Titles and Styles of William, Harry, Wives and Children

[gaggleofcrazypeople]

William knows what his future will be and therefore knows he should marry a girl that is of his religon. It is a sense of duty.

[Elspeth]

Crown Princess Victoria is Lutheran and ineligible to marry William under the Act of Settlement unless she renounced her faith and embraced the Anglican Church prior to marriage.

It isn't necessary to be Anglican in order to marry the heir to the British throne; it's just necessary not to be Catholic. Exactly what would happen if an Archbishop of Canterbury was faced with crowning a Lutheran or Jewish or Pagan or Satanist Queen Consort in a Church of England ceremony is another matter, but the Act of Settlement wouldn't prohibit it.

[segolen]

is Kate Middleton a catholic? sorry for the silly question, but I just want to see if she knows the "requirements "

[Lisele]

Originally Posted by Raia

i've always wondered why is it that else where in europe when a women marries a prince they become Princess *there name* in there own right like Princess Mary, Princess Grace, Princess Alexandra and if there next in line to the throne they become Crown Princess automatically, but in the UK they only become Princess *name of their husband* (unless they have there own title like diana did then its there name used) and if next in line they become Princess of Wales why not Crown Princess. Why is that i have never understood it and i'm from the UK myself

First of all Crown Princess Mary, Princess Grace, Princess Alexandra (of Denmark I presume) were created princesses in their own right by the monarch. If you are not created a princess by the monarch, you take your husbands name. Diana, Princess of Wales was not entitled to "Princess Diana" and she always corrected people when they called her that. She was officially known as HRH The Princess of Wales or Princess Charles (before her divorce from Prince Charles).

[tiaraprin]

Originally Posted by branchg

The title is bestowed at the Sovereign's discretion and will. It is not automatic that William would become Prince of Wales, although it is certainly very likely. If not, he would be HRH The Duke of Cornwall in England and HRH The Duke of Rothesay in Scotland when Charles becomes King.

Remember Edward VII's example in waiting a year before he made his son George and wife Mary Prince and Princess of Wales. They were TRH the Duke and Duchess of Cornwall and were not at all pleased at having to wait.

[AsianRedneck]

Do you really think that William will marry Kate? I mean he probably knows that he really can have any woman that he wants......as long as they're not Roman Catholic. Do you think that his family would accept a poor, ugly, girl? Does his future wife have to be gorgeous and rich? I mean it wouldn't be fair.....what if the girl was a wonderful girl inside and smart? Or do you think that the royal family would still accept her? Yet, what about any royal families? I'm just asking...not meaning that everything that I'm asking is going to happen or anything. I'm sure it might sound stupid...

[AsianRedneck]

Sorry if my questions doesn't belong in this thead(topic wise)

[branchg]

Originally Posted by Elspeth

It isn't necessary to be Anglican in order to marry the heir to the British throne; it's just necessary not to be Catholic. Exactly what would happen if an Archbishop of Canterbury was faced with crowning a Lutheran or Jewish or Pagan or Satanist Queen Consort in a Church of England ceremony is another matter, but the Act of Settlement wouldn't prohibit it.

The Act of Settlement prohibits anyone other than a Protestant descendant of Electress Sophia who has not married a Catholic from ascending the British throne. The intent of the Act was to stop the Jacobite descendants from contesting the throne after the death of Queen Anne. It also granted Parliament the right to intervene in the royal succession and regrant the throne at any time.

The intent of the Act is to prohibit any marriage to a non-Anglican, which would threaten the supremacy of the Crown as Head of the Church of England. Unless it is repealed or amended, no future heir to the throne will be allowed to marry anyone who has not embraced the Anglician faith.

[branchg]

Originally Posted by AsianRedneck

Do you really think that William will marry Kate? I mean he probably knows that he really can have any woman that he wants......as long as they're not Roman Catholic. Do you think that his family would accept a poor, ugly, girl? Does his future wife have to be gorgeous and rich? I mean it wouldn't be fair.....what if the girl was a wonderful girl inside and smart? Or do you think that the royal family would still accept her? Yet, what about any royal families? I'm just asking...not meaning that everything that I'm asking is going to happen or anything. I'm sure it might sound stupid...

William will not marry Kate Middleton. It's his duty to make an appropriate marriage as a future king. She does not fit the bill.

[branchg]

Originally Posted by Lisele

First of all Crown Princess Mary, Princess Grace, Princess Alexandra (of Denmark I presume) were created princesses in their own right by the monarch. If you are not created a princess by the monarch, you take your husbands name. Diana, Princess of Wales was not entitled to "Princess Diana" and she always corrected people when they called her that. She was officially known as HRH The Princess of Wales or Princess Charles (before her divorce from Prince Charles).

Diana was never "Princess Charles" only HRH the Princess of Wales as the wife of the Prince of Wales. The style "Princess Husband's Name" is only appropriate if married to a prince of the UK who holds no other peerage or title.

[Elspeth]

The intent of the Act is to prohibit any marriage to a non-Anglican, which would threaten the supremacy of the Crown as Head of the Church of England. Unless it is repealed or amended, no future heir to the throne will be allowed to marry anyone who has not embraced the Anglician faith.

If the Act doesn't say that a non-Anglican may not become Queen or Prince Consort, then the intent isn't relevant nowadays when Protestant and Catholic aren't the only options. The Act specifically excludes from the succession anyone who marries a Catholic; it says nothing about Lutherans, Orthodox, atheists, Jews, Muslims, or any other sect, religion, or worldview.The monarch has to be a member of the Church of England as long as Britain has an established church; the Act doesn't require that the consort be anything other than not Catholic. Nobody has had to give up his or her position in the line of succession, at least in the 20th century, for marrying anyone other than a Catholic. And even people a long way down the line of succession have to give up their place when they marry a Catholic.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/monarchy/s...407239,00.html

IMO, it's about time they did what it takes to repeal that Act. It's a piece of blatant religious discrimination that must be highly offensive to Britain's Catholics.

[Lisele]

Originally Posted by branchg

Diana was never "Princess Charles" only HRH the Princess of Wales as the wife of the Prince of Wales. The style "Princess Husband's Name" is only appropriate if married to a prince of the UK who holds no other peerage or title.

You may be right, but I read somewhere that since Diana was not created a princess in her own right, she was also technically known as Princess Charles although no one ever called her that.

According to Wikipedia.org:

Styles:

• The Honourable Diana Spencer (birth–9 June 1975)
• The Lady Diana Spencer (9 June 1975–29 July 1981)
• Her Royal Highness The Princess of Wales (29 July 1981–28 August 1996)
• Diana, Princess of Wales (28 August 1996–death)

The style "Princess Diana" was incorrect at all times of her life, though often used by the public and the media.

[Oppie]

If Prince Charles didn't have any other titles then she would have been Princess Charles (like Princess Micheal of Kent)

[Australian]

Originally Posted by Elspeth

IMO, it's about time they did what it takes to repeal that Act. It's a piece of blatant religious discrimination that must be highly offensive to Britain's Catholics.

I agree with this 100%

[branchg]

Originally Posted by Lisele

The style "Princess Diana" was incorrect at all times of her life, though often used by the public and the media.

This is true as Diana was never granted the right to assume the dignity by the Queen via letters patent. However, the Palace confirmed after the divorce that it was acceptable to refer to Diana as "Princess Diana", although technically she was no longer a princess, as she was the mother of a future king.

[Elspeth]

Just as well. I mean, if they really thought that most people would go to the trouble of the "Diana, Princess of Wales," stuff (including the final comma, which almost always gets dropped when the title shows up in the middle of a sentence) every time they referred to her, they must have been living in the dim distant past when that sort of thing was important to the majority.

They could have said that it was totally unacceptable, and people would have just ignored them.

[tiaraprin]

Originally Posted by Elspeth

If the Act doesn't say that a non-Anglican may not become Queen or Prince Consort, then the intent isn't relevant nowadays when Protestant and Catholic aren't the only options. The Act specifically excludes from the succession anyone who marries a Catholic; it says nothing about Lutherans, Orthodox, atheists, Jews, Muslims, or any other sect, religion, or worldview.The monarch has to be a member of the Church of England as long as Britain has an established church; the Act doesn't require that the consort be anything other than not Catholic. Nobody has had to give up his or her position in the line of succession, at least in the 20th century, for marrying anyone other than a Catholic. And even people a long way down the line of succession have to give up their place when they marry a Catholic.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/monarchy/s...407239,00.html

IMO, it's about time they did what it takes to repeal that Act. It's a piece of blatant religious discrimination that must be highly offensive to Britain's Catholics.

I agree it should be repealed and is blatant religious discrimination. However, if they repeal it, there could be a push for a Catholic monarch and there are other claimants from the Stuart line that have a better claim to the throne than the Queen. Wouldn't that open up a nasty can of worms?

[Warren]

Originally Posted by Elspeth

They could have said that it was totally unacceptable, and people would have just ignored them.

Just as people did when the Duchess of York said she didn't like the moniker "Fergie", and I believe the Princess of Wales hated "Di".

Whatever; so it's Di and Fergie then? Fits better in the headlines.
.

[tiaraprin]

Originally Posted by Warren

Just as people did when the Duchess of York said she didn't like the moniker "Fergie", and I believe the Princess of Wales hated "Di".

Whatever; so it's Di and Fergie then? Fits better in the headlines.
.

The Duchess of York said in an interview with Jay Leno here in the States that Fergie was a name used by the tabloids because they could match and rhyme it to suit their purposes, such as "Freebie Fergie" etc. The same with the nickname "Di". It could be "Shy Di" etc.

I know the Duchess of York is called "Fergie" by some old friends (I have seen these people interviewed and refer to her as Fergie) from her school days, but other than that, she wishes to be called Sarah. I don't think she wanted to be referred to as "Fergie this" or "Fergie that" in the tabloids.

[Elspeth]

Originally Posted by tiaraprin

I agree it should be repealed and is blatant religious discrimination. However, if they repeal it, there could be a push for a Catholic monarch and there are other claimants from the Stuart line that have a better claim to the throne than the Queen. Wouldn't that open up a nasty can of worms?

Well, it might, but then there were historical reasons for the Act at the time which don't apply now, so all they need to do is to not backdate it. I don't think anybody since the time of the Stuarts has actually had to step aside from the very top of the line of succession on account of religion.

In terms of there ever being a Catholic monarch, they could simply repeal the part of the Act that dealt with the people who could become spouses of those in the line of succession while retaining the requirement for the monarch to be a communicant of the Church of England. As long as Britain has an established church, the monarch needs to be a member of it.


It might mean adding a large number of people who are sort of five hundredth in the line of succession, but I don't think it'd make any real difference.