Prince William and Catherine Middleton Possible Titles

[Warren]

See, and that's an excellent point... that a ducal title can be passed down and is therefore superior. But I'd also argue that as a princely title is only held by those closest to the reigning monarch, IT is superior

I think we're all getting somewhat off track by trying to determine a royal person's ranking by their title, or a title's ranking by the person who holds it. A better measure of position is simply proximity to the Sovereign. Thus the Earl of Wessex "outranks" the Duke of Gloucester who "outranks" Prince Michael of Kent.

All three are Princes of the United Kingdom with the style of Royal Highness and their titles give no measure or degree of "superiority". The Earl is a son of the Sovereign and the Duke is the eldest [surviving] son of the 3rd son of George V. In this example the Prince ranks last as he is the younger son of the 4th son of George V.

In regard to the ranking of the 'Prince of Wales' and 'Duke of Cornwall' titles, the obvious and significant fact is that the person who holds both will be officially and publicly known as The Prince of Wales.

 

[KittyAtlanta]

Kate will be what the Queen wants her to be. I don't think HM will step on anyone's toes in this instance. She may not give him a dukedom, but wait for PW's father to do that. She has bestowed titles on all her sons, but couldn't really play favorites. PE would have been a duke as well, but he didn't want it. It wouldn't hurt them to be Prince and Princess William for a while.

 

[HRHHermione]

I think we're all getting somewhat off track by trying to determine a royal person's ranking by their title, or a title's ranking by the person who holds it. A better measure of position is simply proximity to the Sovereign. Thus the Earl of Wessex "outranks" the Duke of Gloucester who "outranks" Prince Michael of Kent.

All three are Princes of the United Kingdom with the style of Royal Highness and their titles give no measure or degree of "superiority". The Earl is a son of the Sovereign and the Duke is the eldest [surviving] son of the 3rd son of George V. In this example the Prince ranks last as he is the younger son of the 4th son of George V.

In regard to the ranking of the 'Prince of Wales' and 'Duke of Cornwall' titles, the obvious and significant fact is that the person who holds both will be officially and publicly known as The Prince of Wales.

Thank you for this excellent post! I was thinking along the same lines but didn't express it nearly as well.

 

[branchg]

She may not give him a dukedom, but wait for PW's father to do that. She has bestowed titles on all her sons, but couldn't really play favorites. PE would have been a duke as well, but he didn't want it. It wouldn't hurt them to be Prince and Princess William for a while.

William automatically becomes The Duke of Cornwall when his father succeeds to the throne, so there would be no need to create a dukedom. If Charles died before The Queen, William would become The Duke of Edinburgh as the eldest son of Philip's eldest son.

I would think The Queen feels it is appropriate for the heir to the heir to become a Duke upon marriage, something that hasn't happened since Victoria's reign when her grandson, Prince Albert Victor of Wales, was created The Duke of Clarence and Avondale as a young adult.

If it doesn't happen, it's likely to be William's own desire not to be a Duke at this time, knowing he will hold many titles in due course, or he may accept an Earldom in order to give Catherine a title upon marriage other than "Princess William of Wales".

 

[JennahPc]

Calling Catherine Princes Catherine might be modern but really...why change what already works?

Already there is a Princess Charles, a Princess Edward, Princess Richard...they are just called by other names....Duchess of Cornwall, Countess of Wessex and Duchess of Gloucester.

I think Catherine will be Duchess of Whatever, Princess William.

Agreed 100%

 

[Iluvbertie]

William automatically becomes The Duke of Cornwall when his father succeeds to the throne, so there would be no need to create a dukedom. If Charles died before The Queen, William would become The Duke of Edinburgh as the eldest son of Philip's eldest son.

Only if Philip has also died.

 

[MRSJ]

Can someone please clarify this for me- Wasn't it annouced at Edwards wedding he will become DOE upon Phillips death? I believe so, why do plp keep saying the DOE title will pass to Charles/William/ anyone else?

