Questions about British Styles and Titles 1: Ending 2022


If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Status
Not open for further replies.
AFAIK it is not official that the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge should use their "Scottish" title while in Scotland. After the Act of Union in 1701 all titles created are in the Peerage of the Uk- there cannot be new creations under Scottish or English law.

Of course the title of "The Prince of Wales"as well as the "The Duke of Cornwall" have been a title in the peerage of England before that (so they are no Welsh or Cornish titles), just like "The Duke of Rothesay" has been a title of the peerage of Scotland.

Different letters patents rule how these titles are acquired by the heir to the throne and they are used traditionally like they were used before the Act of Union. Thus, in Scotland, the title of the heir of the Throne is "Duke of Rothesay" and "The Prince of Scotland" (another of Charles' titles) while on "English soil" (including Northern Ireland) he is The Prince of Wales, Duke of Cornwall as heir.

But - William's as well as the other titles of the Royal family are "British titles"- all created after the Union of both kingdoms, so are valid in either. It's just the papers who want William to be recognized as the heir of the heir of Scotland as well as of England (which included Wales and Northern Ireland).
 
I recently read a comment on another thread relating to the Earl and Countess of Strathearn's recent engagements in Scotland and wondering when Baron and Baroness Carrickfergus would have their first official engagements in their area. Is it correct that this is how William and Catherine will be known in Northern Ireland?

That is how they should theoretically be addressed yes.

This got me to thinking, I know that The Prince of Wales is known as The Duke of Rothesay in Scotland, as this is the traditional title held by the heir to the Scottish throne, however wasn't aware that other members of the Royal Family used Scottish titles in Scotland and had always thought that they simply used their senior title? Duke of Edinburgh, Duke of York, Duke of Kent etc. Is there a historical precedent for this? I can just about see that Prince Andrew could be known as Earl of Inverness in Scotland (as he doesnt have any sons) but if Prince Richard say, were to be referred to as Baron Culloden in Scotland, this would surely cause confusion with his grandson, who uses the Baron Culloden title by curtesy?

The Duke of Edinburgh if you notice has it's own Scottish ring to it. Andrew is more than likely to be referred to as having the title Earl of Inverness but not likely to be addressed by it. Barely anyone knows who Prince Richard is let alone his grandson so that's not an issue.

C If so Prince Charles would use Duke of Cornwall in England, Prince of Wales in Wales and also have a Northern Irish Title. Similarly William would need a Welsh Title to complement Cambridge, Strathearn and Carrickfergus. (I do think there was a certain irony that despite living in Wales, the titles that the Queen conferred on Prince William did not include anything to reflect this.)

Prince of Wales is similar to the Crown Prince title that European heirs hold. There are stipulations to fulfil both POW and DOC, one can be POW and not be DOC etc. So Charles having two 'main' titles has it's uses. William didn't need a Wales connection as a title, he will one day be The Prince of Wales and he is the son of the current POW.
 
The Prince of Wales, The Duke of Cambridge and the Duke of York are all known by their Scottish titles when undertaking engagements in Scotland. I doubt if Kent or Gloucester use their Scottish titles when in Scotland but that may be because those titles are currently being used as courtesy titles by their son or grandson. I have never seen a report of a member of the BRF using their Irish titles when undertaking engagements in Northern Ireland.
 
According to the British monarchy website Andrew is referred to as Earl of Inverness in Inverness (not Scotlant) and as Baron Killyleagh when in Killyleagh but not elsewhere in Ireland.
 
When Charles becomes King, do William and Catherine become Prince and Princess of Wales?

Case Histories
King Edward VII, King George V were both Prince of Wales before becoming Kings in their own right.
 
When Charles becomes King, do William and Catherine become Prince and Princess of Wales?

Case Histories
King Edward VII, King George V were both Prince of Wales before becoming Kings in their own right.

Its not an automatic thing. It will depend on if Charles wants to create William the Prince of Wales.
 
When Charles becomes King, do William and Catherine become Prince and Princess of Wales?

Case Histories
King Edward VII, King George V were both Prince of Wales before becoming Kings in their own right.

It is not automatic but is within the gift of the monarch. William automatically becomes Duke of Cornwall. It is expected that he will become Prince of Wales but, for example, in the case of George V he became PoW after c. 6months.
 
