Questions about British Styles and Titles 1: Ending 2022

[jacqui24]

Now that the succession to the crown is no longer dependent on gender I suppose it's possible Charlotte and any younger sisters might be created Duchesses, especially if attitudes toward royal daughters change within the next twenty or thirty years.

Unless the general public changes the attitude about supporting more members of the royal family, I highly doubt that. In general, the trend has been less titles given out and less working royals. I can see this current only those that are children of a monarchy/future monarch being working members rather than all grandchildren of monarch. And if they aren’t working members, I see a more less title approach like Wessex children rather than more titles given out.

 

[Countessmeout]

Unless the general public changes the attitude about supporting more members of the royal family, I highly doubt that. In general, the trend has been less titles given out and less working royals. I can see this current only those that are children of a monarchy/future monarch being working members rather than all grandchildren of monarch. And if they aren’t working members, I see a more less title approach like Wessex children rather than more titles given out.

By the time they are 30, Charlotte and any sister will be the children of the monarch more then likely. By the time Charlotte, George and baby 3 wed, the majority of the senior royals will have retired off by then. Unless she chooses not to, its highly unlikely Charlotte will not be a working royal.

People are becoming more equal minded as years to come. If Baby 3 is a boy and he gets a title, why shouldn't his older sister? Now that there is equal inheritance to the throne, equal rights to titles needs to be addressed.

 

[jacqui24]

By the time they are 30, Charlotte and any sister will be the children of the monarch more then likely. By the time Charlotte, George and baby 3 wed, the majority of the senior royals will have retired off by then. Unless she chooses not to, its highly unlikely Charlotte will not be a working royal.

People are becoming more equal minded as years to come. If Baby 3 is a boy and he gets a title, why shouldn't his older sister? Now that there is equal inheritance to the throne, equal rights to titles needs to be addressed.

Charlotte will be Princess Royal, and she can still be a working royal without being a Duchess. Princess Anne is. I just don’t see the attitude about less royals being supported by public funds change. And thus royal family being more cautious about handing out titles.

 

[Gawin]

Unless the general public changes the attitude about supporting more members of the royal family, I highly doubt that. In general, the trend has been less titles given out and less working royals. I can see this current only those that are children of a monarchy/future monarch being working members rather than all grandchildren of monarch. And if they aren’t working members, I see a more less title approach like Wessex children rather than more titles given out.

William's daughters will (presumably) be the children of a monarch so if the trend toward gender equality continues it seems only fair that they be given titles if his sons are, especially sons younger than Charlotte, a la the Swedish royal family.

But as you point out the current trend is toward fewer titles. So it's possible that none of William's children will be given titles. Or perhaps they will be given "life" peerages that die with them and aren't inherited by their own children.

Charlotte will be Princess Royal, and she can still be a working royal without being a Duchess. Princess Anne is. I just don’t see the attitude about less royals being supported by public funds change. And thus royal family being more cautious about handing out titles.

But a son can be a working royal without being a Duke. So if William's sons are created Dukes it's only fair that the daughters be created Duchesses. Yes, Anne was created Princess Royal, but she was also superseded in the line of succession by her two younger brothers. Charlotte won't be - attitudes toward gender are changing and will continue to change by the time she is an adult.

 

[Countessmeout]

Charlotte will be Princess Royal, and she can still be a working royal without being a Duchess. Princess Anne is. I just don’t see the attitude about less royals being supported by public funds change. And thus royal family being more cautious about handing out titles.

When people realize the amount of money the royals get every year keeps going up...and the number of engagements keeps going down???? Currently there are 14 working royals, soon to be 15 with Meghan (16 if you include Tim who does some events with Anne). In 30 years, other then King William and Queen Kate, there is likely only their kids, and Harry. Edward and Sophie may still do the odd event. If George's siblings aren't working royals, besides the monarch and his wife, that leaves 3 (Harry, Meghan and George). How many engagements do you think they are going to handle between them?

Yes, Charlotte will be Princess royal, doesn't mean she cant also be a duchess. What about if baby 3 is a girl? There will likely be more of a push for their husbands to also be involved (like the husbands of royal women on the continent).

If baby 3 is a boy and going to be a duke, then baby 3 as a girl should be a duchess. If they want to streamline handing out titles, then only the heir should be given a duchy plain and simple. Reduces the worry that they will run out of duchies, as the duchy will merge with the throne anyways.


Besides just as having no title doesn't mean they cant be working royals- the same goes the other way. The Earl of.... or duke of.... could be a private citizen just the same.

 

[MaiaMia_53]

When Charles becomes King, Prince William will become Prince of Wales, and likely Kate will become Princess of Wales? Or, will they not wish to use the Princess of Wales title again so soon? Obviously, the Duchess of Cornwall doesn't use the title in deference to Diana.

I would imagine that Harry will receive a dukedom upon marriage and not an earldom. I agree with those who say why give Harry an earldom only to turn around and have Prince Charles give him a dukedom after inheriting the throne when his mother passes. It's up to QE, and I think Harry is so well loved that QE will want to bestow the dukedom upon Harry when he marries in May.

 

[ACO]

I can see Charlotte becoming a duchess when she marries. Just like the #3 will be a duke or duchess as well. I don't see Charles or William denying the spares that title.

William and Harry's kids will all be working royals because it is just the two of them. I suspect Charles has a great chance of reigning well into his 90s like his parents. So that means by the time William take over he will be in his 50s and his kids will be early 20s.

That means William, Kate, and their three kids? Nah. Harry, Meghan and their kids will quite busy as well.

 

[jacqui24]

There of course will be a balance between number of people versus number of engagements needed. While I’m not convinced it’ll get less than monarchy, children, siblings, and grown grandchildren, I’m not convinced it’ll be more either. If I’m understanding correctly, you are proposing Charlotte’s husband being granted Duke, and Charlotte becoming Duchess that way. When Anne and Mark decided to forego a title rather than follow Margaret’s example as both of their husbands were untitled prior to marriage, that was seen as being more modern. I don’t see this changing. And honestly, I wouldn’t be surprised if the title granting to sons lessen as well. HMQ has already delayed the process by only granting them upon marriage. That’s not how it was done in the past. I wouldn’t be surprised in a few decades, that changes too.

I’m not sure how the cost of royals would go up if there are fewer working royals? That doesn’t make sense.

 

[Gawin]

When Charles becomes King, Prince William will become Prince of Wales, and likely Kate will become Princess of Wales? Or, will they not wish to use the Princess of Wales title again so soon? Obviously, the Duchess of Cornwall doesn't use the title in deference to Diana.

I would imagine that Harry will receive a dukedom upon marriage and not an earldom. I agree with those who say why give Harry an earldom only to turn around and have Prince Charles give him a dukedom after inheriting the throne when his mother passes. It's up to QE, and I think Harry is so well loved that QE will want to bestow the dukedom upon Harry when he marries in May.

I'd be surprised if Charles didn't create William Prince of Wales when he becomes King. As you state, he might not wish to see the title used again so soon, but in that case he could wait a few months before doing that. Edward VII waited ten months before creating his son Prince of Wales (future George V) for that same reason.

 

[Iluvbertie]

When Charles becomes King, Prince William will become Prince of Wales,

Maybe.

The titles Prince of Wales, Earl of Chester, are not automatic titles.

Charles actually waited longer than any other Duke of Cornwall before being created Prince of Wales, Earl of Chester - 6 years.

The instant the Queen passes Charles becomes King and William will become HRH The Duke of Cornwall and Cambridge, Duke of Rothesay etc etc.

Whether Charles decides to create William as Prince of Wales will be a personal decision by Charles and will also take into account the feelings of the Welsh people and Welsh Assembly.

There is no reason why Diana having held a title for 15 years more than 20 years ago should stop her son and his wife having the title in the future.

I can see Charlotte becoming a duchess when she marries. Just like the #3 will be a duke or duchess as well. I don't see Charles or William denying the spares that title.

William and Harry's kids will all be working royals because it is just the two of them. I suspect Charles has a great chance of reigning well into his 90s like his parents. So that means by the time William take over he will be in his 50s and his kids will be early 20s.

That means William, Kate, and their three kids? Nah. Harry, Meghan and their kids will quite busy as well.

If the rumour of a 'smaller' royal family is true there is no way Harry's kids will be working royals as that will simply see another large working family as we have today. After all they will be the cousins etc of the monarch - as are the Gloucesters and Kents and therefore need to be supported by that cousin.

If the number of working royals is analysed by generation we end up with:

The Queen's - 8 (at the most)
Charles' - 5 (at the most)
William's - 4 (assuming the rumours of the York girl never going to be needed)

Why would George's generation want to go up again - 4 would be fine (George and spouse and his two siblings) so no need for Harry's children or for Charlotte's spouse or the new babies siblings.

