Titles and Styles of Harry, his Future Wife and Children

[ghost_night554]

^So she would be Catherine, Princess of Wales. I'm sure everyone would call her Princess Catharine (or dreadfully, Princess Kate), even if its not correct. But I've always hated the tradition of calling a woman by her husbands title i.e. Princess Michael of Kent. Princess Marie-Christine of Kent would sound so much prettier!

I agree, and if the title were to be created for William I think she would be styled HRH The Princess of Wales right? Would it be wrong to call her Catherine, The Princess of Wales or does it have to be just The Princess of Wales, again he won't take the title in his grandmother's lifetime.

 

[misselle]

^So she would be Catherine, Princess of Wales. I'm sure everyone would call her Princess Catharine (or dreadfully, Princess Kate), even if its not correct. But I've always hated the tradition of calling a woman by her husbands title i.e. Princess Michael of Kent. Princess Marie-Christine of Kent would sound so much prettier!

I don't like the tradition,either. Kate won't be THE Princess of Wales until Charles is King and William assumes the title The Prince of Wales.

 

[Ella Kay]

I don't like the tradition,either. Kate won't be THE Princess of Wales until Charles is King and William assumes the title The Prince of Wales.

And even then, William would have to be invested with the Prince of Wales title by his father -- it's not automatic in the way that the dukedom of Cornwall is, for example. She would automatically be The Duchess of Cornwall, as Camilla is now, but she'd only be The Princess of Wales if Charles decides to give William the title (and some have suggested that he might not, as a gesture to those in Wales who dislike the way the title is used).

 

[Elspeth]

At the moment she'd be Princess William of Wales, but I'm sure the press and the public wouldn't put up with that in the way they seem to have managed to put up with Princess Michael of Kent. I assume that in order to avoid the Princess Kate stuff, the Queen would give William a dukedom when he married. Not that the tabloids would be content with "Duchess of Wherever" if they could get away with "Princess Katie," I suppose.

 

[Furienna]

I agree. "Princess Michael of Kent" sounds wrong.

 

[Iluvbertie]

I agree. "Princess Michael of Kent" sounds wrong.

It is all in the ears of the hearer I suppose I it sounds fine to me. It clearly shows that, like The Duchess of Cornwall, she got her title through her husband.

Personally I am moving towards the opinion that women shouldn't take any rank from their husband, but just keep their own and thus Kate would simply remain Kate Middleton, wife of Prince William of Wales. If women truly want equality then they shouldn't change their titles etc to match their husband when men can't be raised in status etc the same way. e.g. Philip isn't King Philip so why should Camilla become Queen Camilla?

I do know why it happens now thanks so please don't waste time posting explanations (I have posted enough explanations already to indicate that I know why it currently happens) but I am more and more of the opinion that many women advocate equality except where they already have something that men don't have and therefore aren't prepared to allow men to have equality.

I suppose what I am saying is that if a person is born with a title, regardless of gender, then they keep it but their spouse doesn't share that title, again regardless of gender. That ladies would be true equality - same for men and women.

 

[Jo of Palatine]

I think differently. A lot of women already keep their own name, especially those who have build their own reputation and have their own career. But the idea behind the women's taking their husband's name and share his status is an ancient one and based in practicality. Up to today a lot of women who marry into a social class where real rank and status is available marry not only a man but his position and his duties. In the Middle Ages a Lord's Lady was responsible as his chatelaine - she was her husband's equal when it came to several aspects of their day-to-day life. And some of these duties are still there - there are still a lot of grand estates where the "lady" of the house is required to fulfill her position as hostess and chatelaine. Sucessful businessmen have wifes who organise their social life - that's how it still is.

So Catherine Middleton on marrying Prince William is not still Ms. Middleton but for the whole world she would be requested to be "Princess William" and fulfill that position which is accepting a job rather than just taking his rank.

 

[Iluvbertie]

My point is more that reverse the situation and a husband doesn't take rank from his wife so why should a wife take rank from their husband.

If women truly want equality then they have to have it all ways so if it is okay for a wife to take on her husband's rank then a husband should take on a wife's rank (and Philip would be King Philip).

I really don't care which way but I would like to see true equality rather than women having a right that doesn't apply to men.

 

[branchg]

In the UK, a woman assumes the style and title of her husband if superior to her own. William is a Prince of the UK with the style of HRH, so his wife would be HRH Princess William of Wales upon marriage.

If he is given a peerage on his wedding day (very likely if The Queen still reigns), his wife would take her style as the wife of a Peer (i.e. The Duchess of Cambridge) but with the rank of a Princess of the UK (HRH Princess William, Duchess of Cambridge).

 

[Jo of Palatine]

My point is more that reverse the situation and a husband doesn't take rank from his wife so why should a wife take rank from their husband.

If women truly want equality then they have to have it all ways so if it is okay for a wife to take on her husband's rank then a husband should take on a wife's rank (and Philip would be King Philip).

I really don't care which way but I would like to see true equality rather than women having a right that doesn't apply to men.

I don't think it has to do with equality really, but when we are talking about herediary titles and their historic background, then the difference is to show where the "real" bloodline comes from. When a king marries, it is clear that his blood is the one which will give future rank and precedence to his heir. But if it's a queen regnant, the difference in her and her husband's rank shows that it's her august bloodline that counts, not his.

 

[Furienna]

What I find most weird about a title like "princess Michael of Kent" is that her husband's name is in the title. But that's because I'm Swedish. We never had titles like that over here in Sweden. Just like women never could call themselves "Mrs her husband's name" over here, like they can in English-speaking countries. I'm okay with her being "princess of Kent", of course, but "princess Michael of Kent" is just too much for me.

 

[Jo of Palatine]

It's the same with the second sons of dukes and marquesses. If they marry, their wife take on their complete name with a Lady before it. Do you know the dectective stories by Dorthy Sayers. Her hero, Lord Peter Wimsey married Miss Harriet Vane in one of them. Thus she became Lady Peter Wimsey...

 

[Iluvbertie]

I don't think it has to do with equality really, but when we are talking about herediary titles and their historic background, then the difference is to show where the "real" bloodline comes from. When a king marries, it is clear that his blood is the one which will give future rank and precedence to his heir. But if it's a queen regnant, the difference in her and her husband's rank shows that it's her august bloodline that counts, not his.

You can have equality and still identify the bloodline (they are different issues to me).

To keep the bloodline simply stop either gender taking the rank/title of their partner. That makes both genders equal AND still has the bloodline identified.

Charles will be King and his bloodline will pass to William. Why then should either of their wives get a title just for getting married?

Andrew's daughters can't pass on their title and status because they are female and so their children's bloodline won't be able to be as easily identified. (I know why they don't get to pass it on so please don't someone come on here and quote the 1917 Letters Patent)

An exception had to by made in 1948 to allow the present Queen's children to get the HRH. Princess Margaret's children don't get their titles of Lord/Viscount Linley and Lady Sarah Chatto from their mother - the royal - but from their father who was given a title for simply getting married but their position in the line to the throne and thus their bloodline comes from their mother but that isn't reflected in their titles.

The same applies to Anne's children - no titles but closer to the throne than a range of Dukes etc but their bloodline isn't reflected in their titles.

So obviously their is no need to identify the bloodline as there are a number of people with bloodlines closer to the throne than some HRHs who will pass on titles.

Equality would see all the grandchildren treated the same - e.g. all having the HRH or none, until they become the children of the monarch. The spouses of Margaret and Anne would have gained the same status/titles etc as the spouses of Charles, Andrew and Edward. As things currently stand women are second class citizens in passing on the identifiable bloodline as if the bloodline goes through them there is no way of knowing.


The men have titles to pass on but the women don't. Men raise their wives but women can't raise their husbands. That is inequality and it is that that I object to.

 

[Skydragon]

It's the same with the second sons of dukes and marquesses. If they marry, their wife take on their complete name with a Lady before it. Do you know the detective stories by Dorthy Sayers. Her hero, Lord Peter Wimsey married Miss Harriet Vane in one of them. Thus she became Lady Peter Wimsey...

It is very much tradition and although it would be nice to have an extra courtesy title for a husband marrying a noble born wife, I can understand the complications that might arise and Britain has always been a Patriarchal society.

Most women seem to prefer to use their husbands name. Many of my friends, even now, prefer to be known, not as (example only) Mrs Anne Brown, but as Mrs Andrew Brown. I also know of one or two women from the nobility who choose to be known as plain Mrs.

Equality or lack thereof, is all in the mind in this instance, IMO.

 

[Ella Kay]

If he is given a peerage on his wedding day (very likely if The Queen still reigns), his wife would take her style as the wife of a Peer (i.e. The Duchess of Cambridge) but with the rank of a Princess of the UK (HRH Princess William, Duchess of Cambridge).

Well explained -- and Cambridge is the very dukedom I'm hoping William will get, so extra points for that!

 

[Menarue]

The newspapers will still refer to her as Princess Herfirstname, they did this with Diana, it wasn´t correct but it made no difference to them. Sarah Ferguson asked, quite reasonably to be called Sarah but she got Fergie until it interfered with the sporting news and now she has Duchess of York.

 

[Kotroman]

It is all in the ears of the hearer I suppose I it sounds fine to me. It clearly shows that, like The Duchess of Cornwall, she got her title through her husband.

Personally I am moving towards the opinion that women shouldn't take any rank from their husband, but just keep their own and thus Kate would simply remain Kate Middleton, wife of Prince William of Wales. If women truly want equality then they shouldn't change their titles etc to match their husband when men can't be raised in status etc the same way. e.g. Philip isn't King Philip so why should Camilla become Queen Camilla?

I do know why it happens now thanks so please don't waste time posting explanations (I have posted enough explanations already to indicate that I know why it currently happens) but I am more and more of the opinion that many women advocate equality except where they already have something that men don't have and therefore aren't prepared to allow men to have equality.

I suppose what I am saying is that if a person is born with a title, regardless of gender, then they keep it but their spouse doesn't share that title, again regardless of gender. That ladies would be true equality - same for men and women.