Does that mean that William and Catherine will be known as Duke and Duchess of Cornwall when Charles is King?? Where does that leave Cambridge?

King George V Prince of Wales after 6 months automatically? Do you mean 1901 after his father became King Edward VII?

As I remember King Edward VIII having to be created Prince of Wales (1911) but I don't remember George V or Edward VII having any such investiture in Wales?

Sorry, am feeling a bit confused??
 
Does that mean that William and Catherine will be known as Duke and Duchess of Cornwall when Charles is King?? Where does that leave Cambridge?

They will be The Duke and Duchess of Cornwall and Cambridge.

King George V Prince of Wales after 6 months automatically? Do you mean 1901 after his father became King Edward VII?

In November 1901, George was created Prince of Wales and Earl of Chester.

As I remember King Edward VIII having to be created Prince of Wales (1911) but I don't remember George V or Edward VII having any such investiture in Wales?

An investiture is not required to become Prince of Wales, it is a title granted by the Monarch and can be done at anytime, anywhere.
 
Does that mean that William and Catherine will be known as Duke and Duchess of Cornwall when Charles is King?? Where does that leave Cambridge?

King George V Prince of Wales after 6 months automatically? Do you mean 1901 after his father became King Edward VII?

As I remember King Edward VIII having to be created Prince of Wales (1911) but I don't remember George V or Edward VII having any such investiture in Wales?

Sorry, am feeling a bit confused??

The title of Prince of Wales is not automatic and neither is an investiture. EVII made George (later GV) PoW after c. 6 months of being King. It is entirely up to the monarch.

The heir to the throne is automatically Duke of Cornwall on the accession to the throne of the monarch. Example is when EVII became King, George became Duke of Cornwall and York (he was previously Duke of York). Rather a long title and he was generally known as Duke of Cornwall.

William will become Duke of Cornwall and Cambridge. But again it's a bit long and will probably just be known as the D of Cornwall. assuming he becomes PoW, Duke of Cornwall will be his secondary title as it is currently with Charles.
 
The heir to the throne is automatically Duke of Cornwall on the accession to the throne of the monarch. Example is when EVII became King, George became Duke of Cornwall and York (he was previously Duke of York). Rather a long title and he was generally known as Duke of Cornwall.

The heir to the throne is not always automatically Duke of Cornwall. The Duke of Cornwall is always the monarch's eldest son who is also the heir to the throne. If Charles were to die before his mother then there would be no Duke of Cornwall as the monarch's eldest son would not be the heir to the throne. When the requirements for the title are met then it is automatic.
 
The heir to the throne is not always automatically Duke of Cornwall. The Duke of Cornwall is always the monarch's eldest son who is also the heir to the throne. If Charles were to die before his mother then there would be no Duke of Cornwall as the monarch's eldest son would not be the heir to the throne. When the requirements for the title are met then it is automatic.

Thanks for that, but in the natural order of things, it would be as I stated.
 
Thanks so much everyone!

Do I take it then that there is no room for doubt that Camilla will be Queen Consort as the wife of King Charles III? Despite what her critics say?
 
Thanks so much everyone!

Do I take it then that there is no room for doubt that Camilla will be Queen Consort as the wife of King Charles III? Despite what her critics say?

There is room for doubt. At the time of the wedding, it was reported that Camilla will be Princess Consort. This is the official line according to the FAQ on the Prince of Wales' website.
 
Thanks so much everyone!

Do I take it then that there is no room for doubt that Camilla will be Queen Consort as the wife of King Charles III? Despite what her critics say?

Your questions will undoubtedly be moved to the appropriate thread soon, but this topic has been discussed at length in numerous places. Camilla will be the wife of the King therefore it would take an act of Parliament to deprive her of the title Queen.

You may find this thread useful; http://www.theroyalforums.com/forums/f23/questions-about-british-styles-and-titles-258-103.html
 
Thanks so much everyone!

Do I take it then that there is no room for doubt that Camilla will be Queen Consort as the wife of King Charles III? Despite what her critics say?

Really? Are you seriously going to stir that hornets nest again ?
 
Would Diana have remained a Princess if she remarried?

After divorce, was Diana a Princess in her own right, or simply because she had been married to the Prince of Wales? If she had remarried, would she have remained a Princess?
 
After divorce, was Diana a Princess in her own right, or simply because she had been married to the Prince of Wales? If she had remarried, would she have remained a Princess?

