princess of Wales on lines of Princess of Oranje..

See now Princess of Wales can either be heiress apparent, or wife of heir apparent, right..
I think that is like Scandivanian "Crown Princess" title..
I dont like that. It should be totally defined on "HEIRESS APPARENT"
So how about modelling it on lines of Dutch Title?
The Heir-couple will be known as Prince of Wales and Princess X..not Princess of Wales.
The Princess of Wales should be strictly reserved for eldest daughter.
Heir's wife will be just Princess (1st name)
And about British not allowing outsiders to be styled Princess(1st name), that rule can be relaxed for wife of heir-apparent, Right?
What do u say?

 

[BrazilianEmpire]

See now Princess of Wales can either be heiress apparent, or wife of heir apparent, right..
I think that is like Scandivanian "Crown Princess" title..
I dont like that. It should be totally defined on "HEIRESS APPARENT"
So how about modelling it on lines of Dutch Title?
The Heir-couple will be known as Prince of Wales and Princess X..not Princess of Wales.
The Princess of Wales should be strictly reserved for eldest daughter.
Heir's wife will be just Princess (1st name)
And about British not allowing outsiders to be styled Princess(1st name), that rule can be relaxed for wife of heir-apparent, Right?
What do u say?

I don't like the idea of a wife can share his husband titles, I would love to see Máxima as Princess of Orange.

It's quite simple, when there a heiress apparent, she'll be the Princess of Wales. When there a heir apparent, his wife will be the Princess of Wales.

The use of the title can be adapted for different situations.

 

[Lumutqueen]

See now Princess of Wales can either be heiress apparent, or wife of heir apparent, right..
I think that is like Scandivanian "Crown Princess" title..
I dont like that. It should be totally defined on "HEIRESS APPARENT"
So how about modelling it on lines of Dutch Title?
The Heir-couple will be known as Prince of Wales and Princess X..not Princess of Wales.
The Princess of Wales should be strictly reserved for eldest daughter.
Heir's wife will be just Princess (1st name)
And about British not allowing outsiders to be styled Princess(1st name), that rule can be relaxed for wife of heir-apparent, Right?
What do u say?

I'm sorry, what's your plan?

I imagine if we have a female heiress such as the future baby cambridge, the childs future husband will use a dukedom rather than be of Wales. Similar to the way the Crown Princess of Sweden and her husband Prince Daniel are styled.

The Prince of Wales is a Crown Prince, in the UK we just don't use the term, we like to have extra titles for the same thing.

 

[vkrish]

I'm sorry, what's your plan?

I imagine if we have a female heiress such as the future baby cambridge, the childs future husband will use a dukedom rather than be of Wales. Similar to the way the Crown Princess of Sweden and her husband Prince Daniel are styled.

The Prince of Wales is a Crown Prince, in the UK we just don't use the term, we like to have extra titles for the same thing.

Heiress Apparent: Princess of Wales and Prince(1st name) Duke of X.
Heir Apparent: Prince of Wales and Princess(1st name). Thats my plan..

 

[Lumutqueen]

The Princess married to The Prince of Wales won't have a name, just like nowadays.

 

[vkrish]

Thats what I suggested in one of the previous post, Lumutqueen..
They can make an exception for the wife of heir, to be known as Princess (1st name). Afterall they are bringing on this big 'revolution', this one change will do no bad..
All I want is The Princess of Wales should be only limited to the heiress of the throne..
Or there is another possibility..IF she is some Duchess X before her husband becomes PoW, she can continue with the same title.
The it will be Prince of Wales and Duchess of X..
Princess of Wales and Duke of X..
Perfect gender equality..

 

[Spheno]

I see a problem here:

The DoC has to fulfil two criteria:

1. he has to be the heir apparent.
2. he has to be the eldest living son of the monarch.

The eldest living son of the monarch was/is the heir apparent. Always.
So, does the duchy law have the first criteria? Or, is this only have in mind?

 

[cepe]

Thats what I suggested in one of the previous post, Lumutqueen..
They can make an exception for the wife of heir, to be known as Princess (1st name). Afterall they are bringing on this big 'revolution', this one change will do no bad..
All I want is The Princess of Wales should be only limited to the heiress of the throne..
Or there is another possibility..IF she is some Duchess X before her husband becomes PoW, she can continue with the same title.
The it will be Prince of Wales and Duchess of X..
Princess of Wales and Duke of X..
Perfect gender equality..

There is NO big revolution. there is a half thought out, uneducated try led by someone who is in such a hurry he hasn't worked out the detail. it is going to be a mess. As for the impact on the 15 realms, I don't think the DPM has given it a thought. It's embarrassing.

 

[Lumutqueen]

All I want is The Princess of Wales should be only limited to the heiress of the throne..

