Prince William and Catherine Middleton Possible Titles

[Zonk]

Good situation to think about.

I don't think that if the first daughter is The Princess of Wales (can't see them wanting to over turn years and years of precedence) than the 2nd daughter will be the Princess Royal. That would be doing a lot of new things at one time.

But I guess if they are using absolute primogeniture anything is possible.

 

[Lumutqueen]

I'm hoping they make an eldest daughter Princess of Wales in their own right.

 

[Zonk]

The problem with that is if she marries, what will her husband be...just HRH The Duke of what not or HRH Prince of Wales?

 

[Lumutqueen]

Well it's only fair for him to become Prince of Wales, like a commoner becomes a Princess of Wales if she marries the heir?

 

[Zonk]

Well it's only fair for him to become Prince of Wales, like a commoner becomes a Princess of Wales if she marries the heir?

It would be only fair but I don't think that is a situation that will happen.

 

[Lumutqueen]

Well it would be up to William & Charles should the situation arise?

 

[Zonk]

It certainly is up to them. Just as any new title is up to the Queen.

 

[MRSJ]

Is a Queen Regnant the same as Queen? Is that the formal title?

The problem with that is if she marries, what will her husband be...just HRH The Duke of what not or HRH Prince of Wales?

maybe she could be HRH The Princess of Wales (Will and Kate's daughter) and her husband could be Duke of Cornwall (like Camilla is now- did I get that title correct?)

 

[Lumutqueen]

Queen Regnant is a female monarch who reigns in her own right, opposed to a Queen Consort.
That's a good idea.

 

[Warren]

A Queen Regnant is the Sovereign, the Reigning Monarch.
A Queen Consort is the spouse of the King.

 

[Princess BellyFlop]

Looks like political correctness doesn't go well with royal titles.

 

[Zonk]

I don't think it has to do with political correctness.

Moreso its never happened before. England has had how many Queens: Mary, Elizabeth I, Elizabeth II, Mary II, Victoria and Anne. With the exception of Elizabeth the I who never married, they all married foreign princes. So they were pretty much all Princes, and there has never been any need to bring the husband up to the station (or close to it) of his wife.

But we are putting the baby before the marriage. They aren't even married yet.

 

[Lumutqueen]

What do you mean Princess BellyFlop?
If your referring to the Queen Consort/Regnant, it has nothing to do with PC but totally different meanings.

 

[Iluvbertie]

Is a Queen Regnant the same as Queen? Is that the formal title?

maybe she could be HRH The Princess of Wales (Will and Kate's daughter) and her husband could be Duke of Cornwall (like Camilla is now- did I get that title correct?)

The legislation creating the Duke of Cornwall title have very specific criteria and the eldest daughter of the monarch, who is the heir to the throne, dosen't meet those criteria. The Duke of Cornwall must be both the eldest son and the heir apparent to the throne so the husband of the heir to the throne won't be Duke of Cornwall.

Going with absolute primogeniture opens a number of changes needed in Britain that would involve a lot of debate in parliament - about funding of the heir, titles etc.

 

[Iluvbertie]

1.

I wish His Royal Highness and Ms Middleton could be granted a Commonwealth title...such as Duke/Duchess of Sydney/Melbourne/Perth etc.

There is no way that the countries of the Commonwealth would accept that. The time to do that was 100 years ago not now.

2

If Catherine is with child and gives birth to a girl, then they have another girl and no more children, will that first female child succeed to the Throne as Queen Regnant?

I wish we could have another Victoria or even another Elizabeth named after there great grandmother...we could have an Elizabeth III.

That was the situation that lead to Elizabeth being the Queen now - she was the elder of two girls with no younger brothers.

3.

Say there is two girls...would the eldest be granted the title/style of HRH Princess of Wales in her own right...or even say her name was Victoria...HRH The Princess Victoria of say Windsor as the family name is Windsor...

Who knows - but unless they change the law to allow for gender neutral inheritance - that girl could be replaced by a younger son so no they wouldn't create the girl Princess of Wales in their own right.

Titles are clear in the UK

Children of the monarch are HRH Prince/Princess The xxxxx

Grandchildren in the male line only are simly HRH Prince/Princess xxxxx of yyyyy (no the with a captial 'T') The exception is Prince Philip who was granted the captial 'T' by the Queen in 1957, when she created him a Prince of the UK.

Currently William and Harry are HRH Prince William of Wales and HRH Prince Henry of Wales while their father is HRH The Prince Charles.

 

[Russophile]

There is no way that the countries of the Commonwealth would accept that. .

Do you know this first hand? Has there been a study of the commonwealth asking this question? I'd like to see a source, if so, just for my own curiousity. Thanks!

