Prince William Created Duke of Cambridge: April 29, 2011


If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Status
Not open for further replies.
I think the point the Palace is trying to make is The Queen Mother, Sophie, Camilla and Catherine are/were all married to Peers and thus were styled as the wives of Peers ("The Duchess of Cornwall, Cambridge, York, etc. The Countess of Wessex"). However, in Camilla's case, she is actually The Princess of Wales, so using their interpretation, she is a princess, not just a duchess, although she chose not to use her senior title after her marriage.

In any case, any woman who marries a Prince of the UK automatically becomes a Princess of the UK with the style and rank of HRH. The only exception to this was in 1937 when George VI issued Letters Patent stating Wallis Simpson would be denied the right to share her husband's royal rank.

If the Palace is trying to say wives do not automatically become Princesses, then why was it necessary to issue letters patent to deny Wallis royal rank as HRH, which was enjoyed as "HRH The Princess Edward", the wife of "HRH The Prince Edward" automatically in law and common practice?

It really isn't clear what they are trying to emphasize, except perhaps their displeasure as Elspeth said, with the statement from Clarence House that people may call Catherine "Princess Catherine" if they wish. That is totally incorrect as she is now a royal duchess as HRH The Duchess of Cambridge.
 
Does anyone know if the Letters Patent announcing William's being granted Duke of Cambridge etc., has been posted in the London Gazette yet? I haven't found it and I thought it would have been published by now - 3 weeks after the announcement.

Any and all thoughts, replies would be welcome. Thanks so much!
 
I suspect that this is one of those thorny "diplomatic" issues. The queen has many constituencies to please: Prince William; "the princesses of the blood" and their supporters who have the queen's ear (especially Pr. Anne and the Duke of York, who are attentive to the small points of rank and precedence, and, in the Duke's case, his concern about the "rights" of his daughters; and there is the situation in which the wife of the prince of wales is styled "duchess," so Kate as the heir's heir's wife cannot have a more important title than the wife of the heir to the throne; and, finally, the interest of the people who like William very much and think he should get what he wants. So I'm guessing that the queen had BP put out the "official" position, and the p o w's office set out the unofficial, then there was a lot of shoulder shrugging on both sides. I wonder how long it will be before we see a revised precedence list, another thorny and related issue. Pure conjecture, but I'll bet this issue kept the oil lamps burning late at Buckingham Palace and Clarence House as they tried to figure it all out.

It is ridiculous in MHO to say that she is not a 'princess,' if Princess Michael gets the title and the Duchess of Gloucester was called 'princess richard' before her husband received the dukedom. Doesn't make sense to me. I'll wager it's primarily due to the Duchess of Cornwall not having the style of princess of wales. Just complicates everything on down the line.
 
Last edited:
I suspect that this is one of those thorny "diplomatic" issues. The queen has many constituencies to please: Prince William; "the princesses of the blood" and their supporters who have the queen's ear (especially Pr. Anne and the Duke of York, who are attentive to the small points of rank and precedence, and, in the Duke's case, his concern about the "rights" of his daughters; and there is the situation in which the wife of the prince of wales is styled "duchess," so Kate as the heir's heir's wife cannot have a more important title than the wife of the heir to the throne; and, finally, the interest of the people who like William very much and think he should get what he wants. So I'm guessing that the queen had BP put out the "official" position, and the p o w's office set out the unofficial, then there was a lot of shoulder shrugging on both sides. I wonder how long it will be before we see a revised precedence list, another thorny and related issue. Pure conjecture, but I'll bet this issue kept the oil lamps burning late at Buckingham Palace and Clarence House as they tried to figure it all out.

It is ridiculous in MHO to say that she is not a 'princess,' if Princess Michael gets the title and the Duchess of Gloucester was called 'princess richard' before her husband received the dukedom. Doesn't make sense to me. I'll wager it's primarily due to the Duchess of Cornwall not having the style of princess of wales. Just complicates everything on down the line.


Huh? Camilla is the Princess of Wales, she just doesn't use it.
 
My head hurts! I have to go and change my MA desires to study British history because all this crazy titles.
 
Does anyone know if the Letters Patent announcing William's being granted Duke of Cambridge etc., has been posted in the London Gazette yet? I haven't found it and I thought it would have been published by now - 3 weeks after the announcement.

Any and all thoughts, replies would be welcome. Thanks so much!
I'm wondering if it hasn't been gazetted because it doesn't have the usual remainders. (i.e. to heirs male of the body lawfully begotten).

Maybe William wanted it modernized to include daughters? I don't know, but I'm wondering. Comments?
 
Per the Vanity Fair article William wants to be known as Prince William and thus by default Kate will be known as Princess Catherine which will upset Sophie bc she wanted to be known as Princess Sophie but the Queen would not allow it. I'm trying to find link now- and VF is a very, very reliable source- not sure how reliable Nichols is though

http://m.vanityfair.com/online/dail...ess-titlethats-princess-catherine-to-you.html
 
Last edited:
Per the Vanity Fair article William wants to be known as Prince William and thus by default Kate will be known as Princess Catherine which will upset Sophie bc she wanted to be known as Princess Sophie but the Queen would not allow it. I'm trying to find link now- and VF is a very, very reliable source- not sure how reliable Nichols is though

Prince William on Kate Middleton

The source is Katie Nichole who is hardly considered a reliable source.
 
