Prince William and Catherine Middleton Possible Titles

[branchg]

I have just finished reading Ziegler's "Edward VIII", and today I came across the following: (page 455)

Discussing the possibility of Wallis being granted the HRH which she and David both wished, 'brilliant lawyer William Jowitt'...maintained that..."a desire to uphold the intentions of the King as the fountainhead of honour. Whatever the position might have been in 1937, it could now only be reversed by the issue of fresh Letters Patent. These could not be issued by the King alone, but only on the advice of his ministers, who would probably feel it necessary to consult all the Commonwealth governments."

So, apparently, while the Monarch is the fount of all honours, she can't just willy-nilly issue Letters Patent. (A system like this in Imperial Rome would have prevented Caligula from appointing his horse as consul and priest.)

The question of HRH for Wallis was a political matter in the sense it had already been agreed by the Baldwin Government as well as the Dominions that it would be undesirable for her to be a Royal Highness. Therefore, they supported the desire of George VI to deny her the right, which he did with Letters Patent issued in May 1937.

From a legal perspective, there was no question The Duke had the right to remain HRH and his wife automatically took his rank. But there was also no question The Sovereign had the perogative to regulate the style of HRH Prince/Princess of the UK as the fount of honour. It is not a title in the Peerage, but a style only. Wallis was Duchess of Windsor automatically.

Jowitt simply is stating the issue would have to be resolved by issuing new Letters Patent granting Wallis the style of HRH. Since it was a political question, the King would have to take advice from his Ministers. It had nothing to do with the Dukedom of Windsor.

 

[abcdxyz]

There's no proof he said that. What's printed in newspaper articles anymore, especially concerning this wedding, should be taken as false until proven true.

Exactly right--who would have heard that and reported it to the papers? I was just pointing out that even if he IS made a duke or an earl, he WILL still remain a prince.

 

[Lady Ann]

Just for a read..
PM gives backing to royal succession reform | Reuters

 

[NGalitzine]

Excuse me if I do anything wrong as I don't think I have ever posted on this forum before.

I don't think the Queen will set any precedents as regards William and Catherine as that is not her style. Catherine will never be known as Princess Catherine unless unofficially .

On the wedding morning I think William's dukedom will be announced first thing. Duke of what? Connaught, Cambridge? Not keen on either for some reason. Has the Queen or Charles the title Duke of Lancaster (or Lancashire)? If not, I like that one. Regarding a Scottish title, is there still an Earl of Strathmore? Could William become that or even Duke of Strathmore? I think I saw Strathmore mentioned somewhere I like that and I also like Angelsey as he and Catherine live there.

Whatever...I hope they will be really happy.

The current Marquess might object to a regranting of the Anglesey title, as might the Queens cousin the current Earl of Strathmore.

 

[Sister Morphine]

The current Marquess might object to a regranting of the Anglesey title, as might the Queens cousin the current Earl of Strathmore.

You can have more than one person representing an area, if you will. So if there's already a Marquess of Strathmore and an Earl of Strathmore, you could have a Duke of Strathmore or a Baron Strathmore.

What is unlikely is the Duke of Strathmore, because if you look at the titles that she's already given out, the main title (Duke of York, Earl of Wessex) is based in England, while other subsidiary titles come from Scotland next, and then in some cases, Northern Ireland. So since there's already and Earl of Strathmore, it's not likely to see any representation in any title William may receive on his wedding day.

 

[Iluvbertie]

You can have more than one person representing an area, if you will. So if there's already a Marquess of Strathmore and an Earl of Strathmore, you could have a Duke of Strathmore or a Baron Strathmore.

What is unlikely is the Duke of Strathmore, because if you look at the titles that she's already given out, the main title (Duke of York, Earl of Wessex) is based in England, while other subsidiary titles come from Scotland next, and then in some cases, Northern Ireland. So since there's already and Earl of Strathmore, it's not likely to see any representation in any title William may receive on his wedding day.

Not only the fact that there is an Earl but that that Earl is the Queen's own cousin is a good reason to assume that she won't use that one.

If that title had no male heirs - and it does - I could see it being used for Harry as he is a descendent of an Earl of Strathmore - a great-great-grandson of the 14th Earl. The current heir is two years younger than Harry being born in 1986 - a good match for one of the York girls - distant cousin, status, and title on marriage - a thought.

 

[Duchess of Darwin]

The Duke and Duchess of Sussex is my hunch, but I also like Cumberland. I like these options, because the places both have strong images associated with them. Southern seaside for Sussex, and rugged northern country for Cumberland. What cool Dukedoms

 

[Duchess Rennie]

Ever hear of Butcher Cumberland? Otherwise known as Prince William, Duke of Cumberland...son of George II and Caroline of Anspach...

 

[branchg]

The Dukedom of Cumberland & Teviotdale is still extant, but suspended, under the Titles Deprivation Act for the House of Hanover. Since there are still male heirs living, it is not available for re-creation since Ernst-August retains the right to petition the Crown for restoration under the Act.

 

[MRSJ]

I vote there will be no title or if there is one, maybe an Earl

 

[Duchess of Darwin]

As for the butcher of Cumberland, a title can't just be contraband forever, but if it's suspended then nothing can be done about that in a fortnight. I don't agree with suspending peerages for good, though. Regardless, Cumberland isn't going to be it.

 

[pacomartin]

News Article

I would also like to remind everyone who keeps referencing an article that William requested that Catherine to be made a Princess in her own right. These are the same newspapers who reported that Carole Middleton had met the Queen at William's graduation, and that Jay Z or Snoop Dog were going to perform at the reception. Plus a lot of other rumours.

I read a Time Magazine article dated 27 December 1948, when the name Prince Charles for the 1 month old baby was revealed to the world. The article said that he would probably rule as King George VII. Yet you often read an article that says that Charles is thinking about ruling as King George (as if it happened yesterday).

In a similar manner, I think they made a decision to title Prince Edward with a temporary Earldom so that Phillip could have someone inherit his title a long time ago. Phillip was very interested in leaving a legacy. They made the decision to hyphenate the surnames of their common descendants in 1960.

Same way with the question of what to call Prince William's wife. When William was born the Queen was age 56, and she figured she would be alive for his wedding. They may have made a decision decades ago.

Just a quick list of every single one of the 28 British Princes that were married excluding
A) marriages in controversion to the royal marriages act,
B) morgantic marriages,
C) the marriages after their status as Prince had been revoked in 1917
D) the two cases of British princes who married their cousins who were born a princess of the royal blood.
E) the marriage of King George III who was already a king
F) the Wallis Simpson marriage. She never used the title of Princess

1 ) 1683 Prince of Wales, *Hereditary Prince of Hanover (future King George II)
2 ) 1707 Prince of Wales, Duke of Cornwall (died before becoming king)
3 ) 1743 Duke of Gloucester and Edinburgh
4 ) 1745 Duke of Cumberland and Strathearn (Marriage to a commoner caused Royal Marriages Act 1772)
5 ) 1763 Duke of York and Albany
6 ) 1762 Prince of Wales, Duke of Cornwall (future King George IV)
7 ) 1771 Duke of Cumberland and Teviotdale,*King of Hanover
8 ) 1767 Duke of Kent and Strathearn (father of Queen Victoria)
9 ) 1765 Duke of Clarence and St Andrews (future King William IV)
10 ) 1774 Duke of Cambridge
11 ) 1819 Duke of Cumberland and Teviotdale, *Crown Prince of Hanover, *King of Hanover.
[
12 ) 1841 Prince of Wales, Emperor of India (future King Edward VII)
13 ) 1845 Crown Prince of Hanover; Duke of Cumberland, *titular King of Hanover (Titles revoked in 1917)
14 ) 1844 Duke of Edinburgh,*Duke of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha
15 ) 1850 Duke of Connaught and Strathearn
16 ) 1853 Duke of Albany (first hemophiliac)
]
17 ) 1865 Prince of Wales, Duke of York, Duke of Cornwall, Emperor of India (future King George V)
18 ) 1884 *Duke of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha. (Titles revoked 1917, the Nazi Prince)
19 ) 1887 Duke of Brunswick. (Titles revoked in 1917)
[
20 ) 1895 Duke of York (future King George VI)
21 ) 1900 Duke of Gloucester
22 ) 1902 Duke of Kent
]
23 ) 1935 Duke of Kent
24 ) 1942 Prince Michael
25 ) 1944 Duke of Gloucester
26 ) 1948 Prince of Wales; Duke of Cornwall
27 ) 1960 Duke of York
28 ) 1964 Earl of Wessex

Princess Michael is the unique case out of all the wives. She is the only one who was stuck with her husbands first name for their whole married life.

History would seem to say that Prince William will be made a Duke before his marriage. But given media sensibilities, and the fact that she will be observed by a billion people, personally I think they should change tradition and formally give Catherine the title that people will want to call her.

Queen Elizabeth II changed tradition by making Prince Edward an Earl, and not a Duke.

King George V changed tradition in 1917 by excluding the great grandsons of a monarch via a male line. By doing this change he was able to remove the title of British Prince from 6 German men (some were babies). The only British Prince to lose his title was 3 years old. When he grew older he used the title of Earl of Macduff.




The Nazi Prince Charles)

 

[Sister Morphine]

No offense, but was there a reason to copy/paste that wall of text? A simple link to the place you got that information would have been better. BTW, the reason why Prince Michael didn't get a peerage and why his wife is Princess Michael is because he's a minor member of the family. He's the younger brother of a peer who has sons, so there's no chance of him inheriting anything and passing the title on to his own children. So there was no reason to offer him a peerage when he married. That's hardly shocking.

Furthermore, Edward chose to be styled as an Earl, because he didn't want his children to carry the burdens that come with a royal title. The Queen didn't decide to just up and give him an earldom, he requested it. So it's not a break with tradition per se. Secondly, the Letters Patent that George V issued in 1917 served two purposes -- one, it streamlined who had titles and who didn't, since the number of people who could claim to be members of the royal family was too large; two, after WWI, there was a lot of sentiment in England to eradicate any evidence of the family's German origins and German titles. So they went from the House of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha to the House of Windsor. Germanic-sounding names were Anglicized -- Battenburg became Mountbatten. Others adopted new last names based on their titular designations.

The issuing of Letters Patent by a monarch is not radical or ground-breaking, it's what they do sometimes to change things that they want changed.

 

[pacomartin]

No offense, but was there a reason to copy/paste that wall of text? A simple link to the place you got that information would have been better. BTW, the reason why Prince Michael didn't get a peerage and why his wife is Princess Michael is because he's a minor member of the family. He's the younger brother of a peer who has sons, so there's no chance of him inheriting anything and passing the title on to his own children. So there was no reason to offer him a peerage when he married. That's hardly shocking.

Furthermore, Edward chose to be styled as an Earl, because he didn't want his children to carry the burdens that come with a royal title. The Queen didn't decide to just up and give him an earldom, he requested it. So it's not a break with tradition per se. Secondly, the Letters Patent that George V issued in 1917 served two purposes -- one, it streamlined who had titles and who didn't, since the number of people who could claim to be members of the royal family was too large; two, after WWI, there was a lot of sentiment in England to eradicate any evidence of the family's German origins and German titles. So they went from the House of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha to the House of Windsor. Germanic-sounding names were Anglicized -- Battenburg became Mountbatten. Others adopted new last names based on their titular designations.

The issuing of Letters Patent by a monarch is not radical or ground-breaking, it's what they do sometimes to change things that they want changed.

I couldn't link to a place on the web, because I couldn't find it in one place. I had to assemble the information. There are lists of all 57 British princes, but only half of them married while they were a prince in such a way that their wife adopted the style of her husband.

My point in making the list was to demonstrate that while Princess Michael is a traditional style that has it's roots in German culture, it has only applied to one person in British history (as her primary style).

I think we are all aware of the reasons why King George V withdrew the title of British Prince from 7 men. But I am saying that he changed a tradition that was centuries old for political reasons and updating the monarchy with the reality of the world at that time.

The kingdom is facing a new world politics. It is unlikely that Catherine will live her life entirely in the shadow of her husband, and a style of "Princess William" will be a constant reminder of the past.

Similar to changing from male preference to absolute primogeniture, the naming of Catherine as a "princess in her own right" would be a step to further updating the monarchy.

BTW: From reading your posts you say that Prince Edward requested that his mother make him an Earl. I was under the impression that it was The Queen's way of having Prince Phillip's legacy live on, in the passing of his title (indirectly) from father to son. Now the children of James will not only bear the surname Mountbatten-Windsor but the senior male line will also have the title of Duke of Edinburgh. I could be mistaken. Could your provide a reference that the request to become an Earl originated with Edward, and didn't come from the top down?

 

[daisygoogles]

Possible title

I just heard on the news that the strong speculation for a dukedom for William is Cambridge. The reports are that the Queen will be in Cambridge two days before the wedding so they are making the connection there???? Far fetched?? I don't know but again we will all know soon enough

 

[MRSJ]

BTW: From reading your posts you say that Prince Edward requested that his mother make him an Earl. I was under the impression that it was The Queen's way of having Prince Phillip's legacy live on, in the passing of his title (indirectly) from father to son. Now the children of James will not only bear the surname Mountbatten-Windsor but the senior male line will also have the title of Duke of Edinburgh. I could be mistaken. Could your provide a reference that the request to become an Earl originated with Edward, and didn't come from the top down?

I can't reference it but I did read that when it was first announced and it's been discussed on multiple threads here, it was Edwards way of 'protecting' his children I believe....Sister M is very knowledgable about these things ( not trying to implying that anyone else is any less knowledgable) (plus if we keep discussing Edward our posts will be deleted as OT)

 

[Sister Morphine]

It's been discussed on this forum hundreds of times if not more. It was even mentioned at the time of the wedding, that the fact he received an earldom rather than a dukedom which was customary, was by his request. I don't have a citation for an errant comment made by a TV broadcaster 12 years ago.

 

[daisygoogles]

What about Duke of Clarence and St Andrew's??? makes some sense, right??
I'm sure it's obvious . has it been talked to death yet?

 

[Zonk]

Let's get back on Topic....A title for William and Catherine.

There are various threads to discuss titles for members of the British Royal Family.
http://www.theroyalforums.com/forums/f23/questions-about-styles-and-titles-258-45.html
http://www.theroyalforums.com/forum...l-duchies-and-royal-ducal-titles-7948-19.html
http://www.theroyalforums.com/forum...ce-of-regnal-name-and-numeration-22507-5.html
http://www.theroyalforums.com/forums/f23/the-future-of-the-duke-of-edinburgh-title-24343.html

Going forward, off topic posts will be deleted without notice. There has been enough of throwing the thread off track.

Zonk
British Forums Moderator

 

[jen121419]

I do believe a dukedom will be given, and despite the history, I would like to see a Duke and Duchess of Clarence. That being said, I would not be surprised if everyone else calls Catherine either "Princess Catherine" or "Princess Kate."

 

[Sister Morphine]

The press is going to call her that regardless. I mean, they called his mother "Princess Diana" even though that was never her title. In fact, Diana would correct reporters who called her that, saying it wasn't her name. Catherine will never have her name in her title until she's queen.

 

[texankitcat]

I do believe a dukedom will be given, and despite the history, I would like to see a Duke and Duchess of Clarence. That being said, I would not be surprised if everyone else calls Catherine either "Princess Catherine" or "Princess Kate."

I don't see the media calling her Princess Catherine or Kate if William is granted a Ducal title. They didn't call Sarah Princess Andrew or (incorrectly) Princess Sarah after her marriage. She was always referred to as Sarah, Duchess of York. Same with Sophie being referred to as Sophie, Countess of Wessex after her marriage. Never as Princess Edward or (incorrectly) Princess Sophie. However, the men are still referred to as Prince Andrew and Prince Edward rather than exclusively by their ducal or earldom granted titles.

