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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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."
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 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.
)
The Prince William brand is a strong one- it's good for the monarchy for the heir presumptive to have a strong brand.
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).
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.
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 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.
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.
Another issue which related to titles for William and Kate which I don't think has been discussed at all, is the simply and very practical issue of salary. As Duke of Cornwall, Charles gets alot of money to support himself. While I realize William is not going to go hungry, I think some dukedoms (I don't know which ones) come with land and financial rewards, while others do not. Is the same true of earls? Does Andrew and Edward earn alot of money as a result of their titles? If so, what would be the financial rewards of being made duke or earl of the leading candidates?
The precedents of Diana, and Camilla are not that relevant, as neither woman was saddled with the Princess male-firstname style.
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.
I was wondering what happens in the following scenario:
William is not granted a title on his wedding day and then pre-deceases his father AND his grandmother. What would Kate be then styled as? The Dowager Princess William? I beleive she would still be a HRH as the widow of a Prince of the blood royal as long as she does not remarry.
Also, in this same secanrio if William and Kate divorce. She cannot call herself Catherine,Princess William I presume as Prince William is a proper name and not a peerage title
i think it would be great if she is named princess catherine, william and catherine is a new generation of the royal family.It doesn't seem like there would be any particular reason to depart from the usual title, though -- why change it to Princess Catherine? Isn't it also incorrect to refer to Diana as Princess Diana (as the media did all the time?) Wasn't her title (before divorce), HRH Diana, Princess of Wales? Or is "The" supposed to be in there?