The wife of The Prince of Wales is going to be known as The Princess of Wales. It's the law of the media, or more than likely Princess (insert name).

I see a problem here:

The eldest living son of the monarch was/is the heir apparent. Always.
So, does the duchy law have the first criteria? Or, is this only have in mind?

I'm not sure what you mean, to be The Duke of Cornwall you have to be the eldest son of the monarch and heir apparent at the same time. If you miss out one criteria we have no Duke. For instance if Charles dies, William will not be Duke of Cornwall despite being the heir, he is not the eldest son of the reigning Monarch.

 

[Ish]

I see a problem here: The eldest living son of the monarch was/is the heir apparent. Always. So, does the duchy law have the first criteria? Or, is this only have in mind?

The heir apparent is not always the eldest living son of the monarch. Sometimes it is the eldest living daughter (Queen Elizabeth was never the Duke or Duchess of Cornwall) and sometimes it is the eldest living son (or daughter, although that's yet to happen) of the monarch's deceased eldest living son (George III was never the Duke of Cornwall either).

If they change the rules regarding the succession to the throne then we may see a case where the heir apparent is the eldest child of the monarch, who is not given the Duchy of Cornwall because of her gender, at which point the rules regarding the title of the Duchy of Cornwall will need to be changed.

 

[DukeOfAster]

According to the Bill itself the only laws with provisions that will be altered are these;

Act of Settlement: in regards to Roman Catholicism.

Royal Marriages Act 1772: would be repealed entirely so that the six closest members in the line of succesion would be required to ask for marital permission. Marriages legally void under the Royal Marriages Act 1772 would be treated as never having been void, if certain conditions are met.

Provisions in Acts of Union 1707, Acts of Union 1800, several clauses in the Bill of Rights 1689 the Act of Settlement 1701 regarding Catholics will be altered.

Treason Act 1351 and Regency Act 1937 would be altered.

I have read no plans to alter the Duchy of Cornwall, in a way this title could remain for the eldest son. The Duchy of Cornwall title is automatic unlike the POW so it may be trickier to alter.

The dukedom of Cornwall can only be held by the oldest living son of the monarch who is also heir apparent. In the event of a Duke of Cornwall's death, the title merges in the Crown even if he left surviving descendants. The monarch's grandson, even if he is the heir apparent, does not succeed to the dukedom. Similarly, no female may ever be Duke of Cornwall, even if she is heiress presumptive or heiress apparent to the throne.

The law will be changed to allow the heir to have that title even if the heir is a lady. I can quote laws that are active today one way and they can be fixed in another day to present day situations.

 

[BrazilianEmpire]

The heir apparent is not always the eldest living son of the monarch. Sometimes it is the eldest living daughter (Queen Elizabeth was never the Duke or Duchess of Cornwall) and sometimes it is the eldest living son (or daughter, although that's yet to happen) of the monarch's deceased eldest living son (George III was never the Duke of Cornwall either).

If they change the rules regarding the succession to the throne then we may see a case where the heir apparent is the eldest child of the monarch, who is not given the Duchy of Cornwall because of her gender, at which point the rules regarding the title of the Duchy of Cornwall will need to be changed.

Princess Elizabeth was neve heir apparent, she was heir presumptive.

The only way a women can be heir apparent is if she's the only child of the deceased eldest son of the Sovereign.

 

[Lumutqueen]

The law will be changed to allow the heir to have that title even if the heir is a lady. I can quote laws that are active today one way and they can be fixed in another day to present day situations.

Of course they can change, whether they will is a different matter.

 

[Spheno]

The heir apparent is not always the eldest living son of the monarch. Sometimes it is the eldest living daughter (Queen Elizabeth was never the Duke or Duchess of Cornwall) and sometimes it is the eldest living son (or daughter, although that's yet to happen) of the monarch's deceased eldest living son (George III was never the Duke of Cornwall either).

The eldest living son of the monarch, if he exists, IS always the heir apparent.
If the monarch has eldest (or only one) son, this son is the heir apparent.
There wasn't need to write 'he has to be the heir apparent'. So, I wonder, the duchy law contains such criteria?

 

[Lumutqueen]

The eldest living son of the monarch, if he exists, IS always the heir apparent.
If the monarch has eldest (or only one) son, this son is the heir apparent.
There wasn't need to write 'he has to be the heir apparent'. So, I wonder, the duchy law contains such criteria?

I still don't quite understand what your point is? What criteria?

 

[BrazilianEmpire]

The eldest living son of the monarch, if he exists, IS always the heir apparent.
If the monarch has eldest (or only one) son, this son is the heir apparent.
There wasn't need to write 'he has to be the heir apparent'. So, I wonder, the duchy law contains such criteria?

If the eldest son renounce his succession rights, or marry a Catholic? He'll cease to be the heir.

The two criterias are only there to cover all the possible scenarios.