Per the Vanity Fair article William wants to be known as Prince William and thus by default Kate will be known as Princess Catherine which will upset Sophie bc she wanted to be known as Princess Sophie but the Queen would not allow it. I'm trying to find link now- and VF is a very, very reliable source- not sure how reliable Nichols is though

Prince William on Kate Middleton


Catherine would not be "by default" known as Princess Catherine. By default, she is Princess William. That is her base title, without any other titles that William received on his wedding day. I also haven't heard that the Countess of Wessex wanted to be known as Princess Sophie, and pitched a fit when the Queen would not allow that.

Vanity Fair is no more or less reliable than any other publication, because they are at the mercy of the contributing authors.
 
Sister Morphine said:
Catherine would not be "by default" known as Princess Catherine. By default, she is Princess William. That is her base title, without any other titles that William received on his wedding day. I also haven't heard that the Countess of Wessex wanted to be known as Princess Sophie, and pitched a fit when the Queen would not allow that.

Vanity Fair is no more or less reliable than any other publication, because they are at the mercy of the contributing authors.

I find VF far more reliable then say Star or US Weekly- they usually don't print garbage. As for the default Princess Catherine, I believe they are right as are you. In the know royal watchers know she's not Princess Catherine ever but this article seems to be saying (as did William press guy) that plp/media will call her Princess Catherine and it will become the norm (ie Princess Diana) .....

The article isn't stating Princess Catherine will be her official title by default or not, just her ''public'' one

Though many publications are still saying Prince William and Kate Middleton or PW and Duchess Catherine (both not right) that I've seen....
 
I'm wondering if it hasn't been gazetted because it doesn't have the usual remainders. (i.e. to heirs male of the body lawfully begotten).

Maybe William wanted it modernized to include daughters? I don't know, but I'm wondering. Comments?


I saw the LG announcement quite recently - last week from memory. I will go back and dig it out and post the date here.

Incidentally, I know some people think that until a title is gazetted it cannot be used - this can't be the case can it, because otherwise William wouldn't have been able to be 'Duke' on his wedding day.
 
I saw the LG announcement quite recently - last week from memory. I will go back and dig it out and post the date here.

Incidentally, I know some people think that until a title is gazetted it cannot be used - this can't be the case can it, because otherwise William wouldn't have been able to be 'Duke' on his wedding day.

Here's the London Gazette Notice:

Viewing Page 10297 of Issue 59798
Search Results

Notice Code: 1108

Crown Office

House of Lords, London SW1A 0PW

26 May 2011

In accordance with the direction of Her Majesty The Queen Letters Patent have passed the Great Seal of the Realm dated the 26 May 2011 granting unto Her Majesty’s Grandson, His Royal Highness Prince William Arthur Philip Louis of Wales, K.G., and the heirs male of his body lawfully begotten the dignities of Baron Carrickfergus, Earl of Strathearn, and Duke of Cambridge.


C I P Denyer


Deputy Clerk of the Crown
 
^^Is there a reason it wasn't gazetted until the 26th of May?
 
Could it have something to do with them being on their honeymoon?
 
I'm wondering if it hasn't been gazetted because it doesn't have the usual remainders. (i.e. to heirs male of the body lawfully begotten).

Maybe William wanted it modernized to include daughters? I don't know, but I'm wondering. Comments?

It's there now , with the standard "heirs male ..." remainder, in the London Gazette of June 1, 2011. The Letters Patent apparently having been finalized May 26, 2011.
 
I wouldn't be surprised to see Kate's father being created an earl when either Charles or William ascends the throne. The family was granted a court of arms before Kate's marriage. Theoretically, he'll be the father of the Queen Consort & grandfather to a future Sovereign.
 
:previous:
I would be extremely surprised, shocked in fact, if it were to happen.

The Coat of Arms is a different question altogether: Kate, as the (future, at that point) wife of a British Prince was entitled to have Coat of Arms. She could have applied for one in her own right, but instead Michael Middleton applied as head of the family, meaning now Kate's entire family has the use of the Arms.
 
Last edited:
Pretty much anybody will be granted a coat of arms in England if they can afford it. In theory you're supposed to demonstrate some level of eminence, but in practice one does that with money (heralds don't get salaries, after all).
 
Last edited:
I thought you have to be of noble blood to have a coat of arms. It should already be in your family as part of your family history, should'nt it? I did not know you could just buy one or have one made up without any valid bloodline somewhere in your geneology. That would mean all of us in the world could have one "made up". Hmm.
 
Coats of Arms became a fact because they were needed as a sign of recognition (as the person who rode into a tournament or battle was not recognisable, but carried a shiled anyway, so could display who he was there) just like a passport nowadays.

People who have a reason to signal who they are through symbols (for whatever reason there is) still can get a Coat of Arms for that purpose. As the family of Middleton was to become kin of the Royal family (after all, Carole and Michael are to be the grandparents of a future king or queen) they had a good reason to apply, as the RF still has a lot of situations/ceremonies where a Coat of Arms is needed instead of using the name or even passport number... LOL.... Even though this is the modern equivalent.

BTW: having a Coat of Arms really is the equivalent of having a passport, it's nothing noble about it, just the fact there is a need to make yourself known with old fashion methods. For whatever reasons.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom