Questions about British Styles and Titles

[Osipi]

Originally Posted by branchg

Parliament had no say in what status, rank or style the former King would hold upon abdication. The Act of Abdication simply stated Edward was relinquishing his right, and that of any future descendants, to the throne. It also stated he would not be subject to the Royal Marriages Act. What he would be was entirely within the gift of The Sovereign.

Thank you for setting me straight on this. I do find all the ins and outs about how things work so fascinating. This is one place where I'm glad to be wrong about something and learn.

[branchg]

Originally Posted by Roslyn

Is the final form of this letter available somewhere we can see it? I always like to read primary documents if they are available.

I am not sure if it is available online, but it is mentioned (both the draft the final version) in Philip Zeigler's bio of The Duke, which used the Archives at Windsor.

[Roslyn]

Originally Posted by branchg

I am not sure if it is available online, but it is mentioned (both the draft the final version) in Philip Zeigler's bio of The Duke, which used the Archives at Windsor.

Thank you. I need to get that book. I find the events associated with the abdication fascinating.

[Artemisia]

Me too! Thanks for sharing the source, branchg.

[LondonLady]

I have a question re: the title of the Queen Mother. At her funeral, she was referred to as The Princess Elizabeth. Does anyone know why? Most women marrying into the Royal Family cannot hold the title "Princess" in their own right - for example, the Duchess of Cambridge is known as Princess William, etc. I know that Princess Alice, Duchess of Glouster was called that name to distinguish her from the her daughter in law, but I am not sure that she was officially Princess Alice. Thanks for your help.

[Dman]

They just announced her full titles at her funeral. She was a Princess by marriage to Prince Albert. She wasn't a princess in her own right.

[PrincePatrick]

It's also customary to refer to Kings and Queens who have passed as "The high and mighty (or something like that) prince/princess so-and-so." Though she held the title at one point of Princess Albert, and Princess of Scotland, I believe it is simply refering to her princely status (above commoners, and nobility), and not to a specific title. (I asked this same question about a year ago)

[BrazilianEmpire]

If the United Kingdom and the Commowealth Realms adopt equal primogeniture and the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge have two daughters, the oldest one will be the Princess of Wales, as heir to Throne, but will she also be the Princess Royal, as the King's eldest daughter, or William V will be able to give the title of Princess Royal to his second daughter?

[branchg]

Both titles are within the gift of The Sovereign and there is no reason they could not be conferred that way if William chose to do so.

[vkrish]

Originally Posted by BrazilianEmpire

If the United Kingdom and the Commowealth Realms adopt equal primogeniture and the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge have two daughters, the oldest one will be the Princess of Wales, as heir to Throne, but will she also be the Princess Royal, as the King's eldest daughter, or William V will be able to give the title of Princess Royal to his second daughter?

Nice one, and how come this thought has not occured to me, given that I am so obsessed with these two titles..
Basically I think the title Princess Royal loses its relevance once primogeniture is made. "Title for the eldest daughter" sounds always charismatic and "title for the second daughter" will never have that charisma/awe/whatever.. And Princess of Wales will always fit this definition.
And for Princess Royal, you cannot standardise the definition of the title..
Ex: Now "PR" is title held by eldest daughter of British monarch.
How about..The title held by second eldest daughter, or the eldest daughter if she is not the heir..Sounds weird , right..

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..

[BrazilianEmpire]

Originally Posted by vkrish

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]

Originally Posted by 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 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]

Originally Posted by BrazilianEmpire

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.

Originally Posted by vkrish

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]

Originally Posted by Lumutqueen

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]

Originally Posted by BrazilianEmpire

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]

Originally Posted by BrazilianEmpire

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]

Originally Posted by SLV

Can't a LP change this?

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