 

[Saragli]

Once Phillip has passed away, and Charles is King, the DoE title will merge with the crown again and then it is expected that Charles will bestow the DoE title on the current Earl of Wessex.

 

[MRSJ]

Once Phillip has passed away, and Charles is King, the DoE title will merge with the crown again and then it is expected that Charles will bestow the DoE title on the current Earl of Wessex.

So even if QEII has decreed it passes to Edward, if Charles is King when Phillip dies he can override that? Do plp generally feel he will honor his mothers wishes and pass it to Edward regardless?

 

[Zonk]

So even if QEII has decreed it passes to Edward, if Charles is King when Phillip dies he can override that? Do plp generally feel he will honor his mothers wishes and pass it to Edward regardless?

You should check out this thread, http://www.theroyalforums.com/forums/f23/the-future-of-the-duke-of-edinburgh-title-24343.html .

It touches on your question.

 

[cmkrcwi]

No, there is no Princess Charles, no Princess Edward and no Princess Richard in the United Kingdom. There is a Princess Michael but that is because her husband's official title happens to be Prince Michael of Kent. The Duchess of Gloucester ceased being Princess Richard when her husband became HRH The Duke of Gloucester. Contrary to what you all seem to believe, he did not become Prince Richard, Duke of Gloucester. He became HRH The Duke of Gloucester. He's still a Prince of the United Kingdom named Richard but he no longer has that as his official title.

Similarly, The Prince Edward is now The Earl of Wessex. He is not The Prince Edward, Earl of Wessex. His wife is The Countess of Wessex, not The Princess Edward, Countess of Wessex.

And the Prince of Wales has never been The Prince Charles so neither of his wives could ever have been The Princess Charles.

I'm not sure why this is such a difficult concept.

 

[Mermaid1962]

Wouldn't he be The Prince Charles as soon as his mother acceded to the throne? Or would he immediately become HRH The Duke of Cornwall as soon as his grandfather died?

And the Prince of Wales has never been The Prince Charles so neither of his wives could ever have been The Princess Charles.

 

[Zonk]

No, there is no Princess Charles, no Princess Edward and no Princess Richard in the United Kingdom...

As they assumed the names of their husbands, there is most certainly The Princess Edward, etc. They just go by other names.

Her Royal Highness The Princess Charles Philip Arthur George, Princess of Wales and Countess of Chester, Duchess of Cornwall, Duchess of Rothesay, Countess of Carrick, Baroness of Renfrew, Lady of the Isles, Princess of Scotland

Her Royal Highness The Princess Edward Antony Richard Louis, Countess of Wessex, Viscountess Severn, Dame Grand Cross of the Royal Victorian Order, Dame of Justice of the Most Venerable Order of the Hospital of St John of Jerusalem.

Her Royal Highness Princess Richard Alexander Walter George, Duchess of Gloucester, Countess of Ulster and Baroness Culloden, Dame Grand Cross of the Royal Victorian Order.

Her Royal Highness Princess Edward George Nicholas Patrick, Duchess of Kent, Countess of St. Andrews, Baroness Downpatrick. Although she goes by Katharine, Duchess of Kent.

At her marriage, Catherine will assume William's title:

Her Royal Higness Princess William of Wales, Duchess of Whatever.

My sources are Wikipedia (which I know is iffy) and Charle's website http://www.princeofwales.gov.uk/personalprofiles/theprinceofwales/abouttheprince/titles/ which lists his titles. Why wouldn't his wife just assume the feminine form of them? And likewise for Sophie, Camilla, Brigitte, Katharine and as of April 29th....Catherine Middleton?

 

[Saragli]

I'm not sure why this is such a difficult concept.

Its not a difficult concept, Camilla is the Princess Charles, Sophie is the Princess Edward, and Briggite is the Princess Richard. Just as Zonk has explained.

 

[wbenson]

Contrary to what you all seem to believe, he did not become Prince Richard, Duke of Gloucester. He became HRH The Duke of Gloucester. He's still a Prince of the United Kingdom named Richard but he no longer has that as his official title.

The proclamations used to appoint Counsellors of State seem to indicate otherwise. This proclamation issued in 1980 refers to him as "Our most dear and entirely beloved Cousin Prince Richard Alexander Walter George Duke of Gloucester Knight Grand Cross of Our Royal Victorian Order."

 

[Iluvbertie]

No, there is no Princess Charles, no Princess Edward and no Princess Richard in the United Kingdom...

The difficulty I am having is with your continued argument that Princes cease to have one title when they gain another. They don't. They add titles but don't give up the ones they already have so:

The Prince Andrew is also The Duke of York and thus his wife was The Princess Andrew AND The Duchess of York

The Prince Charles is also The Prince of Wales, The Duke of Cornwall etc and thus his wives were both The Princess Charles AND the female form of all his other titles.

The Prince Edward is also The Earl of Wessex and so his wife is both The Countess of Wessex AND The Princess Edward

Prince Richard is also The Duke of Gloucester and so his wife is both The Duchess of Gloucester AND Princess Richard

Prince Edward is also The Duke of Kent and his wife is both The Duchess of Kent AND Princess Edward

Sure only Princess Michael uses that designation but that is only because Prince Michael has no other title.

Not hard at all.

The Princes keep all their titles until they either merge with the crown or die.

Thus there is a Princess Charles, two Princess Edwards, Princess Richard and Princess Michael but only one of them has no other title to use and thus uses that one where as the other ladies have other titles to use and do so - Duchess of Cornwall, Countess of Wessex, Duchess of Kent (the other Princess Edward) and Duchess of Gloucester.

You keep making the same claim and simply keep refusing to believe it when you are told the most basic principle - they add the titles to those they already have - they don't lose the title.

Charles didn't stop being Prince Charles when his mother ascended the throne and he became Duke of Cornwall. He added Duke of Cornwall to his title of Prince and also added the designation 'The' as the son of a monarch. Princes Andrew and Edward didn't stop being Princes when they were created Duke of York and Earl of Wessex respectively. Prince Richard of Gloucester and Prince Edward of Kent didn't stop being Princes when they inherited their titles. They stopped using them but that isn't the same as stopped having them.

The best example would actually be Philip - he had the titles Duke of Edinburgh etc for 10 years before he was actually created' The Prince' Philip - showing the adding of titles - he didn't stop being the Duke of Edinburgh he added The Prince to his titles (he wasn't Prince Philip from 1947 until 1957) - and thus Elizabeth - on top of her titles in her own right could also use The Princess Philip (why she ever would is another matter but she still has that rigth as Philip's wife) Duchess of Edinburgh etc. If holding a title like Duke means that they stop being Princes and thus their wives aren't princess then why take the trouble of issuing LPs to give Philip the title of 'The Prince Philip etc'?

It is simple as you say - you add titles to those you already hold.

The only problem is that your version of what happens in wrong.

 

[Iluvbertie]

So even if QEII has decreed it passes to Edward, if Charles is King when Phillip dies he can override that? Do plp generally feel he will honor his mothers wishes and pass it to Edward regardless?

The information released at the time made it clear that Edward would only get the title when it merged with the Crown - which will happen when both the Queen and Philip have died and Charles is King. It was reported at the time that Charles was in agreement with this - but would William or Harry be?

The link provided by Zonk also explains that there are a number of other scenarios that could happen to that title.

The original LPs had the usual remainder of 'heirs male of the body' and thus Charles is the heir to both his mother and his father's titles.

 

[melissaadrian]

...I simply hate the word 'lesser' with its implications that Camilla isn't worthy of being Charles' consort.

No one is infering Camilla isn't worthy of being his consort, unless Camilla is. Camillla and Charles chose for her to be referred to as the Duchess of Cornwall and not Princess of Wales. There may have been some stir, but if Camilla was called Princess of Wales from the day she wed, we'd be calling her that now. Just as Lady Louise is in fact Princess Louise, but out of respect for what her parents wanted, we call her Lady.

