Prince William and Catherine Middleton Possible Titles

[Iluvbertie]

Cornwall (and Rothesay in Scotland) are the Dukedoms of the heir to the throne and thus always take precedence over other titles (except Prince of Wales, Earl of Chester).

Unless the title is a held by a royal e.g. Duke of Kent precedence is done on date of creation. My understanding is that when the present Dukes of Gloucester and Kent die then the precedence of those Dukedoms will revert to order of creation as the holder will no longer by HRH Prince, which both the holders are at the moment (HRH Prince Richard and HRH Prince Edward respectively).

 

[Sister Morphine]

Thank you.

 

[branchg]

Wouldn´t the Queen be able to allow her to use the style of Princess Catherine...

Yes. As she did with Diana, who was always "HRH The Princess of Wales" while married and "Diana, Princess of Wales" with divorce.

Nonetheless, The Queen never objected to the style of "Princess Diana" informally, even though technically it was incorrect for a princess by marriage.

 

[Sister Morphine]

The Queen would only allow Catherine to use the style of Princess Catherine if she made her a princess in her own right. Otherwise, she's not entitled to it.

Besides, the press called Diana "Princess Diana", and the Queen can't control what the press called her. I don't believe Diana ever called herself "Princess Diana" or instructed anyone to refer to her that way. Also, the style "Diana, Princess of Wales" is customary for a divorced woman. The Queen had nothing to do with that either.

 

[branchg]

The Dukedom of Cornwall takes precedence over all others as it is automatically held by the eldest son and heir of The Sovereign. Therefore, when Victoria died and Edward VII became King, George was styled "HRH The Duke of Cornwall and York" for a year, at which point he was created "Prince of Wales and Earl of Chester".

I do not believe William will be created a Duke upon marriage. I think The Queen will create him an Earl for now, given her age and the desire of William to have a bit more privacy before taking on more royal duties. Once his father becomes King, William will automatically become Duke of Cornwall anyway.

Just my two cents.

 

[branchg]

The Queen would only allow Catherine to use the style of Princess Catherine if she made her a princess in her own right. Otherwise, she's not entitled to it.

The Queen doesn't need to issue letters patent creating someone a Prince or Princess in their own right in order to use a particular style. As with Princess Alice, Duchess of Gloucester, she can simply make an announcement or confirm a style has been approved for use.

With Diana, the Palace confirmed many times when inquired about "Princess Diana" that it was acceptable as Diana became a princess automatically upon marriage to the heir to the throne and was the mother of a future king.

 

[Sister Morphine]

Diana was a Princess through marriage, not by birth. Her official title once she married was HRH The Princess Charles, Princess of Wales, Duchess of Cornwall, Duchess of Rothesay, etc,. She was never legally "Princess Diana". If people called her that, it was because they didn't understand how the BRF doled out titles and styles. Again, the Queen can't control what the press chooses to refer to someone as in the paper/on TV.

As for Catherine, she will never be Princess Catherine. She will be HRH Princess William of Wales or HRH The Duchess of _________ if the Queen grants William a dukedom when he marries. The press will call her Princess Catherine, but that's because most of them don't know any better.

In the case of Princess Alice, the Duchess of Gloucester, she was allowed to call herself Princess Alice to differentiate between her and her daughter-in-law, but that was an exception, not the rule. Seeing as there are no other Catherines in the BRF at the moment, there's no reason for Catherine to be styled as such to set her apart from anyone else.

 

[branchg]

Also, isn't a royal dukedom different than say a garden variety dukedom? I would imagine there are many dukes in England at the moment, but not all of them are royal. A royal dukedom (like York, Edinburgh) is not a step down from being a prince, it's a compliment to it.

It's only different in that the original creation is for a member of the royal family holding the rank and style of HRH Prince of the UK. Once the title is passed to a great-grandson of the monarch, it loses royal rank and precedence and is ranked by date of creation (i.e. last on the list).

However, it remains a dukedom of the blood royal in the sense it is only created for a son or male-line grandson of the Sovereign. When the last male-line holder dies, it returns to the Crown to be re-created in the future for another HRH.

 

[Iluvbertie]

The Queen would only allow Catherine to use the style of Princess Catherine if she made her a princess in her own right. Otherwise, she's not entitled to it.

Besides, the press called Diana "Princess Diana", and the Queen can't control what the press called her. I don't believe Diana ever called herself "Princess Diana" or instructed anyone to refer to her that way. Also, the style "Diana, Princess of Wales" is customary for a divorced woman. The Queen had nothing to do with that either.

There are in fact a number of reports where Diana corrected people, including reporters who called her Princess Diana.

 

[branchg]

The Palace also referred to Diana as "Princess Diana" many times throughout the years, so it's safe to say The Queen never objected. And after her divorce, she was again referred to as "The Princess" which was totally incorrect as she was no longer a princess with divorce.

The point is The Queen can decide, as fount of all honours, what someone can be called whether letters patent are issued or not. I'm not saying Catherine will be entitled to "Princess Catherine", but simply stating there may be no objection if she is.

 

[Sister Morphine]

There are in fact a number of reports where Diana corrected people, including reporters who called her Princess Diana.

Then that would bolster my theory that the "Princess Diana" moniker was press-driven and quite likely, nothing else.

 

[branchg]

There are in fact a number of reports where Diana corrected people, including reporters who called her Princess Diana.

Yes, this is true. She always corrected people who called her that, stating she was "The Princess of Wales", not "Princess Diana". Her proper form of address was "Her Royal Highness" or "Ma'am" anyway.

 

[Sister Morphine]

The Palace also referred to Diana as "Princess Diana" many times throughout the years, so it's safe to say The Queen never objected. And after her divorce, she was again referred to as "The Princess" which was totally incorrect as she was no longer a princess with divorce.

If the Palace referred to her that way, they were wrong and should have been corrected as the Queen never allowed her, either through letters patent or otherwise, to use that style.

That doesn't mean they were right to do that or that the Queen allowed it. As Iluvbertie pointed out, Diana took means to correct people who called her that, because that's not what her title was.

So no, I can't see anyone allowing Catherine to be referred to as Princess Catherine after marriage. Allowing either through legal means or otherwise.

 

[branchg]

It's up to The Queen what she will be called. Assuming she says nothing otherwise, then Catherine will be "HRH Princess William of Wales".

If William is created a Peer, she will take her style from William's peerage with the rank of a Princess ("HRH The Duchess of X or Countess of X"), the same as any woman who marries a son or male-line grandson of The Sovereign.

 

[grevinnan]

there is a significant difference between Duke of Cornwall and Duke of Rothesay. The Duke of Cornwall title passes to the eldest living son of the monarch, the Duke of Rothesay title belongs to the heir apparent. It Charles should die while QEII is the living William would be the Duke of Rothesay (I am assuming he would in the event of Charles' death become the heir apparent) but he could not become the Duke or Cornwall. That would be the eldest living son of QEII, the current Duke of York.

 

[Sister Morphine]

there is a significant difference between Duke of Cornwall and Duke of Rothesay. The Duke of Cornwall title passes to the eldest living son of the monarch, the Duke of Rothesay title belongs to the heir apparent. It Charles should die while QEII is the living William would be the Duke of Rothesay (I am assuming he would in the event of Charles' death become the heir apparent) but he could not become the Duke or Cornwall. That would be the eldest living son of QEII, the current Duke of York.

That's incorrect.

When the Queen dies and Charles becomes King, William automatically becomes the Duke of Cornwall and the Duke of Rothesay. That's automatic. If Charles dies before his mother, and William becomes the heir to the throne, the Queen could then create William the Prince of Wales, but he would only get those two titles first upon his father's accession to the throne.

 

[branchg]

there is a significant difference between Duke of Cornwall and Duke of Rothesay. The Duke of Cornwall title passes to the eldest living son of the monarch, the Duke of Rothesay title belongs to the heir apparent. It Charles should die while QEII is the living William would be the Duke of Rothesay (I am assuming he would in the event of Charles' death become the heir apparent) but he could not become the Duke or Cornwall. That would be the eldest living son of QEII, the current Duke of York.

It only passes to the eldest living son of The Sovereign who is also the heir to the throne. If the heir dies with male issue (as would be the case with Prince Charles), the Dukedom does not pass to the next son of The Sovereign but returns to the Crown (the duchy's income goes to The Sovereign).

The last time this happened was during the reign of George II. His son, Frederick, Prince of Wales and Duke of Cornwall, died and his grandson, George, became The Duke of Edinburgh (his father's original dukedom). His grandfather created him Prince of Wales and he became George III upon his death.

 

[Iluvbertie]

there is a significant difference between Duke of Cornwall and Duke of Rothesay. The Duke of Cornwall title passes to the eldest living son of the monarch, the Duke of Rothesay title belongs to the heir apparent. It Charles should die while QEII is the living William would be the Duke of Rothesay (I am assuming he would in the event of Charles' death become the heir apparent) but he could not become the Duke or Cornwall. That would be the eldest living son of QEII, the current Duke of York.

No the Duke of York would/could not become the Duke of Cornwall while William or Harry lives as he wouldn't be the eldest son of the monarch who is also the heir to the throne.

When George II's son died George III was never able to be Duke of Cornwall or Duke of Rothesay as he was never the eldest son of the monarch.

He was created Prince of Wales during his grandfather's lifetime but not Duke of Cornwall or Duke of Rothesay. His Dukedom was Duke of Edinburgh for part of 1751 until created Prince of Wales.

He was, from the death of his father, until his accession the heir apparent as he he couldn't be replaced in the line of succession.

Duke of Rothesay is mandated to the heir apparent. Duke of Cornwall is mandated to the eldest son of the monarch who is also the heir apparent.

If Charles died now William could be created Prince of Wales and Earl of Chester but would not be able to be Duke of Cornwall or Duke of Rothesay.

 

[branchg]

If Charles dies while the Queen is still alive, then William would immediately become the Duke of Cornwall and the Duke of Rothesay as those are the titles of the heir to the throne.

The Queen could then create William the Prince of Wales, but he would get those two titles first upon his father's death OR his father's accession to the throne.

William would not become The Duke of Cornwall if Charles died as he would not be the eldest son and heir to Elizabeth II. She would likely create him Prince of Wales in due course as the heir to the throne.

He only becomes Duke of Cornwall if and when his father becomes King.

 

[Sister Morphine]

William wouldn't be the Queen's eldest son, but he would be her heir as he's the eldest son of the Prince of Wales.

 

[Iluvbertie]

William wouldn't be the Queen's eldest son, but he would be her heir as he's the eldest son of the Prince of Wales.

The Duke of Cornwall title, like the Duke of Rothesay title (and all the other titles Charles gained automaticallin in 1952) are restrited by TWO criteria - only one of them is being the heir apparent. The holder must also be the eldest son of the monarch. William will only fill both those criteria in the reign of his father and not in the reign of his grandmother. So if Charles died now William would never be Duke of Cornwall or Duke of Rothesay etc but the Queen could create him Prince of Wales.

This is the situation that George III was in from 1751, when his father died. He was never Duke of Cornwall or Duke of Rothesay despite being the heir apparent because he wasn't the eldest son of the monarch.

 

[branchg]

William wouldn't be the Queen's eldest son, but he would be her heir as he's the eldest son of the Prince of Wales.

Yes, of course. But the point is The Duke of Cornwall is only held by the eldest son AND heir of the monarch. You have to be both.

 

[Sister Morphine]

The Duke of Cornwall title, like the Duke of Rothesay title (and all the other titles Charles gained automaticallin in 1952) are restrited by TWO criteria - only one of them is being the heir apparent. The holder must also be the eldest son of the monarch. William will only fill both those criteria in the reign of his father and not in the reign of his grandmother. So if Charles died now William would never be Duke of Cornwall or Duke of Rothesay etc but the Queen could create him Prince of Wales.

I understand that. I was merely saying that while William would not be the Queen's eldest son, he would be her heir as branchg said that he would NOT be her heir.

 

[Sister Morphine]

Yes, of course. But the point is The Duke of Cornwall is only held by the eldest son AND heir of the monarch. You have to be both.

I understand that as well. It's been explained to me about five times and once was enough.

 

[grevinnan]

The Duke of Rothesay is for the heir apparent - whether a son of the current monarch or not.

If QEII only had one child, Charles and he died, Williams would be the Duke of Rothesay but not the Duke of Cornwall. The Duke of Cornwall would return to the crown until such time as there is a son and heir of a sitting monarch.

 

[Iluvbertie]

The Duke of Rothesay is for the heir apparent - whether a son of the current monarch or not.

If QEII only had one child, Charles and he died, Williams would be the Duke of Rothesay but not the Duke of Cornwall. The Duke of Cornwall would return to the crown until such time as there is a son and heir of a sitting monarch.

George III was the heir apparent and was not Duke of Rothesay. His only Dukedom was Edinburgh.

The fact that George III was the heir apparent but not Duke of Rothesay would also indicate that that Dukedom can only be held by the eldest son of the monarch.

Duke of Rothesay - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia has a list of the holders of the title Duke of Rothesay and George III is not listed as a holder. In every list of titles, I have seen, held by George III Duke of Rothesay is never listed. His only Dukedom was Edinburgh which he inherited from his father when his father died in 1751. He was also created Prince of Wales and Earl of Chester that same year and was known by that title for the rest of the time until his accession in 1760. If he had held the title of Duke of Rothesay then he would be listed as Duke of Rothesay and Edinburgh in 1751 but I have never come across such a reference. Hence my belief that the Duke of Rothesay title has the same requirements as the Cornwall title.

 

[HM Queen Catherine]

You are correct. The Duke of Rothesay title can only be given to the eldest son of the monarch, who is also heir apparent. An Act of the Parliament of Scotland passed in 1469 governs the succession to this title. It provides that "the first-born Prince of the King of Scots for ever" should hold the dukedom. If the first-born Prince dies before the King, the title is not inherited by his heir – it is only for the first-born son, like the Duchy of Cornwall.

That's the reason that George III wasn't the Duke of Cornwall or the Duke of Rothesay. Those titles were held by his father, Frederick, Prince of Wales, who was the eldest son and heir apparent of George II until his death.

George III succeeded his grandfather. His father, Frederick PoW, had also been created the Duke of Edinburgh.. so the future George III succeeded only to the Dukedom of Edinburgh.

That being said, if Prince Charles dies before succeeding to the throne, then William will not become the Duke of Cornwall or the Duke of Rothesay.

As it now stands, William would not inherit any ducal title from Charles because Charles holds no other ducal titles.. just those of Cornwall and Rothesay.. in fact, William wouldn't inherit any title at all from Charles were he to die before the Queen, because all of Charles' subsidiary titles are tied to either Cornwall or Rothesay.

 

[FasterB]

Oh wow, one really has to keep a calm mind with this titlething

I´m glad we don´t have that in DK

 

[Frideswide]

In my opinion HM The Queen should create HRH The Prince William, The Duke of Clarence and St. Andrews. The last person to hold this title was King William IV, and it was given to him while he was the grandson of the reigning King. The bonus is that St. Andrews holds special meaning to both William and Kate

Even if it's not possible to include St Andrews, I agree that this is a nice argument for choosing Clarence as a dukedom for Prince William. Yes, the last holder of the title died young, but it would be a pity to discard it for ever on that basis.

Now if Prince Harry could find himself a nice Irish girl, perhaps Connaught could be brought back out of the closet as well!

 

[Sister Morphine]

I doubt you'd ever see Connaught used as a royal title again, seeing as the Irish gained their independence from England a while back. That might oh I don't know, upset them and rightfully so.