The Royal Forums Coat of Arms

Go Back   The Royal Forums > Reigning Houses > British Royals > Prince Harry and Prince William

Join The Royal Forums Today
View Poll Results: What Title will the Queen bestow on William and Catherine?
Duke of Clarence 25 16.45%
Duke of Cambridge 68 44.74%
Duke of Sussex 5 3.29%
Duke of Windsor 8 5.26%
Duke of Kendall 2 1.32%
Earl of Something 8 5.26%
Hey! My choice isn't listed. I think it will be something else. 10 6.58%
Nothing. I think they will remain Prince and Princess William of Wales 26 17.11%
Voters: 152. You may not vote on this poll

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #1561  
Old 04-22-2011, 05:16 PM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: , United States
Posts: 2,736
This is what I believe is the case. More than anything, The Queen is well-aware that divorce is now a reality for the royal family and will be reluctant to add any wrinkles to the already established practice and precedent for styling of wives.
__________________

  #1562  
Old 04-22-2011, 05:18 PM
Sister Morphine's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: North Carolina, United States
Posts: 2,762
Quote:
Originally Posted by KittyAtlanta View Post
What is wonky to me about this article is that William doesn't want a dukedom or earldom or peerage of any kind, but he wants his wife to be styled as a blood-royal princess. Perhaps he's not as smart as I thought.

That's partly why I don't believe anything in these articles. That's the inconsistency that leads me to believe it's all a bunch of hooey.
__________________

__________________
"The grass was greener / The light was brighter / The taste was sweeter / The nights of wonder / With friends surrounded / The dawn mist glowing / The water flowing / The endless river / Forever and ever........ "
  #1563  
Old 04-22-2011, 05:24 PM
Sister Morphine's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: North Carolina, United States
Posts: 2,762
Quote:
Originally Posted by texankitcat View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sister Morphine View Post
This means what, exactly? Unless it's coming from a Palace source, or William is physically interviewed on TV and the words come out of his mouth, it's mere speculation not to be taken as fact. Hence why I said, "for the last time, there's no proof etc,."

Of course we'll find out next Friday, but continuing to say that doesn't change the fact that it's highly unlikely the Queen will do something for a granddaughter-in-law she didn't do for any closer relations, especially women who are nearer to the crown than Catherine will be.
The only woman closer to the crown than Catherine will be after April 29th is Camilla. Therefore, I have to differ with you on this issue.

She didn't make Diana a princess in her own right, she didn't make Camilla a princess in her own right, she hasn't made any of her other daughters-in-law princesses in their own right, she didn't make any of her cousins' wives princesses in their own right, she has not at any time during her reign given anyone princely status in their own right EXCEPT Philip, and that was merely to restore the princely status he had before he married her. That's it. She's allowed two women to call themselves Princess X, and that was the Dowager Duchess of Gloucester and the Dowager Duchess of Kent, and she was born a princess of the blood royal to begin with. However they were her aunts and very close to her. Catherine is the wife of her grandson, and while said grandson will be King, he is of no more importance now than his father.
__________________
"The grass was greener / The light was brighter / The taste was sweeter / The nights of wonder / With friends surrounded / The dawn mist glowing / The water flowing / The endless river / Forever and ever........ "
  #1564  
Old 04-22-2011, 05:30 PM
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Alexandria, United States
Posts: 176
Quote:
Originally Posted by KittyAtlanta View Post
What is wonky to me about this article is that William doesn't want a dukedom or earldom or peerage of any kind, but he wants his wife to be styled as a blood-royal princess. Perhaps he's not as smart as I thought.
Or more likely the newspapers got it all wrong. Wouldn't be the first time nor the last time they did that.
  #1565  
Old 04-22-2011, 05:56 PM
1222's Avatar
Gentry
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Warren, United States
Posts: 63
Quote:
Originally Posted by Royal_Eagle View Post
Or more likely the newspapers got it all wrong. Wouldn't be the first time nor the last time they did that.
Very true you can never really believe the newspapers .I think some of the newspapers will print anything about the royals to sell the paper.

On Catherine's title come next Friday. I believe Prince William will respect his Grandma choice. The Firm is like any where else you work, there are rules to follow.
__________________
Ellen
  #1566  
Old 04-22-2011, 06:23 PM
Thena's Avatar
Nobility
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Chicago, United States
Posts: 431
Quote:
Originally Posted by ladongas View Post
Perhaps, after having been known as Prince William his entire life, he doesn't wish to assume another name. A new title wouldn't give him any more position or income than he currently has. And he would wish for Katherine to retain her own name as well. Allowing Katherine to be styled as Princess Katherine need not upset an entire apple cart of tradition. They're young, they're modern, they are the hope and future of the monarchy.
To be fair, in the military, it is known and expected that people will change titles as they move up through the ranks. William might view the royal family in the same way. As members of the The Firm move up in rank and importance, they gain new titles. Not only do royal men gain dukedoms on their marriage, but it also marks that William has been taking on additional duties in representing his grandmother abroad.

Quote:
On the other hand- heaven forbid, if William were to die, Katherine would be left without a real title- except for that of "Princess William."
I'm sure that if that were to happen, the Queen (or Charles, if he was king at that point) would grant her some sort of title in her own right.
  #1567  
Old 04-22-2011, 08:28 PM
Sister Morphine's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: North Carolina, United States
Posts: 2,762
Once Charles is King, Catherine automatically becomes The Duchess of Cornwall, the Duchess of Rothesay and a host of other titles. So if William predeceases his father, Catherine would become the Dowager Duchess of Cornwall. She'd have a title. If William dies before the Queen does, but after he and Catherine have had children, and William hadn't been given a dukedom/earldom on his wedding day, the Queen (or later on Charles) could give Catherine some title as the mother of the future king/queen, but who knows.
__________________
"The grass was greener / The light was brighter / The taste was sweeter / The nights of wonder / With friends surrounded / The dawn mist glowing / The water flowing / The endless river / Forever and ever........ "
  #1568  
Old 04-22-2011, 08:34 PM
Commoner
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Zeeland, United States
Posts: 49
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sister Morphine View Post
You need to travel back to George III. He was Prince of Wales but never the Duke of Cornwall, because he was not George II's eldest son and heir, he was his grandson. In order to be Duke of Cornwall, you must be the sovereign's eldest son and heir. If Charles dies before the Queen, William cannot be the Duke of Cornwall, because he is not the Queen's eldest son, though he would be her heir.
I think you misread my post. You give an example of one who is heir but not the monarch's eldest son. My question was regarding how one could be the eldest son of the monarch, and not be the heir.
  #1569  
Old 04-22-2011, 08:40 PM
Commoner
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Zeeland, United States
Posts: 49
Reading everyone's post, I still think making William an Earl makes the most sense. Every other scenario has some slight negative consequence. Making William an earl has positive results all around!.
  #1570  
Old 04-22-2011, 08:41 PM
Sister Morphine's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: North Carolina, United States
Posts: 2,762
It was said before that in order to be the Duke of Cornwall, you must fulfill two roles: You must be the eldest son of the sovereign, and you must be the heir. You can't be one or the other, you must be both. You then asked why everyone says there are two requirements, and I answered by giving an example of an heir who was not the eldest son, and thus was not the Duke of Cornwall.

Obviously if you are the eldest son, you are also the heir, unless of course Letters Patent are issued or something else happens where that changes. However, you asked a specific question about why people say there are two requirements, and I answered that.
__________________
"The grass was greener / The light was brighter / The taste was sweeter / The nights of wonder / With friends surrounded / The dawn mist glowing / The water flowing / The endless river / Forever and ever........ "
  #1571  
Old 04-22-2011, 08:58 PM
abcdxyz's Avatar
Gentry
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Columbus, Ohio, United States
Posts: 96
Quote:
Originally Posted by Americanskipper View Post
I can't think of any time when the eldest living son of the monarch would also not be the heir apparent. Except maybe if the eldest living son was Catholic or married to a Catholic.
I think you just answered your own question!
  #1572  
Old 04-22-2011, 09:30 PM
HRHofNothing's Avatar
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: somewhere in, Canada
Posts: 208
There have been no situations thus far where the eldest son was not also the heir. This can only happen as it currently stands in two ways:

1)The eldest son loses his rights if he marries a Catholic or becomes on himself

2)An Act of Parliament names a different heir for whatever reason

If the law of sucession were to be changed to allow equaly sucession rights for both genders then another reason..

3)He is the oldest son but has an older sister who is the heir (the situation in Sweden right now)
  #1573  
Old 04-22-2011, 09:39 PM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 10,194
Quote:
Originally Posted by ladongas View Post
)

The Prince William brand is a strong one- it's good for the monarchy for the heir presumptive to have a strong brand.
Prince William is not the heir presumptive.

He is the heir apparent to the heir apparent.