I completely agree with your point! People say that the idea behind the women's taking their husband's name and share his status is an ancient one and based in practicality, yet they are against the equally ancient and practical male-preferance primogeniture On one hand, they have nothing against women being known as female "copies" of their husbands, while on the other hand they find it wrong to have daughters behind sons in the line of succession.

However, I believe in tradition and the current system of royal titles and ranks dates since George I. In my opinion, nothing is wrong with "Princess Michael of Kent". If she wants to use her own name, she can use Baroness Marie Christine von Reibnitz, but if she wants to use her royal title, then it's perfectly normal to use "Princess Michael of Kent" because she is entitled to it only as wife of Prince Michael of Kent.

I feel the same about Katherine Middleton. If she marries Prince William of Wales, then it would be perfectly normal for her to be known as Princess William of Wales, because her notability and rank would be based on her husband's notability and rank. Even now, whenever I see someone mentioning Diana, Princess of Wales as "Princess Diana", I get an urge to lecture them on the spot! I am so used to the British system that I have to restrain myself from referring to Princess Marie of Denmark as Princess Joachim of Denmark

 

[branchg]

"Princess Diana" was always incorrect, although the Palace never objected to it because of her position as the mother of a future king. That made her an important person in her own right and it was accepted. Even after the divorce, the Palace made it clear the appropriate form of address was "The Princess", even though she technically was no longer a princess of the UK.

 

[HRH Bella]

Diana had the wright to a title of Princess , do not worry about kate if they allow for this to happen then they will decide , not now she would be no were ready. or will she every be ?

 

[Kotroman]

Diana had the wright to a title of Princess

Of course she did, but only as wife of The Prince Charles and therefore she could've only been The Princess Charles The same rule will apply to Prince William's wife.

 

[Lady Marmalade]

Yes, but her title was HRH The Princess of Wales....or after, Diana, The Princess of Wales. The U.S. press ALWAYS got it wrong..lol...calling her at best, Princess Di.

I always have heard stories about historical princess taking the male form of their husbands titles, ie: Princess Andrew of Greece, Princess Charles of Denmark, even though some were born princesses in their own right. Hugo Vickers, in his book, called her that, and Grand Duchess Helen was addressed as Princess Nicholas...interesting.

It also is a note to point out how some of these ladies first names changed too, depending on their marriages. Nancy Leeds became Princess Anastasia, Helen became Ellen....why not just keep the REAL first name you are born with?

 

[Lumutqueen]

Wouldn't she be Princess William of Wales until William became Prince Of wales, then she'd have the equviliant female titles that come with being the Princess of Wales??

Like Princess Michael of Kent?


x

 

[muriel]

Yes, she would be HRH The Princess William of Wales.

 

[branchg]

Yes, she would be HRH The Princess William of Wales.

That's not correct. Once William became The Prince of Wales, her full titles and styles would be "HRH The Princess William, Princess of Wales and Countess of Chester, Duchess of Cornwall, Duchess of Rothesay, Countess of Carrick, Baroness Renfrew and Princess of Scotland".

 

[cmkrcwi]

Actually, I think in the U.K. only princes and princesses who are sons and daughters of the monarch use "The" in their names: "The Princess Margaret", for example. I think everyone else is just Prince or Princess of whatever. So William's potential bride would be Princess William not "The Princess William" because he's not the son of the monarch. At least not yet.

Also, she would not be "The Princess William" when Charles becomes king. She would be HRH The Duchess of Cornwall until Charles made William Prince of Wales. Then she would be Princess of Wales.

 

[wbenson]

Also, she would not be "The Princess William" when Charles becomes king. She would be HRH The Duchess of Cornwall until Charles made William Prince of Wales.

She would be both, just as Diana was The Princess Charles.

 

[Lumutqueen]

She would be both, just as Diana was The Princess Charles.

Yeh i thought that.
Why wouldn't she be called Princess Catherine, why is she to be called Princess William??

x

 

[Warren]

She would be Princess Catherine only if she was a princess in her own right.
She would be Princess William because she acquired the princess title by marriage to Prince William.

 

[avgi]

It also is a note to point out how some of these ladies first names changed too, depending on their marriages. Nancy Leeds became Princess Anastasia, Helen became Ellen....why not just keep the REAL first name you are born with?

This is off topic I guess, but it is possible she was baptized Greek Orthodox in order to marry a Greek prince and that became her legal name after that.
Back on topic, "Princess Michael of Kent" is I think based on the same reasoning as "Mrs John Smith"... Technically "Mrs Jane Smith" is incorrect, and so would "Princess Marie Brigitte of Kent". It's old fashioned sure but Royal families tend to stick to obsolete rules for much longer than the rest of us

 

[Furienna]

She would be Princess Catherine only if she was a princess in her own right.
She would be Princess William because she acquired the princess title by marriage to Prince William.

Yes, I've understood that. But we never have that tradition over here in Sweden. Even the princesses, who are "just" married into the royal family, use their own name in their title (for example, Lillian Craig Davis became Princess Lillian, not Princess Bertil, when she married Prince Bertil). And no, we never said things like "Mrs John Smith" either.