If we are to say all of William and Harry's children and Harry also have three children you are already at close to the number of the Queen's generation which reportedly seen as too many. It isn't the relationship to the monarch but the number needed.

 

[O-H Anglophile]

Not quite the same, but consider the Duke of Cornwall title! If George has a daughter who is the heir apparent when he is King, will the rules for this title be changed? What about the Prince of Wales title? Since an eldest daughter can no longer be displaced by a younger brother then would it not be logical for these titles be available to the female heir apparent?
It seems many traditional ways of doing things may need some modern tweaking.

Charlotte will be Princess Royal, and she can still be a working royal without being a Duchess. Princess Anne is. I just don’t see the attitude about less royals being supported by public funds change. And thus royal family being more cautious about handing out titles.

Charlotte cannot be made Princess Royal until William is King and Princess Anne has died though.

If I’m understanding correctly, you are proposing Charlotte’s husband being granted Duke, and Charlotte becoming Duchess that way.

No, I don't think that is what is being proposed. Charlotte's future husband would not be granted a dukedom- Charlotte herself would- to be treated equally to a younger brother lower in succession.
In an earlier post, someone suggested life peerages- that actually seems like a sensible idea in many ways.

When Charles becomes King, Prince William will become Prince of Wales, and likely Kate will become Princess of Wales? Or, will they not wish to use the Princess of Wales title again so soon? Obviously, the Duchess of Cornwall doesn't use the title in deference to Diana.

William will want his wife to be Princess of Wales. No question about it.

 

[Pranter]

For sure Kate will be the Princess of Wales.


LaRae

 

[Iluvbertie]

Only if William is created Prince of Wales. If he isn't created Prince of Wales then she won't become Princess of Wales.

 

[Lady Nimue]

If the number of working royals is analysed by generation we end up with:

The Queen's - 8 (at the most)
Charles' - 5 (at the most)
William's - 4 (assuming the rumours of the York girl never going to be needed)

I don't understand 5 for Charles. I count 6 - or do you mean Charles plus 5?

 

[Denville]

Only if William is created Prince of Wales. If he isn't created Prince of Wales then she won't become Princess of Wales.

I can't see why he would not be created POW..

 

[Mbruno]

By the time they are 30, Charlotte and any sister will be the children of the monarch more then likely. By the time Charlotte, George and baby 3 wed, the majority of the senior royals will have retired off by then. Unless she chooses not to, its highly unlikely Charlotte will not be a working royal.

People are becoming more equal minded as years to come. If Baby 3 is a boy and he gets a title, why shouldn't his older sister? Now that there is equal inheritance to the throne, equal rights to titles needs to be addressed.

Charlotte will get the title of Princess Royal when it is available.

Succession to the Crown may be gender neutral now, but succession to titles in the peerage of the UK is not. Most titles can be inherited only by male descendants in paternal line. The reason for that is not gender discrimination per se, but rather to keep the title in the same family, whose name is recorded patrilineally. If the UK allowed children to take their mother's family name as their last name, as some countries like Belgium and Sweden now do, then I think a major obstacle to gender neutral succession in the peerage would be removed.

Not quite the same, but consider the Duke of Cornwall title! If George has a daughter who is the heir apparent when he is King, will the rules for this title be changed? What about the Prince of Wales title? Since an eldest daughter can no longer be displaced by a younger brother then would it not be logical for these titles be available to the female heir apparent?
It seems many traditional ways of doing things may need some modern tweaking

Prince of Wales in particular is a good candidate IMHO to become a gender neutral title as it is a personal ( i.e. non-hereditary ) title and, therefore, the above-referenced succession issues that apply to dukedoms do not come into play.

In the Netherlands, the title of Prince of Orange also used to be for male heirs to the throne only as it was historically attached to a principality with agnatic sucession (which, however, has been officially part of France since the 18th century and no longer has any connection to the Netherlands). Thus, neither Wilhelmina, nor Juliana, nor Beatrix were ever the Princess of Orange. The title was made officially gender neutral only in 2002 and Amalia has now become the first Princess of Orange in her own right.

By contrast, the title of Prince of Asturias has always been gender neutral and two of the daughters of Isabella I (the Catholic) were already titled Princess of Asturias back in the late 15th and early 16th centuries. One of them was the later Queen Joanna the Mad (Juana I "la Loca"), mother of the King-Emperor Charles V.

 

[Denville]

Tjhere is notihng to stop people taking their maternal surname.. it is just that the convetion in the UK is for children to use their father's surname.
And royal dukedoms are not the same as ordinary peerages, in some ways. Even peerages can be inherited by females if the original creation stated this...

 

[wyevale]

I've been pondering the number [or lack of] Royal Ducal Titles available in the future...
We know that Edinburgh and Cambridge will 'revert' at some point, but Edinburgh will be re-created for the Earl of Wessex.
Sussex is likely to be awarded in May.. and [unless the 'Harkles' are childless] it eventually becomes an 'un-royal' Dukedom..
That leaves JUST Cambridge for the future..

Would it not be sensible for the existing Royal Dukedoms [with a long and glorious history as such] to revert to the Crown, when the existing holder dies ?

Thus - Gloucester and Kent 'revert' when the current Dukes die, leaving their heirs as 'the noble Earls of Ulster' and of 'St Andrews' respectively.
Then Gloucester, Kent and Cambridge [and possibly York] would be on hand for William V or George VIII to utilise as necessary ?
If future 'creations' were made for the same duration as the 'HRH' was held [therefter reverting back to the Crown], Dukedoms would no longer 'be lost for the future' as they are now...

Ultimately the 'pool' of Dukedoms available would be - Edinburgh, York, Cambridge, Gloucester, Sussex and Kent..A FAR more workable number than just one or two !

 

[Curryong]

I agree with your points re this, Wyevale. I think it's terribly sad when a centuries old noble title like that of Gloucester moves out of the Royal orbit, never to come back again. Same for the future if titles like York do the same.

 

[Mbruno]

Tjhere is notihng to stop people taking their maternal surname.. it is just that the convetion in the UK is for children to use their father's surname.
And royal dukedoms are not the same as ordinary peerages, in some ways. Even peerages can be inherited by females if the original creation stated this...

Yes, but both (1) and (2) are rare. Even in recent times when females were allowed to inherit a peerage to prevent it from becoming extinct, the remainder was for their male heirs only as in the case of the Countess Mountbatten of Burma.

It is worth noting that, in Belgium, even when the law was changed so that children could take any of their parents' family names as their last name, the Association of the Nobility stated their position that titles of nobility should continue to descend in paternal line only.

I've been pondering about the number [or lack of] Royal Ducal Titles available in the future...
We know that Edinburgh and Cambridge will 'revert' at some point, but Edinburgh will be re-created for the Earl of Wessex.
Sussex is likely to be awarded in May.. and [unless the 'Harkles' are childless] it eventually becomes an 'un-royal' Dukedom..
That leaves JUST Cambridge for the future..

Would it not be sensible for the existing Royal Dukedoms [with a long and glorious history as such] to revert to the Crown, when the existing holder dies ?

Thus - Gloucester and Kent 'revert' when the current Dukes die, leaving their heirs as 'the noble Earls of Ulster' and of 'St Andrews' respectively.
Then Gloucester, Kent and Cambridge [and possibly York] would be on hand for William V or George VIII to utilise as necessary ?
If future 'creations' were made for the same duration as the 'HRH' was held [therefter reverting back to the Crown], Dukedoms would no longer 'be lost for the future' as they are now...

That is actually what happens in Spain where the titles of nobility born by the infantes and infantas are actually "titles of nobility belonging to the Crown" that are used by members of the Royal Family on a personal basis by grace of the monarch. They are legally distinct then from the ordinary titles of nobility in the hereditary peerage, which the King of Spain now grants under Art 63(f) of the Spanish constitution.

In Sweden, on the other hand, the Instrument of Government of 1974 removed the King's power to grant nobility and, since 2003, when the House of Nobility was officially separated from the State, nobility is no longer officially recognized although it is not technically abolished. However, the duchies held on a personal basis by the princes and princesses of Sweden, despite not having any clear legal basis, could also be interpreted, I suppose, as titles belonging to the Crown.

 

[Iluvbertie]

I don't understand 5 for Charles. I count 6 - or do you mean Charles plus 5?

Should read 6.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

By contrast, the title of Prince of Asturias has always been gender neutral and two of the daughters of Isabella I (the Catholic) were already titled Princess of Asturias back in the late 15th and early 16th centuries. One of them was the later Queen Joanna the Mad (Juana I "la Loca"), mother of the King-Emperor Charles V.

It is true, but in those days, the title was not categorically gender neutral.

Prince(ss) of Asturias was not an automatic title before 1850. The eldest son was created Prince of Asturias or Prince without exception, but it was unusual for the eldest daughter to be created Princess. The eldest daughters of Enrique III and Juan II of Castile and Felipe III and Felipe IV of Spain were placed first in the line of succession until they had brothers, and Infanta Isabel Clara Eugenia and Infanta María Teresa were placed first in line upon the deaths of their eldest brothers, but in spite of this, none of those Infantas were created Princess.

A royal decree making the title Prince(ss) of Asturias automatic and gender-neutral was published on May 30, 1850, but the decree was repealed by a royal decree published on August 23, 1880, which made the title fall automatically to the eldest son, but not the eldest daughter or heir presumptive. The eldest daughter of Alfonso XII was created Princess of Asturias ad personam in 1881, but her son was not created Prince of Asturias when he was number one in the line of succession.

A royal decree published on November 12, 1987 reverted Prince(ss) of Asturias to an automatic and gender neutral title.

https://boe.es/datos/pdfs/BOE//1850/5782/A00001-00001.pdf
https://boe.es/datos/pdfs/BOE//1880/236/A00599-00600.pdf
https://www.boe.es/buscar/doc.php?id=BOE-A-1987-25284

In the Netherlands, the title of Prince of Orange also used to be for male heirs to the throne only as it was historically attached to a principality with agnatic sucession (which, however, has been officially part of France since the 18th century and no longer has any connection to the Netherlands). Thus, neither Wilhelmina, nor Juliana, nor Beatrix were ever the Princess of Orange. The title was made officially gender neutral only in 2002 and Amalia has now become the first Princess of Orange in her own right.

I am not sure that the inheritance of the Dutch royal title of Prince of Orange was based on the succession laws of the Principality of Orange, which were based on male preference but not purely agnatic. Princess Marie was sovereign princess of Orange despite having at least one male cousin in paternal line.

In Sweden, on the other hand, the Instrument of Government of 1974 removed the King's power to grant nobility and, since 2003, when the House of Nobility was officially separated from the State, nobility is no longer officially recognized although it is not technically abolished. However, the duchies held on a personal basis by the princes and princesses of Sweden, despite not having any clear legal basis, could also be interpreted, I suppose, as titles belonging to the Crown.

I support your interpretation. Given that there has never been a ducal family in the Swedish House of Nobility, the ducal titles must be titles belonging to the Royal House.

 

[Queen Claude]

I think that the royal dukedom process will have to be re-assessed because I think that if dukedoms are being given to non-heirs then daughters of the monarch will be granted dukedoms. I think that in the past royal dukedoms eventually went back to the crown because, in order for it to be passed on, the holder had to have a son, and it would eventually play out that the royal duke either died childless or with daughters, which is going to happen to the York dukedom and will likely happen to the Gloucester and Kent dukedoms over time.

To me under the current scheme, I am not that concerned that royal dukedoms will be forever lost (including the two dukedoms that were suspended in World War I because the holders were German), but once daughters are granted dukedoms, which is the correct move IMO, then the granting and inheritance of dukedoms will have to be revisited because that is what will stretch things.

 

[O-H Anglophile]

Only if William is created Prince of Wales. If he isn't created Prince of Wales then she won't become Princess of Wales.

Of course. That is understood by everyone.
The original question was would Catherine be known by a different title when/if William is Prince of Wales, as Camilla is, to preserve the Princess of Wales title for Diana. Several of us replied that, no, Catherine (in that circumstance) will be Princess of Wales.

 

[Somebody]

I think that the royal dukedom process will have to be re-assessed because I think that if dukedoms are being given to non-heirs then daughters of the monarch will be granted dukedoms. I think that in the past royal dukedoms eventually went back to the crown because, in order for it to be passed on, the holder had to have a son, and it would eventually play out that the royal duke either died childless or with daughters, which is going to happen to the York dukedom and will likely happen to the Gloucester and Kent dukedoms over time.

To me under the current scheme, I am not that concerned that royal dukedoms will be forever lost (including the two dukedoms that were suspended in World War I because the holders were German), but once daughters are granted dukedoms, which is the correct move IMO, then the granting and inheritance of dukedoms will have to be revisited because that is what will stretch things.

Dukedoms have always been given to non-direct-heirs, as in to sons of the monarch. The interesting issue is now how they want to deal with the daughters of the monarch as they are no longer after their brothers in the line to succession. I wouldn't be surprised if daughters are also given dukedoms in the future with either male-preference succession (so not exclusive to male heirs but close to the common system - and in line with a few other peerages apparently) or equal succession (which would be a large deviation from current rules about peerages, and might lead to a discussion of other titles) or the daughters are all given personal titles instead.

How do you expect the 'German' ducal titles to return to the crown? And what scenario do you hsve in mind for especially the Kent title to return to the crown. For the Gloucester title that scenario might very well play out depending on whether Xan will have sons to keep it for another generation... However, for the Kent title there are 2 males in the current duke's generation, 3 males in the next generation, and 4 in the third (and might be more). So you expect all for of them to have not even one son among them? As with each generation the number of heirs seems to grow so it will be only less and less likely. There are several non-royal dukedoms who are more likely to revert to the crown because of a lack of heirs.

(Maybr this discussion should be moved to a more general topic as it deviates from Harry's dukedom)

 

[Somebody]

I've been pondering the number [or lack of] Royal Ducal Titles available in the future...
We know that Edinburgh and Cambridge will 'revert' at some point, but Edinburgh will be re-created for the Earl of Wessex.
Sussex is likely to be awarded in May.. and [unless the 'Harkles' are childless] it eventually becomes an 'un-royal' Dukedom..
That leaves JUST Cambridge for the future..

Would it not be sensible for the existing Royal Dukedoms [with a long and glorious history as such] to revert to the Crown, when the existing holder dies ?

Thus - Gloucester and Kent 'revert' when the current Dukes die, leaving their heirs as 'the noble Earls of Ulster' and of 'St Andrews' respectively.
Then Gloucester, Kent and Cambridge [and possibly York] would be on hand for William V or George VIII to utilise as necessary ?
If future 'creations' were made for the same duration as the 'HRH' was held [therefter reverting back to the Crown], Dukedoms would no longer 'be lost for the future' as they are now...

Ultimately the 'pool' of Dukedoms available would be - Edinburgh, York, Cambridge, Gloucester, Sussex and Kent..A FAR more workable number than just one or two !

What makes you think that Cambridge is the only one left for the future if Sussex is granted to Harry? Many other titles are discussed here but apparently you think that non of these are available for some reason... From my perspective there are still several titles available and if at one point (but that would be many generations away most likely) they might run out of previously used titles, 'first creations' are an option as each title was at one point a first creation.

Moreover, the ducal titles of Gloucester and Kent were granted with certain rules attached to them. Just taking them back if there are rightful heirs would be utterly unfair and very hard to do without creating a huge scandal. The rules can be changed for future titles as each one gets its own set of rules (normally to be inherited by male heirs of the body), and the purpose of giving Edward the ducal title of Edinburgh in the future was exactly to make sure that that title will stay with the current duke's descendants, so making the change to personal titles would go against that.

 

[Denville]

I don't think that they could be "taken back", as they are subject to the normal inheritance rules and as such, will go ot the next male heir... and it would be unfair to do so anyway.

 

[Denville]

Of course. That is understood by everyone.
The original question was would Catherine be known by a different title when/if William is Prince of Wales, as Camilla is, to preserve the Princess of Wales title for Diana. Several of us replied that, no, Catherine (in that circumstance) will be Princess of Wales.

Camilla only uses Duc of Cornwall because of the peculiar circumstances. There's no reason for Kate to not use the Princess of Wales title. There were Princesses of W before Diana and there be more of them...

 

[wyevale]

HMQ, as 'Fount of honours' has the authority to make the requisite changes... If negotiations were conducted [privately] with the Earls of Ulster and St Andrews, [and the reasoning behind the proposed changes explained], i'm sure agreement could be reached.
Neither Gentlemen have the 'state' usually associated with Dukedoms, no vast estate, no 'seat', no notable collection, or Art [beyond the jewels likely to be dispersed when their fathers die].
They and their descent must make their 'own way in the World', and a Ducal title is likely to be more a hindrance than a help with that..
If an agreement isn't possible, so be it...

 

[wymanda]

Camilla only uses Duc of Cornwall because of the peculiar circumstances. There's no reason for Kate to not use the Princess of Wales title. There were Princesses of W before Diana and there be more of them...

Which, IMO, makes the current situation ridiculous!! Camilla is, by right, HRH The Princess of Wales.
Her marriage to Charles is not a morganatic one so she shares his rank & ALL styles & titles.