Questions about British Styles and Titles 1: Ending 2022

[Artemisia]

Another question please.... Why is Duke of York higher than Duke of Cambridge?

There is a significant difference between the Line of Succession and the Order of Precedence. William (as the son of the Heir apparent) is higher than his uncle in the Line of Succession. However, according to the Line of Precedence for male royals, the Sovereign's sons outrank Sovereign's grandsons, regardless of their places in the succession line.

The current Order of Precedence for males in the British Royal Family:
- Prince Philip, The Duke of Edinburgh*
- Prince Charles
- Prince Andrew
- Prince Edward
- Prince William
- Prince Harry
- James, Viscount Severn
- Peter Phillips
- David Armstrong-Jones, Viscount Linley
- Prince Richard, Duke of Gloucester
- Prince Edward, Duke of Kent
- Prince Michael of Kent

* Prince Philip's precedence over all males in the Kingdom was not automatic. Normally, the highest precedence would be held by the Prince of Wales; however, the Queen issued Order-in-Council granting the Duke of Edinburgh precedence over all men in the Kingdom. The only exception is when the Prince of Wales takes precedence over his father in official capacities, as provided by the Parliament.

Thanks NGalitzine. So, peer = nobility?

Almost, but not precisely. A Peer is a noble by definition; however, not all nobles are peers.
The Peers' immediate family members - spouse, children, and usually male-line grandchildren - belong to nobility as well, but are not Peers in their own right.

 

[Artemisia]

It is fascinating! So I've got another question I see a lot of royalty being prince or princess of Greece and Denmark...how?

Members of the Greek Royal Family have the right to be titled as Princes and Princesses of Denmark as male-line descendants of Christian IX of Denmark.
George I of Greece was born a Danish Prince (son of Christian IX). The former King Constantine of Greece is George I's male line descendant; as such he, his descendants and other male-line descendants of George I, have the right to the title Prince or Princess of Denmark and the style of HH (His/Her Highness). Until 1953 constitutional changes, George I's descendants were also in the Danish Line of Succession.

Members of the Greek Royal Family are considered to be also members of the (extended) Danish Royal Family. Of course, King Constantine's family is rather more closely related to the Danish Royal Family now because his wife - Queen Anne-Marie - was born a Danish Princess herself (she is Queen Margrethe II's sister). Contrary to popular belief and despite that relation, her descendants would not have the right to the title of Princes and Princesses of Denmark if they hadn't been male-line descendants of Christian IX: titles are passed through male, not female line.

 

[Iluvbertie]

It is fascinating! So I've got another question I see a lot of royalty being prince or princess of Greece and Denmark...how?

To put Philip into Artemisia's explanation. He is a great-grandson of Christian IX of Denmark as his grandfather was George I of the Hellenes (born Prince William of Denmark). As a result Philip was in the line of succession to the Greek throne (highest was about 4th or 5th I think) but further down the line to the Danish throne and even further down for the British throne in his own right.

I had a booklet for many years that actually had Charles referred to as a Prince of Greece and Denmark as well as Philip. It was done in 1951 when my mother was working in the British High Commission in Canberra and was on an official document from BP in the lead up to the upcoming tour of Australia to be carried out by The Duke and Duchess of Edinburgh. That tour was rudely interrupted when George VI died and the Duchess of Edinburgh became HM The Queen.

So even though Philip was born a Prince, he was born a Prince of Greece and Denmark not the UK. The Queen created him a Prince of the UK in 1957. As a woman she didn't automatically give any status or titles to her husband (the opposite in fact - she became The Duchess of Edinburgh when she married because she was marrying HRH The Duke of Edinburgh).

Simply put - males can pass on titles and styles to their wives and children and females can't.

 

[Artemisia]

I had a booklet for many years that actually had Charles referred to as a Prince of Greece and Denmark as well as Philip. It was done in 1951 when my mother was working in the British High Commission in Canberra and was on an official document from BP in the lead up to the upcoming tour of Australia to be carried out by The Duke and Duchess of Edinburgh. That tour was rudely interrupted when George VI died and the Duchess of Edinburgh became HM The Queen.

Thanks for the additional information, Iluvbertie.
Wasn't the booklet's reference to Charles and Philip as Princes of Greece and Denmark and error though? Before marriage, Prince Philip renounced all the styles and titles he was born with for himself and his descendants; as such he, and certainly his descendants, wouldn't have any rights to the title of Prince/Princess of Denmark, would they?

 

[Iluvbertie]

I always thought that but as this came from BP to the British High Commission I have had doubts about the official nature of his renounciation. Did he send a formal request that was formally acknowledged by the King and the Parliament or was it a more informal situation whereby he told everyone he no longer wished to use the HRH Prince of Greece and Denmark title but still held them - like Louise and James are still really HRH Princess Louise and HRH Prince James but don't use those titles at there parents' request?

 

[Molly2101]

I still find it odd to see The Duchess of Edinburgh in reference to the Queen, as to me she has always been the Queen. I am aware that that was her title from marriage to her succession, but I have rarely seen it written down anywhere. To me the Duchess of Edinburgh, when I see it written down, I picture Sophie as we know that in the future she will have that title. (Well, if Charles keeps up his mother's promise to Edward.) Regarding that, James would not be The Earl of Wessex, would he? He would be James, Earl of Wessex as he has no HRH style (that he uses.)

It is even odder to see Prince Charles of Edinburgh and Princess Anne of Edinburgh. Charles had this title until his mother became Queen, and then he came The Duke of Cornwall, correct?

The styles and titles of our Royal family will confuse me, as does the order of precedence. I think it will always confuse me, so I just watch when the family are all together and I look at who walks behind and in front of whom as they walk down aisles and such! What confuses me slightly is when members arrive in order of precedence? For example, at the wedding of William and Catherine, Andrew's car was in front of Edward and then Anne's followed. This, however, was different from Zara's wedding as Edward's car arrived before Andrew's, which was followed by William. How does that work out? At the funeral of the Queen Mother, the cars after the funeral went Queen, Charles, Andrew, Edward, Anne etc. Who decides if it should be reversed?

 

[Frelinghighness]

Thank you all for clearing up a lot of misinformation that has been swimming around my brain.
Is this to say that the Duke of Edinburgh was a peer and the future monarch, was not? After they got married?
And, does this also mean, that there are no female peers?

 

[NGalitzine]

Thank you all for clearing up a lot of misinformation that has been swimming around my brain.
Is this to say that the Duke of Edinburgh was a peer and the future monarch, was not? After they got married?
And, does this also mean, that there are no female peers?

Yes, Prince Philp as Duke of Edinburgh was a peer and his wife the heiress presumptive to the throne Princess Elizabeth was a commoner.

There are some female hereditary peers in their own right. Countess Mountbatten of Burma and Lady Saltoun would be examples related to the BRF. Several ladies have received life peerages as well.

 

[Iluvbertie]

Thank you all for clearing up a lot of misinformation that has been swimming around my brain.
Is this to say that the Duke of Edinburgh was a peer and the future monarch, was not? After they got married?

Yes Philip was a peer and The Queen, the future monarch wasn't.

And, does this also mean, that there are no female peers?

No - some women have been created peers in their own right - e.g. Margaret Thatcher.

Lord Mountbatten's eldest daughter inherited the title from her father and so became a peeress in her own right.

I should have added that this happened because at the time Lord Mountbatten was given his peerage the chances of him having a son was remote as his title was created after the war and his daughters were already grown up.
They are rarer but not impossible.

 

[Iluvbertie]

I still find it odd to see The Duchess of Edinburgh in reference to the Queen, as to me she has always been the Queen. I am aware that that was her title from marriage to her succession, but I have rarely seen it written down anywhere. To me the Duchess of Edinburgh, when I see it written down, I picture Sophie as we know that in the future she will have that title. (Well, if Charles keeps up his mother's promise to Edward.) Regarding that, James would not be The Earl of Wessex, would he? He would be James, Earl of Wessex as he has no HRH style (that he uses.)

I did have a number of publications from the period 1947 - 1952 that referred to Elizabeth as HRH The Duchess of Edinburgh.

As for James - he won't be The Earl of Wessex when his father becomes The Duke of Edinburgh not because he doesn't use HRH but because his father will still be The Earl of Wessex. James currently is style Viscount Severn because that is his father's second title but Edward it The Viscount Severn.

It is a matter of who holds the substantive title - Edward compared to who holds the courtesy title - James. The holder of the substantive title has The while the courtesy title users doesn't. Sometimes you will see someone in James position referred to as 'the Viscount Severn' - little 't'. The only time James should be seen as 'The Viscount Severn' is when the writer starts a sentence with 'The Viscount Severn did xxxx' and even then there would be no reason to use the word 'The' at all.

It is even odder to see Prince Charles of Edinburgh and Princess Anne of Edinburgh. Charles had this title until his mother became Queen, and then he came The Duke of Cornwall, correct?