She wasn't a Princess in her own right. She held the divorced style of her husband, Diana, Princess of Wales. She was accorded the same precedence as before get divorce as she was mother to the future king.
 
She was never a Princess in her own right.

Had she remarried she would have lost the right to use the Princess of Wales styling as part of her name.
 
She wasn't a Princess in her own right. She held the divorced style of her husband, Diana, Princess of Wales. She was accorded the same precedence as before get divorce as she was mother to the future king.

According to Charles and Diana Agree on Divorce Terms - NYTimes.com :

"The removal of the "Royal Highness" title, which separates the royal family from the rest of British nobility, officially obliges Diana to curtsey to others who have it -- her ex-husband, for instance, and even her own children. But the palace said, rather cryptically, that Princess Diana will continue to be "regarded as a member of the royal family" and "will from time to time receive invitations to state and national public occasions" at the invitation "of the sovereign or the Government."
 
And?
Diana was mother of the future King she was never going to be excluded and her patronages kept her in the loop. William apparently told her when he was King he would give her her HRH back.

As iluvbertie explained she would have lost the right to use her divorced style had she remarried.
.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
After divorce, was Diana a Princess in her own right, or simply because she had been married to the Prince of Wales? If she had remarried, would she have remained a Princess?

In Britain you are a Princess either by birth or by marriage.
If you are one by marriage, you are never directly styled "Princess (Your Name)", but instead "Princess (Your husband's name)".
So Diana was Princess Charles. And since he is Prince of Wales, by courtesy, as all wives of peers, she is Princess of Wales.
After divorce, she is automatically neither Princess Charles nor Princess of Wales.
However, since wives of British princes are not given any surnames, it was announced that Diana and Sarah, after divorce, can use their peerage titles at the end of their name, just in place of their surnames.
Thus Diana came to be known as Diana,Princess of Wales.
And Sarah came to be known as Sarah,Duchess of York.
That does not mean either of them is a Princess or a Duchess.
Once they remarry, they get new surnames right eg. Diana Smith or Sarah Cavill. So Diana wouldnt be known as Diana, Princess of Wales anymore.But Idoubt things would have hardly changed and media continued to refer to her as Princess Diana throughout her life. Or atleast as long as she helped them sell..
 
Just an additional note - the styles that Diana and Sarah used after their divorces are the same as any divorced wife of a peer - using the former title as a surname - so the divorced wife of The Duke of Hogwarts would also be known as Jane, Duchess of Hogwarts. This styling wasn't/isn't restricted to ex-wives of princes.
 
"The removal of the "Royal Highness" title, which separates the royal family from the rest of British nobility, officially obliges Diana to curtsey to others who have it -- her ex-husband, for instance, and even her own children. But the palace said, rather cryptically, that Princess Diana will continue to be "regarded as a member of the royal family" and "will from time to time receive invitations to state and national public occasions" at the invitation "of the sovereign or the Government."

Right, which simply meant The Queen was walking a fine line for the sake of her grandsons. Officially, Diana lost her royal rank and was no longer a princess, but would continue to be regarded as one in style. On official occasions, she would not be banished to the back row, but allowed appropriate place next to her sons when so invited.

I doubt she would have retained the style of a princess had she remarried.
 
The fact she would have to curtsey to her husband and even children shows she did not keep the same precedence she had when married.
.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
The fact she would have to curtsey to her husband and even children shows she did not keep the same precedence she had when married.

Ah, but the fact that she had to curtsey at all was because Charles was no longer her husband.
 
The fact she would have to curtsey to her husband and even children shows she did not keep the same precedence she had when married.

Source Buckingham Palace -
PR Newswire UK: DIVORCE: STATUS AND ROLE OF THE PRINCESS OF WALES

As she will be regarded as a member of the Royal Family, The
Princess will from time to time receive invitations to State and
national public occasions, as for any other member of the Royal
Family, at the invitation of The Sovereign or the Government. On
these occasions The Princess will be accorded the precedence she
enjoys at present.
 
We must remember that Diana's position was unique in that she was the divorced wife of the Prince of Wales but she was the mother of the future King and so they had to make up some new rules that applied to her situation which was different to Sarah's for instance. We know Sarah isn't invited to royal events even though she is the mother of two of the Queen's grandchildren, and nor, of course, is Mark but Diana would have still been invited.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom