Prince William Created Duke of Cambridge: April 29, 2011

[pacomartin]

That would only happen if William died before becoming King. The dukedom will merge into the crown when (and if) he succeeds.

But King William would then be free to give the title to his son immediately. It would partly make up for the fact that if they change the laws of succession that his son would not become the monarch.

 

[Duchess of Darwin]

Camebridge isn't what I guessed (that would be Sussex ) but I still like it. I like the other titles as well. I can see Her Majesty issuing a letter's patient to allow their children princely status. What would be the point of them being Lord/Lady as small children, when one of them will one day be The Sovereign?

I'm hoping The Duke and The Duchess have only boys, only girls, or a boy then a girl. It would be so unfortunate if they were to have a girl then a boy, and the girl were to miss out on being Queen by that much, because of what a long process it will be to put equal primogeniture in place. I hope that Parliament is still working on it regardless, but it will be a great shame if it is put into place, only to be of no use to the little Camebridge Princess because her baby Brother has already been born.

 

[branchg]

Can you give an example of when this happened? Many times a noble is referred to simply by the geographical entity in his title (ie Wellington in place of the Duke of Wellington) so it would be confusing to have both a Duke of Cambridge and a Marquess of Cambridge. Thus I think the Cambridge title had to become extinct before it could be used again.

Queen Victoria created her son, The Prince Leopold, Duke of Albany and Earl of Clarence. She then created Clarence again as a Dukedom, together with Avondale, for her eldest male-line grandson, Prince Albert Victor, as Duke of Clarence & Avondale.

So, it can happen that a title is re-created as a different degree of a Peerage while still being extant for another.

 

[Iluvbertie]

Camebridge isn't what I guessed (that would be Sussex ) but I still like it. I like the other titles as well. I can see Her Majesty issuing a letter's patient to allow their children princely status. What would be the point of them being Lord/Lady as small children, when one of them will one day be The Sovereign.

I'm hoping The Duke and The Duchess have only boys, only girls, or a boy then a girl. It would be so unfortunate if they were to have a girl then a boy, and the girl were to miss out on being Queen by that much, because of what a long process it will be to put equal primogeniture in place. I hope that Parliament is still working on it regardless, but it will be a great shame if it is put into place, only to be of no use to the little Camebridge Princess because her baby Brother has already been born.

The law might take a couple of years or so to get through but it can be done after the younger brother is born - as happened in Sweden.

I hope they only have boys actually as the pressure on a 'Princess Diana' to live up to the dead grandmother would be overwhelming and could actually damage psychologically the child.

 

[Vesper1987]

I have a question, I know that Kate is now the Duchess of Cambridge now but all over the TV and even online people keep refering to her as Princess Catherine, is that correct? I thought she could not be referred to as Princess Catherine as she is not a princess in her own right, could someone please clear this up for me.

 

[Vesper1987]

Sorry I just looked back a couple of pages and I think I got my answer.

 

[Iluvbertie]

I have a question, I know that Kate is now the Duchess of Cambridge now but all over the TV and even online people keep refering to her as Princess Catherine, is that correct? I thought she could not be referred to as Princess Catherine as she is not a princess in her own right, could someone please clear this up for me.

She is not Princess Catherine. Diana was also never Princess Diana.

She is however a princess - Princess William.

 

[Duchess of Darwin]

The law might take a couple of years or so to get through but it can be done after the younger brother is born - as happened in Sweden.

I hope they only have boys actually as the pressure on a 'Princess Diana' to live up to the dead grandmother would be overwhelming and could actually damage psychologically the child.

The change to equal primogeniture, could be retroactive in Sweden, because Victoria and Carl Philip were effectively the only two people in the line of succession. Britain, on the other hand, has over two thousand people in it's line of succession, which isn't actually necessary, but it's a nice genealogical record to keep. This would make things complicated, if the change was to be made retroactive.

As for Princess/Queen Diana, I would hate that for the reasons you mentioned. But I don't fear it alot, given how William said that no one would be filling his Mother's shoes. Have he and Kate expressed any desire to call a Daughter Diana? I know what he said about giving her back her HRH, but that was said in the belief that she would still be alive when he was King.

 

[CrownPrincess5]

Why is she Princess William and not Princess Kate? Can people actually refer to her as Princess William? That's a bit weird to me.

 

[Iluvbertie]

Why is she Princess William and not Princess Kate? Can people actually refer to her as Princess William? That's a bit weird to me.

In Britain only princesses born as princesses are princess own name.

The wife takes the styles and titles of her husband so the wife of Prince Charles is Princess Charles, the wife of Prince Andrew is Princess Andrew, the wife of Prince Edward is Princess Edward etc. As a result Kate isn't Princess Catherine but Princess William - just as Diana was never Princess Diana - and would correct people who called her Princess Diana.

Simply put - it is the British way - old fashioned and traditional.

Even a Princess born in another country isn't a Princess own name of the UK so Philip's mother - born Princess Alice of Battenburg, married as Princess Alice of Greece and Denmark but in Britain was Princess Andrew.

 

[Iluvbertie]

The change to equal primogeniture, could be retroactive in Sweden, because Victoria and Carl Philip were effectively the only two people in the line of succession. Britain, on the other hand, has over two thousand people in it's line of succession, which isn't actually necessary, but it's a nice genealogicla record to keep. This would make things complicated, if the change was to be made retroactive.

As for Princess/Queen Diana, I would hate that for the reasons you mentioned. But I don't fear it alot, given how William said that no one would be filling his Mother's shoes. Have he and Kate expressed any desire to call a Daughter Diana? I know what he said about giving her back her HRH, but that was said in the belief that she would still be alive when he was King.

There would be no need to make it retroactive. They simply say that from the great-grandchildren of the Queen it will be gender neutral - with no impact on earlier generations.

They could also take the opportunity to limit the succession to the descendents of Elizabeth or even Charles. If they really want a smaller royal family then this is a quick way to do it - descendents of Charles means the Yorks, Wessexes etc cease to be royal when Charles becomes King (and before anyone suggests that a person can cease to be royal - I would say if they can become royal they can cease to be royal).

 

[CrownPrincess5]

In Britain only princesses born as princesses are princess own name.

The wife takes the styles and titles of her husband so the wife of Prince Charles is Princess Charles, the wife of Prince Andrew is Princess Andrew, the wife of Prince Edward is Princess Edward etc. As a result Kate isn't Princess Catherine but Princess William - just as Diana was never Princess Diana - and would correct people who called her Princess Diana.

Simply put - it is the British way - old fashioned and traditional.

Even a Princess born in another country isn't a Princess own name of the UK so Philip's mother - born Princess Alice of Battenburg, married as Princess Alice of Greece and Denmark but in Britain was Princess Andrew.

Thanks
That all makes sense.

 

[cd_1]

why didnt the queen make her princess william of wales? why a duchess??

 

[PrincessKaliope]

cd_1, The Queen didn't need to make Catherine into Princess William because marriage already did that.

It's sort of like promotion. Being Prince William of Wales was a title he held through his father. He is now Prince William, The Duke of Cambridge, Earl of... etc

William uses the highest of his titles, which is Duke. Catherine uses the highest too, which is Duchess.

 

[Iluvbertie]

why didnt the queen make her princess william of wales? why a duchess??

As the wife of a prince Catherine is now a princess (yes Camilla, Sophie, Sarah, Diana etc all became Princesses when they married) but if the male has an actual peerage they don't use Prince as their title anymore but use the peerage.

Catherine is Princess William but...the Queen promoted William by making him a Duke and so Catherine became a Duchess - but now of Cambridge not 'of Wales'. Just like the present Queen became a Duchess on her wedding day - and was referred to as the Duchess of Edinburgh officially and not Princess Elizabeth from her wedding day until her accession.

Probably the best way to show the ranks of things is to look at the Kents.

If Prince is higher than Duke then Prince Michael would rank above his older brother, the Duke but... the Duke was born Prince Edward and was 'raised to the peerage' on the death of his father.

It is also worth noting that yesterday William went from being a royal commoner to an actual noble. What made the change - getting a title in his own right. Until yesterday William could have stood for or voted for the pre-1999 House of Commons but now as a peer of the realm he couldn't have done so. I have never quite got my head around who decides who now sits in the House of Lords. Catherine - entered the Abbey as a common commoner and left it as a royal commoner as she doesn't have a title in her own right - Catherine could still stand for election to the House of Commons (she won't of course but that is because it isn't the done thing but legally she is still able to do so - she has also voted for the last time).

Before people say they don't understand or shoot me down, in Britain only the actual title holder is a noble and everyone else is a commoner so most of the royal family are actually commoners as are most aristocrats. Within the royal family the following are nobles - The Dukes of Edinburgh, Cornwall, Cambridge, York, Gloucester and Kent and the Earl of Wessex. All the rest of the family are actually commoners - royal commoners but still commoners. Diana was an aristocrat's daughter and from and aristocratic family but she herself wasn't an aristocrat - her father was and he brother is but the rest of her family are still commoners. It is technical I know.

 

[Duchess of Darwin]

There would be no need to make it retroactive. They simply say that from the great-grandchildren of the Queen it will be gender neutral - with no impact on earlier generations.

They could also take the opportunity to limit the succession to the descendents of Elizabeth or even Charles. If they really want a smaller royal family then this is a quick way to do it - descendents of Charles means the Yorks, Wessexes etc cease to be royal when Charles becomes King (and before anyone suggests that a person can cease to be royal - I would say if they can become royal they can cease to be royal).

The great Grandchildren solution would be a good idea, and as for everyone who is not a descendant of the Queen, it could be a beyond this point deal. On the issue of a smaller Royal Family, not everyone in the line of succession is a member of The Royal Family, and not everyone in the RF is in the line of succession, but it's reasonable to assume that a downsizing of The Royal Family would come with a downsizing of the line of succession. I hope these two things don't happen, though

Time to get back on topic. I take full responsibility for the tangent

 

[Josefine]

are there money included in this dukedom as in charles dukedom as a income?

 

[Iluvbertie]

are there money included in this dukedom as in charles dukedom as a income?

No.

Only the Duchies of Lancaster and Cornwall (of the royal dukedoms) have income.

Other Dukedoms have money but that is because of the way they were set up in the past e.g. the Duke of Marlborough was given the land around Blenheim Palace as part of the thank you from the nation.

There is no land or income producing property associate with the Cambridge title.

 

[PrincePatrick]

So if their first child is a son and is titled His Royal Highness Prince (George, Charles, William...) of Cambridge...what happens say if Charles becomes King and then makes William the Prince of Wales, does the son then become HRH Prince X of Wales or does he stay Cambridge his whole life?

 

[Osipi]

So if their first child is a son and is titled His Royal Highness Prince (George, Charles, William...) of Cambridge...what happens say if Charles becomes King and then makes William the Prince of Wales, does the son then become HRH Prince X of Wales or does he stay Cambridge his whole life?

I would imagine it would be the same as it is now with William and Harry being sons of the Prince of Wales. He would become HRH Prince X of Wales.

 

[MellyG]

I figured you guys would find all of the misinformation in this article amusing

Partner News - Musicrooms.net

 

[branchg]

William's eldest son (even if not his first-born) would be HRH Prince X of Cambridge, assuming The Queen does not issue Letters Patent elevating all of his children to HRH.

If William becomes Duke of Cornwall, his children would then be styled as "HRH Prince/Princess X of Cornwall and Cambridge" until he is created Prince of Wales by his father, at which point they would be "of Wales".

If William's father predeceases him, his children would be "of Cambridge and Edinburgh" since William would become The Duke of Cambridge and Edinburgh if Philip has passed on. The Queen would then create him Prince of Wales as the new heir to the throne.

 

[Royal_Eagle]

Camebridge isn't what I guessed (that would be Sussex ) but I still like it. I like the other titles as well. I can see Her Majesty issuing a letter's patient to allow their children princely status. What would be the point of them being Lord/Lady as small children, when one of them will one day be The Sovereign?

I'm hoping The Duke and The Duchess have only boys, only girls, or a boy then a girl. It would be so unfortunate if they were to have a girl then a boy, and the girl were to miss out on being Queen by that much, because of what a long process it will be to put equal primogeniture in place. I hope that Parliament is still working on it regardless, but it will be a great shame if it is put into place, only to be of no use to the little Camebridge Princess because her baby Brother has already been born.

Personally I'm really hoping their first child will be a boy, as having a girl first will probably force the Parliament to try to change the succession law--and from previous discussions over the years, doing that would only open a can of worms that can produce unforeseeable and unintended consequences to the whole Commonwealth. And there are at least one or two Commonwealth countries where it is virtually impossible to change the succession (like Canada?).

While I'm all for equal primogeniture, it just doesn't seem to be worth the effort or risk, especially for a position that doesn't have much political impact. And the Duke of Cambridge will probably be around for a long time (50-60+ years), so it'll be a long time before his child (either first-born or his first son) would ascend the Throne.

 

[Royal_Eagle]

There would be no need to make it retroactive. They simply say that from the great-grandchildren of the Queen it will be gender neutral - with no impact on earlier generations.

They could also take the opportunity to limit the succession to the descendents of Elizabeth or even Charles. If they really want a smaller royal family then this is a quick way to do it - descendents of Charles means the Yorks, Wessexes etc cease to be royal when Charles becomes King (and before anyone suggests that a person can cease to be royal - I would say if they can become royal they can cease to be royal).

Actually what I would do is to set the new "root" ancestor to be King George V or at the very least King George VI, so to ensure that there will be enough eligible descendants available just in case the worst happens. From looking though various Dukedoms in past history, it seems a lot of the Dukedom creations don't last past 2 or 3 generations, but once they last more than 3 or 4 generations, then they're likely to be around for the long term, because there are always enough eligible descendants.

 

[Lady Gudgeon]

From: The Prince of Wales - Biography

The Duchess of Cambridge married The Duke of Cambridge on 29th April 2011 at Westminster Abbey. The other official titles given to the couple by The Queen on their wedding day, are The Earl and Lady of Strathearn and The Baron and Countess of Carrickfergus.

Hee hee, funny typo on the POW website...should be Earl and Countess...and Baron and Lady...

 

[LadyGabrielle]

Im already used to calling them the Duke and Duchess. It does sound a little old though. So when they are say in Scotland they would be addressed as TRH Earl and Countess Strathearn and in Ireland TRH Baron and Baroness right? I think its absolutely fabulous for them. They are a new beginning for the Monarchy and I cant wait to see what happens in the future. I wonder if they will work on kids soon or if they will wait.

 

[Royal_Eagle]

I wonder if they will work on kids soon or if they will wait.

I have the feeling that they waited as long as they did until they were 1) sure Catherine would be ready to face the Royal life and 2) ready to have kids. If they waited, then they'd be under pressure to have kids.

Personally I'd have just waited a few years and use these years to be just a couple, before having kids. But it may be different for a Royal couple though, especially for a couple that are as visible as they are.

 

[Osipi]

Im already used to calling them the Duke and Duchess. It does sound a little old though. So when they are say in Scotland they would be addressed as TRH Earl and Countess Strathearn and in Ireland TRH Baron and Baroness right? I think its absolutely fabulous for them. They are a new beginning for the Monarchy and I cant wait to see what happens in the future. I wonder if they will work on kids soon or if they will wait.

After the symbolism used during the wedding, I'm willing to bet my last doughnut that if and when they do start to have children, they'll be referred to as "little acorns".

 

[snowhite]

William's eldest son (even if not his first-born) would be HRH Prince X of Cambridge, assuming The Queen does not issue Letters Patent elevating all of his children to HRH.

If William becomes Duke of Cornwall, his children would then be styled as "HRH Prince/Princess X of Cornwall and Cambridge" until he is created Prince of Wales by his father, at which point they would be "of Wales".

If William's father predeceases him, his children would be "of Cambridge and Edinburgh" since William would become The Duke of Cambridge and Edinburgh if Philip has passed on. The Queen would then create him Prince of Wales as the new heir to the throne.

I was under the impression that Prince Edward, Earl of Wessex, will be created Duke of Edinburgh upon his father's death.

 

[wbenson]

That can't happen until the Dukedom of Edinburgh "merges in the crown" (the holder and the King are the same person), which can't happen until both Prince Philip and the Queen are dead.