Heirs apparent can't be replaced in the line of succession and no new child to his father can replace William as his father's heir apparent.

Heirs presumptive can be replaced in the line of succession - the Queen was always the heiress presumptive because a younger son would automatically replace her.
  #1574  
Old 04-22-2011, 09:43 PM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 10,194
Quote:
Originally Posted by Americanskipper View Post
I think you misread my post. You give an example of one who is heir but not the monarch's eldest son. My question was regarding how one could be the eldest son of the monarch, and not be the heir.

Under the current situation you can't be the eldest son and not the heir apparent but you can be the heir apparent and not be the eldest son.

You have to be both of these things though to be the Duke of Cornwall and Duke of Rothesay.

There have been only a couple of cases where the heir apparent wasn't the eldest son - George I and George III are the only two I can think of. Neither were able to hold the titles of Cornwall and Rothesay because neither of them were ever the eldest son of the monarch.

Monarchs like William IV, Victoria, George VI and Elizabeth II were all only ever heirs/heiresses presumptive as the birth of a legitimate child/son would have replaced them so they also were never eligible (and the same with James II, Anne, Mary I and Elizabeth I).
  #1575  
Old 04-22-2011, 10:24 PM
Duke of Leaside's Avatar
Commoner
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Toronto, Canada
Posts: 35
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iluvbertie View Post
Under the current situation you can't be the eldest son and not the heir apparent but you can be the heir apparent and not be the eldest son.

You have to be both of these things though to be the Duke of Cornwall and Duke of Rothesay.

There have been only a couple of cases where the heir apparent wasn't the eldest son - George I and George III are the only two I can think of. Neither were able to hold the titles of Cornwall and Rothesay because neither of them were ever the eldest son of the monarch.

Monarchs like William IV, Victoria, George VI and Elizabeth II were all only ever heirs/heiresses presumptive as the birth of a legitimate child/son would have replaced them so they also were never eligible (and the same with James II, Anne, Mary I and Elizabeth I).
I think what we're missing here is that the two requirements are
1) must be heir apparent
2) must be oldest LIVING son of the monarch

It is because of this 2nd requirement that George V could be Duke of Cornwall in Jan. 1901 when his father became King Edward VII. He was oldest LIVING son and heir apparent. (Not oldest son because his older brother Prince Albert Victor, Duke of Clarence and Avondale had died in 1892) Because Prince Albert Victor died without having had any children, The Duke of York (future George V) was able to become Duke Of Cornwall when he became heir apparent.

So if Charles had died with no children, Andrew would have become Duke of Cornwall, but if Charles died now: no Duke of Cornwall.

William would be heir apparent but not oldest living son of the monarch.

Andrew would be oldest living son of the monarch but not heir apparent.

In summary, for Duke of Cornwall it's Heir apparent and oldest LIVING son of the monarch. If not for the "living" part, George V couldn't have been Duke of Cornwall.

I hope this helps.
__________________
The Duke
  #1576  
Old 04-23-2011, 07:30 AM
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: alpine village, Germany
Posts: 1,868
Quote:
Originally Posted by branchg View Post
This is what I believe is the case. More than anything, The Queen is well-aware that divorce is now a reality for the royal family and will be reluctant to add any wrinkles to the already established practice and precedent for styling of wives.
Especially as she cleared that situation after both Andrews and Charles divorce. I read on these forums that Sarah was allowed to keep her HRH after the divorce till the queen issued explicit letter patents to remove this title from her and Diana (that is: from divorced wifes in general).

After all, it's not her problem that the media and some of the public don't seem to understand the principle - I bet William knows it extremely well and thus knows that Catherine can always sign her private letters with either just "Catherine" or with "Catherine Wales" like he is known as "William Wales" when they refer to just name and not title. OTOH on accepting a peerage he must change his professional name from Flight Lieutenant William Wales to Flight Lieutenant William X (Cambridge, Clarence, Sussex, whatever peerage he will get) and maybe that's what he doesn't want and thus want to stay Prince William of Wales.
  #1577  
Old 04-23-2011, 07:31 AM
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Las Vegas, United States
Posts: 103
Princess Marina

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sister Morphine View Post
She's allowed two women to call themselves Princess X, and that was the Dowager Duchess of Gloucester and the Dowager Duchess of Kent, and she was born a princess of the blood royal to begin with. However they were her aunts and very close to her. Catherine is the wife of her grandson, and while said grandson will be King, he is of no more importance now than his father.
In the case of the Dowager Duchess of Kent, she remained a Princess of Greece and Denmark, so I don't think she actually needed the permission of the queen to use the title she was born with.

In the case of the Dowager Duchess of Gloucester, the additional problem is that there was still another "Princess Alice" alive who was a princess of the blood royal. The two Princess Alices were sisters in law.

You seem 100% sure that the Queen will not modify tradition. It was not that long ago that “Mrs. John Smith” was proper etiquette for commoners. The precedents of Diana, and Camilla are not that relevant, as neither woman was saddled with the Princess male-firstname style.
  #1578  
Old 04-23-2011, 07:38 AM
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: alpine village, Germany
Posts: 1,868
Quote:
Originally Posted by pacomartin View Post
In the case of the Dowager Duchess of Kent, she remained a Princess of Greece and Denmark, so I don't think she actually needed the permission of the queen to use the title she was born with.
I think she needed it because on becoming a British citizen Marina could only keep and use her foreign title of princess through Royal permission. But I guess she got that permission already on marrying into the BRF.
  #1579  
Old 04-23-2011, 07:49 AM
Stefan's Avatar
Super Moderator
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Esslingen, Germany
Posts: 3,424
Quote:
Originally Posted by pacomartin View Post
In the case of the Dowager Duchess of Kent, she remained a Princess of Greece and Denmark, so I don't think she actually needed the permission of the queen to use the title she was born with.

In the case of the Dowager Duchess of Gloucester, the additional problem is that there was still another "Princess Alice" alive who was a princess of the blood royal. The two Princess Alices were sisters in law.

You seem 100% sure that the Queen will not modify tradition. It was not that long ago that “Mrs. John Smith” was proper etiquette for commoners. The precedents of Diana, and Camilla are not that relevant, as neither woman was saddled with the Princess male-firstname style.
The 2 Alice's they where not sister-in.-laws. Princess Alice, Countess of Athlone was a granddaughter of Queen Vicotria, through Vicotiras youngest son Leopold, Duke of Albany and Princess Alcie, Duchess of Gloucester a daughter.-in-law of King George V.
  #1580  
Old 04-23-2011, 08:17 AM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 10,194
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kataryn View Post
I think she needed it because on becoming a British citizen Marina could only keep and use her foreign title of princess through Royal permission. But I guess she got that permission already on marrying into the BRF.

She didn't need permission to be HRH Princess Marina of Greece and Denmark. She couldn't be deprived of that on marriage. Like a 'Lady' who marries they remain a Lady xxx.

She wasn't Princess Marina of the UK but she was always a princess in her own right.

After her marriage to refer to her as Princess Marina of Kent was wrong but she was still Princess Marina of Greece and Denmark.
__________________

Closed Thread

Tags
duke, prince william & catherine middleton wedding, titles, william & kate wedding


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off





Popular Tags
ascot 2016 best gown best gown september 2016 best hat best outfit catherine middleton style coup d'etat crown prince haakon crown princess mary crown princess mary fashion crown princess mette-marit current events duchess of cambridge e-mail fashion poll fox news grand duke jean greece kate middleton king abdullah ii king felipe king felipe vi king willem-alexander marriage member introduction monarchy new zealand nobel 2016 nobel gala norway november 2016 october 2016 opening of parliament picture of the week prince bernhard prince charles prince constantijn princess eugenie eveningwear princess madeleine princess marie princess mary princess mary daytime fashion princess mary fashion princess mary hats queen letizia queen letizia casual outfits queen letizia daytime fashion queen letizia fashion queen letizia style queen mathilde queen mathildes outfits queen maxima queen maxima casual wear queen maxima daytime fashion queen maxima fashion queen maxima hats queen maxima style queen rania revolution royal fashion september 2016 state visit state visit to denmark succession sweden the duchess of cambridge the duchess of cambridge casual wear the duchess of cambridge daytime fashion the duchess of cambridge fashion the duchess of cambridge hats


Our Communities

Our communities encompass many different hobbies and interests, but each one is built on friendly, intelligent membership.

» More about our Communities

Automotive Communities

Our Automotive communities encompass many different makes and models. From U.S. domestics to European Saloons.

» More about our Automotive Communities

Marine Communities

Our Marine websites focus on Cruising and Sailing Vessels, including forums and the largest cruising Wiki project on the web today.

» More about our Marine Communities


Copyright 2002- Social Knowledge, LLC All Rights Reserved.

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 09:46 AM.

Social Knowledge Networks

eXTReMe Tracker
Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2016
Jelsoft Enterprises