 

[rossop7]

With regards to the possibility of being given a title relating to somewhere in the Commonwealth, I just can't see it happening, nice idea but wouldn't happen in reality. Imagine William & Catherine were made Duke & Duchess of Melbourne, fast forward say 10 years & perhaps Australia has declared itself a Republic & William & Catherine are now Duke & Duchess of an area no longer even vaguely related to the British crown. I could see some of the "larger" countries of the Commonwealth (Australia, Canada etc) declaring independence from the British Royal Family (ie: no longer having the British Monarch as their heads of state) over the coming years, particularly once the Queen is no longer with us & Charles becomes King.

I really doubt anyone at BP wants to risk giving William a title that could become essentially obsolete at any given moment, a title whose relevancy is dependent on public/political views within that country on having the British Monarch as head of state etc. Also what with William being the heir of the heir I think he'd HAVE to have a British title, just because he is going to be King one day & so needs to make sure he has the strongest connection with the UK.

That said I could perhaps see them "risk" using a Commonwealth title on a lesser Royal (basically someone who was not one day expected to be King/Queen). They could use it as means to try & strengthen ties with that country & so maintain relations & keep the Monarch as Head of State...but then again probably not ever going to happen in this day & age.

 

[Roslyn]

Do you know this first hand? Has there been a study of the commonwealth asking this question? I'd like to see a source, if so, just for my own curiousity. Thanks!

I'm sure Bertie will answer your question herself, but I reckon that if someone wanted to get the Republican issue brought to the front burner in Australia in record time, this would be the way to get it there.

I am sure it's no longer possible legally possible for the UK to create a Dukedom of Melbourne or Sydney, etc., but I cannot point to the precise piece of legislation preventing it happening. Australia is an independent, sovereign nation, and there have been a few pieces of legislation since the early '70s which have gradually snipped away at our remaining apron strings. Since 1975 we have had our own Honours System and the British Honours System no longer applies here. We do not have Australian peerages. There were a few UK peerages with an Australian flavour created in the early part of the 20th century. Our 8th Prime Minister was made 1st Viscount Bruce of Melbourne, but in those days we were all still British Subjects.

 

[Princess BellyFlop]

When I previously wrote about political correctness not going well with British titles it's because I believe it's purely political correctness that makes some of us wish that William's first child (male or female) be the heir to the throne and, if that first child be a girl, also be given the title "Princess of Wales" (as her grandpa Charles got and her dad will get once grandpa is king BUT unlike her great-grandma who didn't came close to that title and went straight to Queen). Some of us also wish the "Princess of Wales" 'husband be given the title 'Prince of Wales" (apparently because the wife if the PoW is the Princess of W).

Call me old-fashined but I like the idea that the male heir to the British throne being the PoW, that this title be reserved for male heirs as titles are passed through the father.

 

[MRSJ]

Ok but let me ask this on the hypothetical thought of William and Kate having a daughter (and no son) and her becoming POW....wasn't Elizabeth II in the same postion and she never got that title....and she still married Prince Phillip and only after she became Queen did she make him a prince of UK, right? So, maybe that is how it would go for William and Kate's hypthetical daughter/future Queen? Just like great Gram! (of course her husband probably wouldn't be a Prince but once she was Queen he could become Prince Consort, right?)

 

[Sternchen]

IIRC Elizabeth was never Princess of Wales. And you are right, she only created Phillip Prince of the United Kingdom a few years after the wedding.

In February 1957 it was announced that The Queen had granted to The Duke of Edinburgh the style and dignity of a Prince of the United Kingdom, and that in future he would be known as 'The Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh'.

The Current Royal Family > HRH The Duke of Edinburgh > Honours

 

[Zonk]

In regards to the former Princess Elizabeth (now Elizabeth II) and becoming Princess of Wales, from Wikipedia:

When a title was sought for the future Queen Elizabeth II, the possibility of investing her as Princess of Wales in her own right was raised. This suggestion was rejected, because Princess of Wales is a courtesy title held by the wife of the Prince of Wales. If it were used by Princess Elizabeth, it would have degraded her right as a Princess of the United Kingdom unless Letters Patent or Legislation were introduced to the contrary. Furthermore, if the then Princess Elizabeth had been given the title of Princess of Wales, there would have been the problem of what to call her future husband. Therefore, King George VI decided not to give his elder daughter the title.

Again, its Wikipedia so you can take it with a grain of salt. But I believe the same questions might arise for a daughter of William and Catherine.

 

[branchg]

It wouldn't have "degraded" her right to be HRH Princess Elizabeth, which she was automatically under her grandfather's Letters Patent of 1917 at birth as a male-line grandchild of The Sovereign.

Her status was the heiress presumptive once her father became King. Since the birth of any sons would have automatically displaced her from succeeding to the throne, there was no reason to create her "Princess of Wales" in her own right because the tradition was always the male heir to the throne held the title, not an heiress presumptive.

