Succession to the Crown Act 2013

[Paulchen]

What interests me are the implications with respect to the titles of the Heir to the Throne, all the legislation regarding The Prince of Wales, etc being, to cut a long story short, the eldest son, the title of the husband of a Princess of Wales in her own right? Will the entitlement to Prince/Princess be extended to the female line? Would a female third in line, as in eldest granddaughter of a monarch [equivalent to Prince William at the moment] be granted a Dukedom on marriage? Would her children be made HRH and Prince or Princess by Letters Patent? How will royal heraldry be affected?

Will the terms Heir Apparent and Heir Presumptive be abolished?

All these other knock-on effects... I'm sure there are many more and that they will be dealt with in the age old British fashion: As and when the matter arises...

[Artemisia]

In regards to the Prince of Wales title, there is absolutely no reason why a female cannot be a Princess of Wales in her own right: the title must only belong to the Heir Apparent to the Throne, whether female or male. It has never been done before, but it certainly could be.

Some of the other titles will be rather trickier to deal with. For instance, the Duke of Cornwall title must belong to the Heir Apparent to the Throne who is also the Sovereign's eldest surviving son. In order for a female to become Duchess of Cornwall in her own right (and consequently, enjoy the income from the Duchy of Cornwall), laws will need to be changed.

I strongly doubt the husband of a female Princess of Wales will be a Prince of Wales though: most probably, he'll be created a Duke in his own right or perhaps a Prince of the Realm but not Prince of Wales.


I don't see why the terms Heirs Apparent and Heirs Presumptive should be abolished. Even when Equal Primogeniture is adopted, there will always be Heirs Presumptive at some point. For instance, right now and until the birth of his first child, Prince William's Heir Presumptive is Prince Harry. When William has a child, that child will be his Heir(ess) Apparent.

[Furienna]

Originally Posted by Artemisia

In regards to the Prince of Wales title, there is absolutely no reason why a female cannot be a Princess of Wales in her own right: the title must only belong to the Heir Apparent to the Throne, whether female or male. It has never been done before, but it certainly could be.

The queen was practically a princess of Wales in her own right, even though she didn't use that title.

Originally Posted by Artemisia

I strongly doubt the husband of a female Princess of Wales will be a Prince of Wales though: most probably, he'll be created a Duke in his own right or perhaps a Prince of the Realm but not Prince of Wales.

Which is weird. If we're going for equality between the sexes, there should be no difference here either. Shouldn't both wives and husbands be able to share a title?

Originally Posted by Artemisia

I don't see why the terms Heirs Apparent and Heirs Presumptive should be abolished. Even when Equal Primogeniture is adopted, there will always be Heirs Presumptive at some point. For instance, right now and until the birth of his first child, Prince William's Heir Presumptive is Prince Harry. When William has a child, that child will be his Heir(ess) Apparent.

I was thinking the same thing.

[Artemisia]

Originally Posted by Furienna

The queen was practically a princess of Wales in her own right, even though she didn't use that title.

The same could be said about Princess Mary (future Mary I) who was, for many years, considered Heiress to Throne and was even referred to as The Princess of Wales unofficially. However, legally neither the Queen and Mary I, nor any of the other future English/British Queens Regnant ever held the title.

There had been some talks about granting Princess Elizabeth the title Princess of Wales in her own right but George VI disagreed, stating that the tradition dictates Princess of Wales is the wife of the Prince of Wales. Although again, unlike the Duke of Cornwall or the Duke of Rothesay titles there is absolutely no reason why Heiress Apparent to the Throne cannot be Princess of Wales.

[Roslyn]

Originally Posted by Furienna

The queen was practically a princess of Wales in her own right, even though she didn't use that title.


Which is weird. If we're going for equality between the sexes, there should be no difference here either. Shouldn't both wives and husbands be able to share a title?

If we're going for equality between the sexes, why should the wife of the Prince of Wales lose her own identity on marriage and take on his style and title? Husband and wife are no longer one person in the eyes of the law, so they should have separate styles and titles.

The Prince of Wales' wife could be made a Princess in her own right. In William and Kate's case they could be called TRHs Prince William, The Prince of Wales, and Princess Catherine. Likewise, if their firstborn is a girl named Diana, her future husband would be made a Prince in his own right and they could become, in due course, TRHs Princess Diana, The Princess of Wales, and Prince (first name). This proposition also provides for the couples to eventually be HM King William and HRH Princess Catherine and HM Queen Diana and HRH Prince (first name) respectively. Perhaps the consort could have the style of "Majesty" rather than "Royal Highness" to distinguish them.

Radical, but more in line with modern trends towards equality of the sexes.

[DukeOfAster]

Originally Posted by Roslyn

If we're going for equality between the sexes, why should the wife of the Prince of Wales lose her own identity on marriage and take on his style and title? Husband and wife are no longer one person in the eyes of the law, so they should have separate styles and titles.

The Prince of Wales' wife could be made a Princess in her own right. In William and Kate's case they could be called TRHs Prince William, The Prince of Wales, and Princess Catherine. Likewise, if their firstborn is a girl named Diana, her future husband would be made a Prince in his own right and they could become, in due course, TRHs Princess Diana, The Princess of Wales, and Prince (first name). This proposition also provides for the couples to eventually be HM King William and HRH Princess Catherine and HM Queen Diana and HRH Prince (first name) respectively. Perhaps the consort could have the style of "Majesty" rather than "Royal Highness" to distinguish them.

Radical, but more in line with modern trends towards equality of the sexes.

But then by giving them the Majesty you are giving them the ID of their spouse and not their own. If they are to keep their own ID and the spouse has a title of their own and it has HRH next to it then until they are moved to a title in their own right with a Majest

[DukeOfAster]

The spouse should only get Majesty if they receive it in their own right. If the position they hold has a HRH with it then HRH is what they get until they earn the Majesty. They do not get it because the spouse holds it.

[Artemisia]

How exactly is a spouse supposed to "earn" the Majesty?
As far as I know, royal titles aren't earned: you get them because you were either born to the "right" people, or married them.

[NGalitzine]

If a woman is to retain her own identity, should it not then be a case of HM The King and Ms Donaldson for example......Donaldson of course being her own fathers name so that might be sexist as well, but even her own mothers name would of course have been that of her maternal grandfather so I guess there is no way around it.

[Roslyn]

Originally Posted by Artemisia

As far as I know, royal titles aren't earned: you get them because you were either born to the "right" people, or married them.

No royal titles are "earned" these days. There was a time that a monarch was elected, and to that extent "earned" their title, but these days people get royal titles because of accident of birth or marriage to someone who has a title because of accident of birth.

I was hesitant to suggest a sovereign's spouse be made a "majesty", and I've changed my mind. "Majesty" refers to the position of sovereign and there is only one sovereign. I don't see why a woman who is married to a king gets to become a "majesty" and a man married to a queen doesn't. I think the sovereign's spouse should stay as HRH Princess or Princess (first name). Everyone will know they are married to the monarch so they will still have precedence over everyone else of their gender.

Just my thoughts on the matter.

Originally Posted by Dman

I was just stating the facts that the palace released. The fuss over Camilla's future Queenship isn't something I'm looking forward to in the future.

I'm not looking forward to it either. I think it will seem rather petty and somewhat distasteful since the debate will arise as a direct and immediate result of the death of the much beloved Queen Elizabeth II. The moment HM is pronounced dead, Charles will become King, and people will not know what to call Camilla. Technically she will become Queen Consort at the same moment, but that's not what TPTB have said she'll be "known as". There won't be a transition period to allow the matter to be resolved with clear heads and no emotion. The issue will arise immediately, while everyone is in shock and grieving. As everyone who remembers what happened after Diana's death knows, it could get nasty.

[Mariel]

As state by Cepe and others, the issues of the monarch's religion and of equal primogeniture must be separated. If they are not, chaos and confusion will reign in the minds of parliaments who must vote on this issue.
To say that William's children will inevitably be C of E is to look askance from the glaring defection of the Duchess of Kent and several of her children from the C of E to the RC.
True, they aren't the direct line to the crown, but William's children might at some point decide they want to be RC. Or one of them might decide this, so it would be important which one was the first in line to the throne. If it was the second in line, maybe it would not matter.
As Cepe states, RC members are expected to raise children RC, and this becomes most explicit when an RC person (male or female) marries a non-RC. The non-RC person must swear to raise the children Catholic.
I do not know if Princess Michael thus was forced to swear...perhaps she was not. Perhaps this custom which was strong in the US is not as strong in England.
Having been a member of both RC and of C of E, I can tell you that there are strong dividing things between them, even if their liturgy is very very similar, and their core beliefs (as in the Nicene Creed) very similar. If this thing is mixed up with primogeniture, it will mean that the people voting on it do NOT take their religion seriously, either RC or C of E. Both are Christian, both should get along, but both will have trouble if a royal heir defects.

[DukeOfAster]

Originally Posted by Artemisia

How exactly is a spouse supposed to "earn" the Majesty?
As far as I know, royal titles aren't earned: you get them because yotex sou were either born to the "right" people, or married them.

From my understanding the Queen did not have to give the heir to the throne title to Charles it was her choice. so he must have earned it. my point is that do not say lets make all the same and then say to make the spouse to the monarch special lets make them a Majesty. if you are going to let them be a prince or princess or a Duke or Duchess like Philip then let them be a HRH and only the Monarch is the Majesty.

[DukeOfAster]

Originally Posted by Roslyn

No royal titles are "earned" these days. There was a time that a monarch was elected, and to that extent "earned" their title, but these days people get royal titles because of accident of birth or marriage to someone who has a title because of accident of birth.

I was hesitant to suggest a sovereign's spouse be made a "majesty", and I've changed my mind. "Majesty" refers to the position of sovereign and there is only one sovereign. I don't see why a woman who is married to a king gets to become a "majesty" and a man married to a queen doesn't. I think the sovereign's spouse should stay as HRH Princess or Princess (first name). Everyone will know they are married to the monarch so they will still have precedence over everyone else of their gender.

Just my thoughts on the matter.

I'm not looking forward to it either. I think it will seem rather petty and somewhat distasteful since the debate will arise as a direct and immediate result of the death of the much beloved Queen Elizabeth II. The moment HM is pronounced dead, Charles will become King, and people will not know what to call Camilla. Technically she will become Queen Consort at the same moment, but that's not what TPTB have said she'll be "known as". There won't be a transition period to allow the matter to be resolved with clear heads and no emotion. The issue will arise immediately, while everyone is in shock and grieving. As everyone who remembers what happened after Diana's death knows, it could get nasty.

agreed!!! i agree as well it is stupid not to make both male and female spouse the same. maybe it is as simple as His or Her Royal Highness The Prince or The Princess Consort is the Monarchs spouses title.

[Excalibur]

Originally Posted by DukeOfAster

From my understanding the Queen did not have to give the heir to the throne title to Charles it was her choice. so he must have earned it.

Upon the death of George VI, Prince Charles became (along with several other titles) the Heir Apparent to the throne. The Queen did not give him this title, it was his as a matter of his birth. He did not earn it. The Queen did, however, create him The Prince of Wales, but this had no effect on his position as Heir Apparent.

[Alison H]

Until this year, when the rules were changed, technically there couldn't be an Heiress Apparent as the Heiress Presumptive would have been displaced had her parents had a son, or had her mother died and her father remarried and had a son with his second wife. Princess Mary, the future Mary I, had a court at Ludlow, where Princes of Wales were usually based, for a while, but I don't think she was "officially" Princess of Wales.

I wish they'd sort something out about Camilla. As far as I'm concerned, as soon as Charles becomes King his wife becomes Queen, but there's been all this vague talk about her being "Princess Consort" and so no-one really knows what's going to happen. Hopefully the question won't arise for many years yet, but the Queen's nearly 87 and the situation's going to arise at some point.

[Dman]

I know, we have to face reality. Long May She Reign but Her Majesty is getting older and the Camilla topic will come up again at some point. I think the royal family is even dredding that moment, on top of everything they will be dealing with.

[Lumutqueen]

Originally Posted by Mariel

If Charles passed away suddenly, I guess William would become the direct heir. Charles eats organic food and may he also live long, and Camilla too.

No guessing, when Charles dies William is next in line.
When it's your time it's your time, organic food or not.

[Artemisia]

Originally Posted by DukeOfAster

From my understanding the Queen did not have to give the heir to the throne title to Charles it was her choice. so he must have earned it. my point is that do not say lets make all the same and then say to make the spouse to the monarch special lets make them a Majesty. if you are going to let them be a prince or princess or a Duke or Duchess like Philip then let them be a HRH and only the Monarch is the Majesty.

Prince Charles became Heir Apparent to the British Throne the moment the Queen ascended to the Throne. No one, not even the Monarch, has the say in this matter; it is regulated by laws and traditions. Prince Charles was automatically The Duke of Cornwall (a title reserved for the heir apparent only) from 1952. What the Queen did was create him The Prince of Wales as well - another of the titles of the Heir Apparent which is not, however, automatic.

Originally Posted by Alison H

Until this year, when the rules were changed, technically there couldn't be an Heiress Apparent as the Heiress Presumptive would have been displaced had her parents had a son, or had her mother died and her father remarried and had a son with his second wife. Princess Mary, the future Mary I, had a court at Ludlow, where Princes of Wales were usually based, for a while, but I don't think she was "officially" Princess of Wales.

Actually, there could be an Heiress Apparent even before the changes.
For instance, if Charles and Diana had only one daughter and Charles predeceased his mother, that girl would have been Heiress Apparent to the Throne because no subsequent births could have displaced her in the Line of Succession.

[branchg]

Originally Posted by Dman

I know, we have to face reality. Long May She Reign but Her Majesty is getting older and the Camilla topic will come up again at some point. I think the royal family is even dredding that moment, on top of everything they will be dealing with.

I doubt anyone is too worried about what Camilla will be. She is Queen automatically the minute Charles is The Sovereign and I cannot imagine any Prime Minister agreeing to introduce legislation in Parliament to change that.

HM could easily live another 15 years if her health holds. It will be a short reign for Charles and Camilla, assuming one or both hasn't died yet.

[Furienna]

Yeah, Camilla has never been as popular as Diana was, and I think that has a lot to do with it.