Questions about British Styles and Titles 1: Ending 2022

[Westfield Bakery]

Well, Princess William, will also be the Princess of Wales, Duchess of Cornwall, Countess of Carrick, and Princess and Great Stewardess of Scotland.

Princess William is Catherine's legal name. Her Royal Highness Princess William Arthur Philip Louis, Duchess of Cambridge, Countess of Strathearn, Baroness Carrickfergus.

When William and Kate become Prince and Princess of Wales, will their children be:

Prince George of Cambridge and Wales and Princess Charlotte of Cambridge and Wales?

 

[Countessmeout]

It's automatic. The eldest son of the monarch automatically is duke of Cornwall either at birth (if born when parent is on the throne) or when their parent ascends the throne.

The only way William won't is if his father died before the queen. Then the title would be vacant until George inherits when William is king.

Same goes with Rothesy. Rothesy is attached to Cornwall not Wales.

 

[Westfield Bakery]

My friends in New Jersey call The Duchess of Cambridge "Princess Catherine", "Princess Kate", "Princess William", or "Mrs. Cambridge".

 

[LauraS3514]

When William and Kate become Prince and Princess of Wales, will their children be:

Prince George of Cambridge and Wales and Princess Charlotte of Cambridge and Wales?

When Prince Charles becomes King, William will automatically become Duke of Cornwall (Duke of Rothsay in Scotland) as noted above, and his children will then become "of Cornwall and Cambridge." If and when William is created "Prince of Wales" by his father, George and Charlotte will just be "of Wales" just as William was, and Harry still is, "of Wales" alone.

 

[Westfield Bakery]

When Prince Charles becomes King, William will automatically become Duke of Cornwall (Duke of Rothsay in Scotland) as noted above, and his children will then become "of Cornwall and Cambridge." If and when William is created "Prince of Wales" by his father, George and Charlotte will just be "of Wales" just as William was, and Harry still is, "of Wales" alone.

Okay. Will the Dukedom of Cambridge merge in with the Crown just like how Elizabeth II is still Duchess of Edinburgh?

 

[Skippyboo]

The kids will probably just go by of Wales like William and Harry did. William like his father will hold multiple Dukedoms .

If there is any investiture for William, it will probably be more simpler ceremony. Something like Charles making the announcement at Caernarfon Castle. Then a tour of Wales by the new Prince and Princess of Wales. I can't really see a crowning and robes like Charles in 1969 right before the Coronation.

 

[Westfield Bakery]

The kids will probably just go by of Wales like William and Harry did. William like his father will hold multiple Dukedoms .

If there is any investiture for William, it will probably be more simpler ceremony. Something like Charles making the announcement at Caernarfon Castle. Then a tour of Wales by the new Prince and Princess of Wales. I can't really see a crowning and robes like Charles in 1969 right before the Coronation.

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.

 

[LauraS3514]

Okay. Will the Dukedom of Cambridge merge in with the Crown just like how Elizabeth II is still Duchess of Edinburgh?

The Cambridge Dukedom will only merge with the Crown when William is King. He will remain Duke of Cambridge until that date even if he becomes Prince of Wales in the future and no longer uses Cambridge in "everyday" life.

 

[Westfield Bakery]

So here is the succession:

When William becomes King William V,

Prince George of Cambridge would become: The Prince George
Princess Charlotte of Cambridge would become: The Princess Charlotte, just like when Queen Elizabeth II became queen, Prince Charles of Edinburgh and Princess Anne of Edinburgh became The Prince Charles and The Princess Anne.

 

[Iluvbertie]

George however would become HRH The Duke of Cornwall instantly his father succeeds and that would take precedence over The Prince George - which would only be used officially in Scotland with the Rothesay title.

Yes he would the The Prince George but wouldn't really use that but rather just Prince George or Duke of Cornwall and maybe eventually Prince of Wales.

Yes they do drop the 'of xxx' when they are the children of the monarch until they have a title in their own right e.g. Andrew is the Duke of York more than The Prince Andrew - a style he doesn't use these days.

George's styles will probably be:

HRH Prince George of Cambridge
HRH Prince George of Cornwall and Cambridge
HRH Prince George of Wales
HRH The Duke of Cornwall, Duke of Rothesay etc
HRH The Prince of Wales
HM The King


The one thing that will change that is if he gains a title in his own right before William becomes King e.g. Duke of Hogwarts as that would then take precedence over the 'of Wales' or 'of Cornwall and Cambridge' or 'of Cambridge'. That would probably only happen if he married in his grandfather's reign.

The precedence for George's titles would be Edward VIII who, like George, was born 3rd in line to the throne and followed the list of titles above replacing Cambridge with York. Edward wasn't given the extra title because he became Duke of Cornwall aged 16 and so didn't need another title at any stage of his life whereas George V and William both married while still 2nd in line to the throne and rather than have their wives known as Princess George and Princess William titles were forthcoming (yes I know Mary was a Princess in her own right but not of the UK. Prince Philip's mother was officially Princess Andrew of Greece in the UK not Princess Alice of Hesse - her birth styling. The Brits do things differently to the rest of Europe which I find really nice - not 'royals are all the same' but there will be some on here who think that one royal way of doing things is better than any other and the Brits are wrong)

 

[muriel]

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.

 

[Osipi]

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.

 

[Westfield Bakery]

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?

 

[JessRulz]

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.

 

[Westfield Bakery]

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.

 

[Iluvbertie]

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.

 

[Westfield Bakery]

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"?

 

[HRHHermione]

Questions about British Styles and Titles

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.

 

[Ish]

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.

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.

 

[Iluvbertie]

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.

 

[Westfield Bakery]

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.

 

[Skippyboo]

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.

 

[Westfield Bakery]

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).

 

[Skippyboo]

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.

 

[Westfield Bakery]

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.

 

[Ish]

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.

 

[Ish]

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.

 

[Westfield Bakery]

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.

 

[Lumutqueen]

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.

 

[Osipi]

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.