 

[Iluvbertie]

Ok but let me ask this on the hypothetical thought of William and Kate having a daughter (and no son) and her becoming POW....wasn't Elizabeth II in the same postion and she never got that title....and she still married Prince Phillip and only after she became Queen did she make him a prince of UK, right? So, maybe that is how it would go for William and Kate's hypthetical daughter/future Queen? Just like great Gram! (of course her husband probably wouldn't be a Prince but once she was Queen he could become Prince Consort, right?)

The reason why Elizabeth couldn't be made Princess of Wales in her own right was that she was only ever heiress presumptive as any younger son would have replaced her in the line of succession (and even if said son was born up to 9 months after her accession that son would have replaced her).

A first girl to William, particularly with a younger brother, will see the legislation changed to allow the girl to be heiress apparent and so HRH The Princess of Wales in her own right is possible.

To me if they are going to make that change then they have to go the whole hog and have all men able to take titles from their wives as well as wives from their husbands (or stop the later prospect).

 

[Biri]

I think it will be the Duke and the Duchess of Clarence and Avondale.

 

[Zonk]

The reason why Elizabeth couldn't be made Princess of Wales in her own right was that she was only ever heiress presumptive as any younger son would have replaced her in the line of succession (and even if said son was born up to 9 months after her accession that son would have replaced her).

A first girl to William, particularly with a younger brother, will see the legislation changed to allow the girl to be heiress apparent and so HRH The Princess of Wales in her own right is possible.

To me if they are going to make that change then they have to go the whole hog and have all men able to take titles from their wives as well as wives from their husbands (or stop the later prospect).

I've bold the last bit as that is the part of the reason why I think they won't change the law too much.

As a woman, I am all for equality and I think the first born should be King or Queen regardless of gender as it pertains to the royal family but I am iffy on a first born daughter getting the title, the money, etc. as it relates to titles in the British aristocracy.

So Beatrice should become Duchess of York in the event of her father's death? What if she marries? Does she take her husbands last name? Than the DoY title will never have the opportunity to merge with the crown and be used for another British Prince.

And all of sudden there are no more Percies, Churchills, all the great storied British names? Because now the Duchess of Devonshire is not the wife of the current Duke but it could be anyone? Not that it will affect me much as an American, but I am not sure how I feel about that.

Its the topic of another thread, but I think its too much to think about and change, and will have changes that many aren't ready for.

 

[Polly]

T


Who knows - but unless they change the law to allow for gender neutral inheritance - that girl could be replaced by a younger son so no they wouldn't create the girl Princess of Wales in their own right.

Currently William and Harry are HRH Prince William of Wales and HRH Prince Henry of Wales while their father is HRH The Prince Charles.

Remember, however, Princess Charlotte who was formally Princess Charlotte of Wales. Had she lived, her uncles wouldn't have been forced into legal marriages and the world wouldn't have had Queen Victoria!

Victoria was never considered Princess of Wales because she wasn't the child of a reigning monarch and her uncle preceded her.

As for the present monarch, the Queen Mother was only 36 when her husband ascended the throne and for some years it was thought that a male heir was not impossible. Later, the present Queen wasn't made Princess of Wales because of possible complications when and if she married, i.e. what to call her future husband, and because it was thought that it would downgrade her status as a Princess of the UK in her own right. Letters Patent could have altered this situation, but it's believed that hidebound courtiers prevailed over the King and tradition was preserved.

Interestingly, although he never invested her as such, Henry VIII allowed his daughter Mary to sign herself Princess of Wales and to use the formal seal of Wales for her papers and correspondence, at least until the birth of Edward.

Given today's social conditions and expectations, if William's first child is a daughter, we can expect a renewed and deafening demand that the law be altered in the UK, as it has been elsewhere.

 

[Zonk]

Right but wasn't Charlotte Princess Charlotte of Wales because her father was Prince of Wales. She wasn't made Priness of Wales in her own right. She died in 1817 and her father didn't become King until 1820.

 

[Stefan]

As for the present monarch, the Queen Mother was only 36 when her husband ascended the throne and for some years it was thought that a male heir was not impossible.

There would have been still the possibility that Queen Elizabeth died before the King he remarried and had a son with tthe second wife who then would be the heir.

 

[Iluvbertie]

Remember, however, Princess Charlotte who was formally Princess Charlotte of Wales. Had she lived, her uncles wouldn't have been forced into legal marriages and the world wouldn't have had Queen Victoria!

William and Harry are Princes of Wales because they are the sons of the Prince of Wales and Charlotte was the same - she was the daughter of the Prince of Wales and thus was 'of Wales'.

Victoria was HRH Princess Victoria 'of Kent'.

These are the same title usages as happens today - William and Harry of Wales, Beatrice and Eugenie of York, Elizabeth and Margaret Rose of York in the 1930s, Prince Michael of Kent.

It simply denotes her father's title and not a title for her in her own right.

Had George III not given his eldest son the title Prince of Wales she would have been Charlotte of Cornwall.