The Royal Forums Coat of Arms


Join The Royal Forums Today
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #4861  
Old 04-15-2020, 10:03 AM
Somebody's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: Somewhere, Suriname
Posts: 6,661
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tatiana Maria View Post
I think Denville's argument is that as a married peeress she should not use her given name(s) at all. But in legal documents, it is correct form for peers and peeresses (no matter if they are royal or non-royal) to include their given names or even their surnames. As Somebody posted, the birth certificates for the children of the Duke of Cambridge (and for Archie Mountbatten-Windsor) showed the given names (e.g. William Arthur Philip Louis) of both parents, though not their surnames.
Exactly; the question was what the equivalent was for Meghan compared to the name Harry used on a legal document.

While the princes by blood will use "HRH Prince William/Henry (+ all given names), Duke of Cambridge/Sussex" (or in Harry's case, since he isn't supposed to use the HRH in business, he will drop that part);
the princesses by marriage will use "HRH Catherine Elizabeth/Rachel Meghan, the Duchess of Cambridge/Sussex" (or in Meghan's case, since she isn't supposed to use the HRH in business, she will drop that part).
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #4862  
Old 04-15-2020, 11:14 AM
Jacknch's Avatar
Administrator
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Suffolk, United Kingdom
Posts: 9,228
Please note that several posts have been edited or deleted as they contained snarky/bickering responses. Please avoid posting responses (whether they be questions or answers) that drag what is supposed to be a mature and informative discussion into a point-scoring or agenda-driven quarrel. I'm sure it really will be time to move on soon since we can't keep going round in circles answering and re-answering the same question indefinately.
__________________

__________________
JACK
Reply With Quote
  #4863  
Old 04-16-2020, 09:30 AM
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Aug 2019
Location: Midlands, United Kingdom
Posts: 1,623
As many on here will already know of course peers, their spouses & children, have used/do use their title in the way of a surname for business/professional purposes. Three that come to mind:

David Linley instead of Armstrong Jones (Viscount Linley)
Bill Burlington instead of Cavendish (Earl of Burlington)
George Sunderland instead of Spencer-Churchill (Earl of Sunderland)

These examples are courtesy titles of course but there are instances of those with substantive titles following the same usage, even dukes. It also avoids for women the awkwardness of sounding divorced.

Following this accepted usage the 11th Duke of Devonshire (surname Cavendish) published under the name of Andrew Devonshire.

His duchess published under the name Deborah Devonshire.
Reply With Quote
  #4864  
Old 04-27-2020, 07:09 AM
Gentry
 
Join Date: Apr 2020
Location: Pasig, Philippines
Posts: 77
Quote:
Originally Posted by Countessmeout View Post
If the queen dies in five years, Charles would only be 76 going on 77. There is no reason to believe he wont live well into his 90's like both of his parents, and his grandmother lived over 100. He would have a good 20 years to reign before he died. One cant argue that Charles cant be a good ruler in his 90's, considering his mother and the role she still serves.

Prince William as the new POW would just step up and do more of the travel and duties like his father currently does. That's the natural way of things in the BRF.
Following precedent, Charles would definitely take the throne even if he won't be there as long as his mother was.

Also, once Prince William becomes 2nd in line, is he automatically the Prince of Wales or does the new King have the prerogative to give him a different title to go with his status as the direct heir?
Reply With Quote
  #4865  
Old 04-27-2020, 07:44 AM
Majesty
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 9,474
Quote:
Originally Posted by victoriaalix View Post
Following precedent, Charles would definitely take the throne even if he won't be there as long as his mother was.

Also, once Prince William becomes 2nd in line, is he automatically the Prince of Wales or does the new King have the prerogative to give him a different title to go with his status as the direct heir?
No, the tile of Prince of wales has to be given by the monarch. It does not come to the heir automatically. I can't see why a King or queen would give his heir a different title.
Reply With Quote
  #4866  
Old 04-28-2020, 10:21 PM
LauraS3514's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Silicon Valley, United States
Posts: 715
Quote:
Originally Posted by victoriaalix View Post
Following precedent, Charles would definitely take the throne even if he won't be there as long as his mother was.

Also, once Prince William becomes 2nd in line, is he automatically the Prince of Wales or does the new King have the prerogative to give him a different title to go with his status as the direct heir?
Prince William will automatically become "Duke of Cornwall", "Duke of Rothsay" and other titles as the oldest son and heir of the King. "Prince of Wales and Earl of Chester" must be created each time, and have been held by King's grandsons in the past (most recently by the future George III); this is not possible for Duke of Cornwall title as it is restricted to the eldest son who is also the heir.
Reply With Quote
  #4867  
Old 04-29-2020, 01:57 AM
cdm's Avatar
cdm cdm is offline
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: België, Belgique, Belgium
Posts: 2,074
Abdications

So then theoretically it’s possible to have a King Charles, William as Duke of Cornwall and Cambridge and George as Prince of Wales?
Reply With Quote
  #4868  
Old 04-29-2020, 02:29 AM
Osipi's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: On the west side of North up from Back, United States
Posts: 16,740
George would only be eligible to be the Prince of Wales when his father is King. One of the conditions is that the Prince of Wales is also the heir apparent. So the answer is no to your theory.

https://www.britannica.com/topic/prince-of-Wales
__________________
To be yourself in a world that is constantly trying to make you something else is the greatest accomplishment. ~~ Ralph Waldo Emerson ~~
Reply With Quote
  #4869  
Old 04-29-2020, 02:44 AM
Duc_et_Pair's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: City, Netherlands
Posts: 11,170
Quote:
Originally Posted by cdm View Post
So then theoretically it’s possible to have a King Charles, William as Duke of Cornwall and Cambridge and George as Prince of Wales?

It must about be the direct successor himself. The easiest to remember: Cornwall = automatic, Wales = not automatic.

1948
HRH Prince Charles of Edinburgh

1952
HRH The Duke of Cornwall (automatically, as Heir to HM The Queen)

1958
HRH The Prince of Wales (by creation, as Heir to HM The Queen)
Reply With Quote
  #4870  
Old 04-29-2020, 02:49 AM
Countessmeout's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: alberta, Canada
Posts: 12,817
Quote:
Originally Posted by Duc_et_Pair View Post
It must about be the direct successor himself. The easiest to remember:


The Heir always and by automatism holds the title Duke of Cornwall (Duke of Rothesay).


The Heir can receive the title Prince of Wales.
No the eldest son of the monarch is always and by automation, Duke of Cornwall.

If Charles dropped dead tomorrow, William would be the heir but he would not be Duke of Cornwall, as he would never be the eldest son of the monarch.

As it stands, if Charlotte was the first born child, she would be heir to the throne but she would not automatically be Duchess of Cornwall when her father is king, unless things are changed.

Technically neither title is assured, unless you are heir to your parent. And first born. If Charles had died before he had children, Andrew could be POW but never Duke of Cornwall as he was not the first son.
Reply With Quote
  #4871  
Old 04-29-2020, 03:29 AM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 13,214
The best example of an heir apparent who wasn't Duke of Cornwall, Duke of Rothesay etc is George III.

His father - Frederick held both of those titles from the instant his father became George II. Prior to that he had been Duke of Edinburgh, a title his grandfather, George I, had given him.

When Frederick died his eldest son, George, became the heir apparent and he also inherited his father's title of Duke of Edinburgh which is the title he used from the 31st March to the 20th April 1751. On the 20th April his grandfather, George II, created him Prince of Wales and Earl of Chester.

Later, when George III, himself became a father of a son that son instantly became Duke of Cornwall etc because he was the eldest son and heir apparent to the King. A week after his birth his father created him as Prince of Wales.

The same thing with Edward VII - born as Duke of Cornwall, Duke of Rothesay etc but not created Prince of Wales for nearly a month.

Edward VII waited nearly 10 months to create his son as Prince of Wales so from 20th January 1901 until the 9th November the future George V was known as the Duke of Cornwall and York (except in Scotland where he was Duke of Rothesay).

George V waited about six weeks before making the future Edward VIII Prince of Wales while Elizabeth II waited well over 6 years before creating her Duke of Cornwall, Prince of Wales and Earl of Chester.
Reply With Quote
  #4872  
Old 04-29-2020, 05:16 AM
Claire's Avatar
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 1,606
Has anything been changed with the female succession to say that if George for example has a female heir - it becomes Princess of Wales, Duchess of Cornwall and Rothesay?
Reply With Quote
  #4873  
Old 04-29-2020, 05:16 AM
Duc_et_Pair's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: City, Netherlands
Posts: 11,170
Quote:
Originally Posted by Countessmeout View Post
No the eldest son of the monarch is always and by automation, Duke of Cornwall.

If Charles dropped dead tomorrow, William would be the heir but he would not be Duke of Cornwall, as he would never be the eldest son of the monarch.

As it stands, if Charlotte was the first born child, she would be heir to the throne but she would not automatically be Duchess of Cornwall when her father is king, unless things are changed.

Technically neither title is assured, unless you are heir to your parent. And first born. If Charles had died before he had children, Andrew could be POW but never Duke of Cornwall as he was not the first son.

Yes, of course, you are completely right. I had a normal situation in mind, not one in which the monarch's eldest son died before the kingship.
Reply With Quote
  #4874  
Old 04-29-2020, 05:27 AM
Stefan's Avatar
Super Moderator
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Esslingen, Germany
Posts: 5,439
Quote:
Originally Posted by Countessmeout View Post

Technically neither title is assured, unless you are heir to your parent. And first born. If Charles had died before he had children, Andrew could be POW but never Duke of Cornwall as he was not the first son.

He could as the future George V. was also not the oldest son of his parents.
__________________
Stefan



Reply With Quote
  #4875  
Old 04-29-2020, 05:49 AM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 13,214
George V was the heir apparent, when he became Duke of Cornwall and was created Prince of Wales, as was Charles I - another who wasn't the eldest son of his father.

There was some debate about whether Henry VIII should be Duke of Cornwall after the death of his older brother, Arthur, but eventually it was decided that he was eligible and the precedence set then has been followed ever since. They took from April 1502 until October 1502 to reach that decision.

To hold the titles Duke of Cornwall and Duke of Rothesay a person must met two critieria:

1. be the eldest LIVING son of the monarch and

2. be the heir apparent to the throne.

As for changes for a princess to be Duchess of Cornwall or Princess of Wales - that hasn't happened but the income of the Duchy of Cornwall will now automatically go to the heir apparent regardless of the gender of that heir. That was a provision of the Sovereign Grant Act.

An heir presumptive still wouldn't be eligible for the income of the Duchy e.g. if George becomes King and doesn't have any children then Charlotte will be his heir presumptive but not eligible under the existing laws for the income of the Duchy.
Reply With Quote
  #4876  
Old 04-29-2020, 06:38 AM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: St Thomas, U.S. Minor Outlying Islands
Posts: 3,931
Quote:
Originally Posted by cdm View Post
So then theoretically it’s possible to have a King Charles, William as Duke of Cornwall and Cambridge and George as Prince of Wales?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Osipi View Post
George would only be eligible to be the Prince of Wales when his father is King. One of the conditions is that the Prince of Wales is also the heir apparent. So the answer is no to your theory.

https://www.britannica.com/topic/prince-of-Wales
Quote:
Originally Posted by Duc_et_Pair View Post
It must about be the direct successor himself. The easiest to remember: Cornwall = automatic, Wales = not automatic.

It is indeed the custom to reserve the title for male heirs apparent, but in contrast to the Dukedom of Cornwall, there is no legislative limitation on the title. So yes, it would theoretically be possible for the monarch to confer the title of Prince(ss) of Wales on whomever she or he pleases (unless the government forbade it, I suppose).

Read more here on the debate in 1943-44 about whether Princess Elizabeth, the then heiress presumptive, ought to be created Princess of Wales.

Questions about British Styles and Titles


Quote:
Originally Posted by Iluvbertie View Post
As for changes for a princess to be Duchess of Cornwall or Princess of Wales - that hasn't happened but the income of the Duchy of Cornwall will now automatically go to the heir apparent regardless of the gender of that heir. That was a provision of the Sovereign Grant Act.

An heir presumptive still wouldn't be eligible for the income of the Duchy e.g. if George becomes King and doesn't have any children then Charlotte will be his heir presumptive but not eligible under the existing laws for the income of the Duchy.
Charlotte would receive the income as heiress presumptive, but you are right that she would not be Duchess of Cornwall.

Sovereign Grant Act 2011
Reply With Quote
  #4877  
Old 04-29-2020, 10:22 AM
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Aug 2019
Location: Midlands, United Kingdom
Posts: 1,623
What are people's opinions on reverting back to the old practise of not usually according the title of prince(ess) to anyone except the prince of Wales & his wife?

There doesn't seem to have been any consistency to styling the (younger) children or grandchildren of monarchs before the Hanoverians. I read conflicting accounts of how they were referred to.

Or are we too accustomed to the idea that the son or daughter of a king/queen regnant must be a prince or princess?
Reply With Quote
  #4878  
Old 04-29-2020, 11:22 PM
LauraS3514's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Silicon Valley, United States
Posts: 715
Quote:
Originally Posted by Countessmeout View Post
No the eldest son of the monarch is always and by automation, Duke of Cornwall.

Technically neither title is assured, unless you are heir to your parent. And first born. If Charles had died before he had children, Andrew could be POW but never Duke of Cornwall as he was not the first son.
In this case, pre-2013 and the new Succession to the Crown Act, Andrew WOULD have become Duke of Cornwall as the eldest LIVING son of The Queen who was also Heir Apparent.
Reply With Quote
  #4879  
Old 04-30-2020, 11:15 AM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: St Thomas, U.S. Minor Outlying Islands
Posts: 3,931
Quote:
Originally Posted by Durham View Post
What are people's opinions on reverting back to the old practise of not usually according the title of prince(ess) to anyone except the prince of Wales & his wife?

There doesn't seem to have been any consistency to styling the (younger) children or grandchildren of monarchs before the Hanoverians. I read conflicting accounts of how they were referred to.

Or are we too accustomed to the idea that the son or daughter of a king/queen regnant must be a prince or princess?

Across most of Europe, people are also accustomed to the idea that a legitimate son or daughter of a prince must be a prince or princess. Nonetheless, some European royal families (including the British) have bucked modern practice and reverted to reserving royal titles for the core family members.

Given that the tradition of titling all children of European monarchs as prince or princess has been practiced for centuries by now, I will not expect it to be reverted rapidly. However, provided that the current trends progress, I can imagine European royal families reverting to the old practice a number of generations from now. Several royal families in Europe have already come to the decisions that younger children of monarchs must earn their own money in the private sector rather than working for the monarchy, but will be forbidden from using their royal titles to earn money. It would take only one more step to deciding not to accord them titles which they will anyway be forbidden to use in their everyday lives.
Reply With Quote
  #4880  
Old 04-30-2020, 01:41 PM
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Aug 2019
Location: Midlands, United Kingdom
Posts: 1,623


An interesting perspective & one which I share. The younger children of the British monarch could be styled The lord or The Lady ....

An example would be The Lady Elizabeth as in Tudor usage for instance. Similar but subtly different to how the younger children of dukes are styled. The monarch is after all the Duke of Lancaster.

In a funny sort of way it sounds more romantic & also more authentically English (not that they're just English royalty of course).
__________________

Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
british royal family, consort, duke of york, kate, princess beatrice, queenmother, spouse, styles and titles, titles uk styles


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 12 (3 members and 9 guests)
JoanHarry, Osipi, Prinsara
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Non-British Styles and Titles Lord Sosnowitz Royal Ceremony and Protocol 792 08-22-2021 12:16 PM
Abdication Beatrix and Inauguration WA: Titles, Names, Succession, Precedence Princess Robijn King Willem-Alexander, Queen Máxima and family 78 08-21-2021 07:14 AM
Diana's Styles and Titles florawindsor Diana, Princess of Wales (1961-1997) 894 11-26-2019 11:04 PM
Titles and Styles of Harry, his Future Wife and Children Aussie Princess The Duke and Duchess of Sussex and Family 1897 11-29-2017 03:13 AM
Styles and Titles Nahla10 Ruling Family of Dubai 50 06-02-2017 02:28 PM




Popular Tags
american archie mountbatten-windsor asia asian baby names biography birth britain britannia british royal family buckingham palace camilla camilla parker-bowles camilla parker bowles china china chinese ming dynasty asia asian emperor royalty qing clarence house colorblindness coronation daisy doge of venice dresses duchess of sussex duke of cambridge duke of sussex edward vii family life family tree gemstones george vi gradenigo hello! henry viii hereditary grand duchess stéphanie hereditary grand duke guillaume highgrove history hochberg hypothetical monarchs japan jewellery kensington palace książ castle list of rulers medical meghan markle monarchy mongolia mountbatten names nara period plantinum jubilee pless politics portugal prince charles of luxembourg prince harry princess eugenie queen louise royalty of taiwan solomon j solomon spanish royal family speech sussex suthida taiwan thai royal family united states united states of america wales


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 12:11 AM.

Social Knowledge Networks

eXTReMe Tracker
Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2021
Jelsoft Enterprises
×