 

[melissaadrian]

See, and that's an excellent point... that a ducal title can be passed down and is therefore superior. But I'd also argue that as a princely title is only held by those closest to the reigning monarch, IT is superior

That's the fascinating thing about royal history- it's very rarely an either/or and I think good arguments can be made in both directions.

I'm sorry but the Duke of Cornwall can not be passed down, any more than the Prince of Wales can. Well actually the prince of wales can, as his eldest son will usually be prince of wales after him unless tragedy befalls. The Duke of Cornwall's son cannot become Duke of Cornwall, ie William could not be Duke of Cornwall, if his father dies tomorrow. It belongs to the son of the reigning monarch, it can't be held by a grandson. It reverts back to the crown. If Charles had died before he had his sons, a brother would claim the title, but since he has sons, no it reverts.

Duke of Edinburgh could be argued as being a superior title to Prince Philip of Great Britain, as the secondary is not a peerage. But Charles is not simply Prince Charles of Wales like his sons, he is Charles, Prince of Wales, a much different title.

 

[Iluvbertie]

Not only the son - he has to be the eldest living son AND the heir to the throne e.g. say William had a daughter and then Charles, William and Harry all died Andrew couldn't be Duke of Cornwall because he wouldn't satisfy all the criteria.

The Prince of Wales title is never inherited. It has no remainder to allow for inheritance. It is recreated each time and usually after some gap - even if only a few days.

The Duke of Cornwall title, on the other hand, is automatic IF both the criteria are met - eldest living son of the monarch AND heir apparent.

 

[branchg]

Wives of sons and male-line grandsons of The Sovereign automatically become HRH Princesses of the UK by marriage. If their husbands are also Peers, they take their titles as the wives of Peers, but with royal rank as HRH which flows from their husband's royal style as Princes.

The only exception to this practice was The Duchess of Windsor. George VI issued letters patent stating the style and attribute of HRH was limited to The Duke and could not be shared by his wife and children. As a result, Wallis became a Duchess with marriage, but was limited to the ducal style of Her Grace, as she was denied the right to be HRH The Princess Edward.

 

[melissaadrian]

William automatically becomes The Duke of Cornwall when his father succeeds to the throne, so there would be no need to create a dukedom. If Charles died before The Queen, William would become The Duke of Edinburgh as the eldest son of Philip's eldest son.

William automatically becomes Duke of Cornwall yes, but not Duke of Edinburgh. When Philip dies, Charles will gain it as one of his titles, but he will not pass it on to his son. It isn't like the Prince of Wales or Duke of Cornwall, it is not a title held by the heir to the throne, it is a peerage seprate. When Charles becomes king the title merges with the throne, and that point needs to be recreated. It could be recreated for Prince Harry, it is unlikely, as the Queen has made it clear it is intended for Edward.

 

[melissaadrian]

The information released at the time made it clear that Edward would only get the title when it merged with the Crown - which will happen when both the Queen and Philip have died and Charles is King. It was reported at the time that Charles was in agreement with this - but would William or Harry be?

It doesn't matter if William and Harry are, it isn't their decission to make, unless Charles dies before he comes to the throne. Why would William care? He will be Prince of Wales, Duke of Cornwall..... The only one it may affect is Harry, and there are plenty of other Ducal titles to give him.

 

[melissaadrian]

Not only the son - he has to be the eldest living son AND the heir to the throne

If you actually read my post, I clearly stated that. I quite clearly stated Andrew could no longer be Duke of Cornwall. I stated that Andrew would have only been Duke of Cornwall, if Charles died before he had sons. I quite clearly stated, because Charles has had children, the title reverts to the throne if he dies.

If William had a daughter, heir apparent to the throne, the Duchy would be unheld until she took the throne and had a son. The duchy can only be held by a male, and her son.

 

[Iluvbertie]

William automatically becomes Duke of Cornwall yes, but not Duke of Edinburgh. When Philip dies, Charles will gain it as one of his titles, but he will not pass it on to his son. It isn't like the Prince of Wales or Duke of Cornwall, it is not a title held by the heir to the throne, it is a peerage seprate. When Charles becomes king the title merges with the throne, and that point needs to be recreated. It could be recreated for Prince Harry, it is unlikely, as the Queen has made it clear it is intended for Edward.

However if both Charles and Philip die before the Queen then William will become Duke of Edinburgh. It will follow normal inheritance laws until it either merges with the Crown or is inherited by someone who doesn't become King e.g. William has a daughter, William, Charles and Philip die then the daughter would become Queen but the Edinburgh title would automatically pass to Harry.

The line of succession to the Edinburgh title is: Charles, William, Harry, Andrew, Edward and finally James. It is perfectly possible that the title is not available for regrant to Edward just as it is possible for Edward to inherit that title directly - sure a lot of people have to die in the right order but it is possible.

 

[Zonk]

When responding to a particular post, there is no need to repeat the same information that has already been stated by posters before you.

If you have additional information to add that would be great but there is no need to have five or six posts saying the same exact thing within a short time span.

Zonk
British Forums Moderator

 

[Mermaid1962]

Would Prince Charles have become The Prince Charles and The Duke of Cornwall immediately after George VI's death? Or would he have remained Prince Charles until his mother's coronation?

Charles didn't stop being Prince Charles when his mother ascended the throne and he became Duke of Cornwall. He added Duke of Cornwall to his title of Prince and also added the designation 'The' as the son of a monarch. [/B]

 

[Duke of Leaside]

...

Her Royal Highness The Princess Charles Philip Arthur George, Princess of Wales and Countess of Chester, Duchess of Cornwall, Duchess of Rothesay, Countess of Carrick, Baroness of Renfrew, Lady of the Isles, Princess of Scotland
...

I don't dispute in any way what you've put (above) for Camilla's title. In fact I've seen it the exact same way in numerous other places as well.

But I've always been curious about one thing:

Why is she (or any Duchess of Cornwall) not also Great Stewardess of Scotland?

At the end of Charles's title it says "... Baron of Renfrew, Lord of the Isles and Prince and Great Steward of Scotland". Why isn't his wife "... Baroness of Renfrew, Lady of the Isles and Princess and Great Stewardess of Scotland"?

I think it rather amusing and somewhat ironic that Kate's mom started out as an airline stewardess, made it rich, had her daughter marry a prince, only to have as part of her title "Great Stewardess"! or not.

Please let me know your views/knowledge on this.

Thanks so much

 

[muriel]

I think it rather amusing and somewhat ironic that Kate's mom started out as an airline stewardess, made it rich, had her daughter marry a prince, only to have as part of her title "Great Stewardess"! or not.

This is hilarious!

 

[Kataryn]

There are titles that have only a masculine form, like eg. The Queen is "The Duke of Lancaster" while on Charles' ascension he will become Duke of Lancaster but his wife won't be Duchess of Lancaster.

The Great steward-title in fact is not really a title, but the name of a Royal office. The Stuarts (Stewarts) started their Royal carreer as Stewards of the king of Scotland, which was the second-in-power to the king. When Walter Stewart showed great sucess at the battle of Bannockburn, he was rewarded with the hand of Marjorie Bruce, daughter of Robert I. (Bruce) of Scotland. When Marjorie's brother David II. died childless, her son Robert II. (Stewart), who had been Great Steward of Scotland and regent during king David II.'s minority became king in 1371 and founded the House of Stuart. Since then the position of Great Stewart of Scotland belonged to the heir apparent of the Scottish monarch. As women can't be heir apparent at the moment, there is no such office as "Great Stewardess". Of course, if the order of succession is changed and this change includes old Scottish titles, and William's first child is a daughter, she could be in her own right the first Princess of Wales, Duchess of Rothesay and Great Stewardess of Scotland. But quite some ifs....