If William is granted a dukedom, the media will still refer to a to him predominately as Prince William, and Catherine will be referred to as Catherine/Kate, Duchess of xxx. I don't see them calling her Princess Catherine/Kate since they haven't done so with previous wives. Not even in America.

Diana was different in that her husband was The Prince of Wales, and she was The Princess of Wales. So to shorten the references to her, they just called her Princess Diana or Princess Di.

 

[Zonk]

Can we all just agree that even after the marriage, Kate Middleton will be known as Kate, Catherine, Princess Kate, Princess Katie, Duchess of X, and yikes, even Kate Middleton as if she had never married William on the 29th of April.

I can't wait for this to be announced.

 

[Royal_Eagle]

Can we all just agree that even after the marriage, Kate Middleton will be known as Kate, Catherine, Princess Kate, Princess Katie, Duchess of X, and yikes, even Kate Middleton as if she had never married William on the 29th of April.

I can't wait for this to be announced.

Agreed--the media is going to get that wrong anyway. But that's life, and there's no need to get all worked up over a minor (at least to the media and most people anyway) thing like this.

 

[Skippy]

Can we all just agree that even after the marriage, Kate Middleton will be known as Kate, Catherine, Princess Kate, Princess Katie, Duchess of X, and yikes, even Kate Middleton as if she had never married William on the 29th of April.

I can't wait for this to be announced.

Me too, and heck, even Camilla, Duchess of Cornwall is sometimes still referenced to as Camilla Parker Bowles. Indeed as if no wedding ever took place .

 

[Polly]

Usually, those who say 'Camilla Parker Bowles' are not her admirers and are attempting to demean her, in much the same way as those who dislike CP Mary rudely and persistently refer to her as 'Mary Donaldson'. It's petty behaviour and much best ignored. I'm confident that both women couldn't care less about such people.

 

[Iluvbertie]

And they are also wrong if they, or any of us, refer to Camilla as Camilla, Duchess of Cornwall, Sophie as Sophie, Countess of Wessex and Sarah - when married - as Sarah, Duchess of York.

Those forms are for divorced wives of peers and the last time I checked Camilla and Sophie are married. Their names simply don't exist in their titles at all. They are HRH The Duchess of Cornwall or HRH The Countess of Wessex. To refer to them by name is fine so long as you don't add the title and thus divorce them from their husbands.

Sarah is now correctly Sarah, Duchess of York as the divorced wife of a peer.

If William is given a title then Kate will be HRH The Duchess/Countess/Marchioness etc of xxx but not Katherine, Duchess/Countess/Marchioness etc of xxx unless she divorces William.

If we can't get it right, and we claim to be followers of things like this, can we blame other people, without our interest or the press who feed the masses their pulp?

 

[UKRoyalTitles]

Kate’s daughter could be Queen but not royal

As I'm sure everyone has seen, the government are thinking of changing the succession laws so that if William and Kate have a girl first, she will be Queen.

However, it has occured to me that if they have a daughter in the Queen's lifetime, heir or not, she won't actually be royal. Check out my blogpost on it:

Kate

 

[Lady Ann]

She will still be a royal she will just be titled and styled as Lady x Windsor until her grandfather is King. weather or not this new law passes all William and Kate's children will be royals.

Zara and Peter Phillips do not carry any title...but they are still a part of the Royal family and are still Royals.. I guess it depends on how you look at it I have seen people on this forum say that Prince Albert is not a royal and that you need a HRH to be a royal.. I have a diffrent veiw,Prince Edward Choose to have his Children styled as children of an Earl does that mean they are not Royals...

 

[Sister Morphine]

Zara and Peter aren't actually royals, as they carry no titles. They are members of the royal family as they are the Queen's grandchildren, but they are commoners, just like their father is, and their step-father is. The Earl and Countess of Wessex's children are royal, as they are still legally Princess Louise of Wessex and Prince James of Wessex, they are just being styled as the children of an earl.

There's a difference between being a member of the royal house and the royal family. The royal house is those who carry titles, the royal family is everyone, including those who do not carry titles.