I don't think I like the sound of it Duke of Clarence....nope not at all..
There used to be a TV series called Daktari in the 1960s - the animal hero was Clarence, the cross-eyed lion....
I don't think I like the sound of it Duke of Clarence....nope not at all..
Sorry, she can't be Princess Catherine. She is not born a royal as are Princesses Anne, Beatrice and Eugenie. If the Queen created her a princess in her own right she would be setting an incredibly far reaching precedent. Ructions in her own family . . . . Gloucester's, Kent's etc.the morning of their wedding, Her Majesty will announce their titles.
2) Princess Catherine
3/4),,Duke/Duchess of Clarence/Cambridge
Sorry, she can't be Princess Catherine. She is not born a royal as are Princesses Anne, Beatrice and Eugenie. If the Queen created her a princess in her own right she would be setting an incredibly far reaching precedent. Ructions in her own family . . . . Gloucester's, Kent's etc.
MARG said:Sorry, she can't be Princess Catherine. She is not born a royal as are Princesses Anne, Beatrice and Eugenie. If the Queen created her a princess in her own right she would be setting an incredibly far reaching precedent. Ructions in her own family . . . . Gloucester's, Kent's etc.
There used to be a TV series called Daktari in the 1960s - the animal hero was Clarence, the cross-eyed lion....
I do not agree. But if the Queen did do that, then I think the only fair thing to do is to create Princess Michael...Princess Marie Christine. Sorry, I believe in being fair. What you do for one, you do for the other, no matter their rank.
I do not agree. But if the Queen did do that, then I think the only fair thing to do is to create Princess Michael...Princess Marie Christine. Sorry, I believe in being fair. What you do for one, you do for the other, no matter their rank.
Iluvbertie said:As an independent female why should she take any title at all from her husband - whatever she uses it will be due to him and not anything she has done. Every name she uses from April 29 will be because of who she married and nothing else so why not be totally honest and use his name - Princess William sounds fine to me - as a feminist - it shows exactly what she has done.
Except that Princess Michael's husband is not in line to the throne having forfeited his place when he married her. There lies the difference IMO.
I don't think I like the sound of it Duke of Clarence....nope not at all..
I'm actually leaning toward Duke of Clarence for William. King William IV was Duke of Clarence for 41 years before he became king. Why not give the same title to the prince who will probably one day become William V?
I agree that if William and Catherine are bestowed a title it will be an Earldom. I believe it is more fitting since he is not the current heir and I just feel like William and Catherine would like a more "low key" title- As low key as an earl can get!
But I think getting no title is the most likely, especially since his children will be given titles as if William were a Duke anyway. Assuming he gets no title, what would his eldest son be named? 'HRH Prince X of Wales' (like his father)? Just plain 'HRH Prince X'? And his other children, what would they be titled? Lord and Lady of Wales? or just 'Lord and Lady'?
According to Letters Patent issued in 1917 by George V, the eldest son of the eldest son of the Prince of Wales is afforded the title and style of HRH Prince X of Y. Any subsequent children would be styled as the children of a duke (or earl) and accordingly be Lord/Lady X Windsor. So say William and Kate have a son while the Queen is still on the throne. If they are the Duke & Duchess of Cambridge, their son would be HRH Prince X of Cambridge (or whatever territorial designation they have). If their first born is a girl, she would be Lady X Windsor. If their next child after that girl is a son, he would HRH Prince X of Y.
All that would change obviously, once Charles becomes king. Because then William's children would be grandchildren of the sovereign in the male line and afforded the title and style of HRH Prince/Princess X of Y. Same for Harry's kids.
Having given up his right to the throne doesn't impact at all on the title his wife has. She is called Princess Michael simply because he has no other title.
If Catherine was to convert to Catholicism tomorrow and thus deprive William of his right he would still be Prince William and she would still be entitled to be Princess William.
She won't be entitled to Princess Catherine for the simple reason that she wasn't born a princess.
As they claim to be a 'modern' couple and why not keep her own name of Catherine Middleton - and thus they become HRH Prince William of Wales and Ms Catherine Middleton (the feminist in me loves that concept).
I would love to see gender equality in titles and as females can't give titles to their husbands automatically I don't see why men can give them to their wives - totally discriminatory in my opinion.
According to Letters Patent issued in 1917 by George V, the eldest son of the eldest son of the Prince of Wales is afforded the title and style of HRH Prince X of Y. Any subsequent children would be styled as the children of a duke (or earl) and accordingly be Lord/Lady X Windsor. So say William and Kate have a son while the Queen is still on the throne. If they are the Duke & Duchess of Cambridge, their son would be HRH Prince X of Cambridge (or whatever territorial designation they have). If their first born is a girl, she would be Lady X Windsor. If their next child after that girl is a son, he would HRH Prince X of Y.
All that would change obviously, once Charles becomes king. Because then William's children would be grandchildren of the sovereign in the male line and afforded the title and style of HRH Prince/Princess X of Y. Same for Harry's kids.
Yes, I understand that Prince Michael is still a Prince and his wife is still HRH, Princess Michael. I didn't say otherwise.
Although assuming the feminine form of the male title is traditional in the BRF, I find it antiquated compared to other royal houses. Perhaps one day that will change.
You see, I have a issue with that more than the whole "Princess William of Wales". The fact that a son would be a Prince but a daughter would be a Lady does not sit well with me, oh well! But that's an issue for another thread....
You see, I have a issue with that more than the whole "Princess William of Wales". The fact that a son would be a Prince but a daughter would be a Lady does not sit well with me, oh well! But that's an issue for another thread....
I agree...I hope the Queen will eventually issue LPs making all children of PW and Catherine HRHs on their birth, on the ground that they'll eventually become HRHs anyway (when PC and/or PW become King).
On the other hand, I greatly respect their wishes to be more "modern", even if it mean letting their children be just Lady/Lord (except for the first born son) first. I'm just kinda traditional, but do recognize that sometimes things need to change. I think they'll figure out a good combination of remaining traditional while becoming more modern, just like PW's past ancestors (the Queen, etc)
Although assuming the feminine form of the male title is traditional in the BRF, I find it antiquated compared to other royal houses. Perhaps one day that will change.
It makes zero sense for the Queen to write new Letters Patent when William's children, no matter the gender, will be Prince/Princess of the UK with the style HRH once Charles is King. I mean, it would be one thing if they would never be able to be afforded that title/style in the first place, but they will be. It's a forgone conclusion.
It makes zero sense for the Queen to write new Letters Patent when William's children, no matter the gender, will be Prince/Princess of the UK with the style HRH once Charles is King. I mean, it would be one thing if they would never be able to be afforded that title/style in the first place, but they will be. It's a forgone conclusion.
According to Letters Patent issued in 1917 by George V, the eldest son of the eldest son of the Prince of Wales is afforded the title and style of HRH Prince X of Y. Any subsequent children would be styled as the children of a duke (or earl) and accordingly be Lord/Lady X Windsor. So say William and Kate have a son while the Queen is still on the throne. If they are the Duke & Duchess of Cambridge, their son would be HRH Prince X of Cambridge (or whatever territorial designation they have). If their first born is a girl, she would be Lady X Windsor. If their next child after that girl is a son, he would HRH Prince X of Y.
No, if William and Kate's first child is a girl, she'd be titled HRH Princess X of Wales, assuming that William doesn't have an earldom or dukedom.