Yes - from birth Charles was HRH Prince Charles of Edinburgh and is described so in those publications from 1948 - 1952 (or simply Prince Charles). The instant his grandfather died his titles change a lot. He became HRH The Prince Charles, HRH The Duke of Cornwall, HRH The Duke of Rothesay etc in Scotland (not used all at once) and Anne went from being HRH Princess Anne of Edinburgh to simply HRH The Princess Anne.

The same thing will happen with William and Harry in that when Charles becomes King they will both add the word 'The' in front of their styles so it will become The Prince William and The Prince Harry. Of course as William will also add most of his father's titles to his already existing titles and instantly would become HRH The Duke of Cornwall and Cambridge. If Harry has a title at that time there would be no other change for him than adding The if using Prince - although officially, except for Charles in Scotland they don't use HRH Prince/Princess anyway but HRH The Duke of Cambridge/York etc.

 

[Artemisia]

I still find it odd to see The Duchess of Edinburgh in reference to the Queen, as to me she has always been the Queen. I am aware that that was her title from marriage to her succession, but I have rarely seen it written down anywhere. To me the Duchess of Edinburgh, when I see it written down, I picture Sophie as we know that in the future she will have that title. (Well, if Charles keeps up his mother's promise to Edward.) Regarding that, James would not be The Earl of Wessex, would he? He would be James, Earl of Wessex as he has no HRH style (that he uses.)

The Queen is not only the Duchess of Edinburgh, but also the Duke of Lancaster, Duke of Normandy and Lord of Mann (the latter three, in her own right). Of course, those titles aren't used: she is just the Queen. James, as male-line grandson of the Monarch, is de facto a Royal Highness and Prince of the United Kingdom. Upon the Earl and Countess of Wessex' request, James and Louise do not use and are not known under those styles and titles; nevertheless, both legally have them and can chose to use them at any time.

When Prince Edward becomes The Duke of Edinburgh, James will have the courtesy style of James, Earl of Wessex. Once he inherits his father's highest title, he will be either His Grace, Duke of Edinburgh or His Royal Highness Prince James, The Duke of Edinburgh (depending on whether he chooses to use his royal style and title later on).

It is even odder to see Prince Charles of Edinburgh and Princess Anne of Edinburgh. Charles had this title until his mother became Queen, and then he came The Duke of Cornwall, correct?

Normally, Charles should have been styles as Lord Charles, Earl of Merioneth (his father's second highest title), while Anne would have been a plain Lady Anne Mountbatten. However, in 1947 George VI issued Letters Patent granting any children Princess Elizabeth and Prince Philip might have automatic style of a Royal Highness and title of a British Prince; thus, Charles and Anne were born a Prince and Princess and were indeed known as Prince Charles and Princess Anne of Edinburgh. When their mother became Monarch, Charles automatically became The Duke of Cornwall (as well as other titles the Heir Apparent to the Throne has), while Anne became The Princess Anne.

The styles and titles of our Royal family will confuse me, as does the order of precedence. I think it will always confuse me, so I just watch when the family are all together and I look at who walks behind and in front of whom as they walk down aisles and such! What confuses me slightly is when members arrive in order of precedence? For example, at the wedding of William and Catherine, Andrew's car was in front of Edward and then Anne's followed. This, however, was different from Zara's wedding as Edward's car arrived before Andrew's, which was followed by William. How does that work out? At the funeral of the Queen Mother, the cars after the funeral went Queen, Charles, Andrew, Edward, Anne etc. Who decides if it should be reversed?

William's wedding was a semi-state event and precedence was quite closely adhered to. Prince Andrew outranks Prince Edward and was thus first.
Zara's wedding, on the other hand, was a private event and basically the royals could arrive in any order they wanted to.

The Queen Mother's funeral, while not a state one, was nevertheless as close to it as possible; thus, the strictest protocol rules were followed. The Precedence was followed to a letter, apart from Princess Anne who did break rules to a certain by appearing in full Royal Navy uniform becoming the first woman other than the Monarch to attend a funeral in a uniform.

 

[Iluvbertie]

When Prince Edward becomes The Duke of Edinburgh, James will have the courtesy style of James, Earl of Wessex. Once he inherits his father's highest title, he will be either His Grace, Duke of Edinburgh or His Royal Highness Prince James, The Duke of Edinburgh (depending on whether he chooses to use his royal style and title later on).

Either way he will still by The Duke of Edinburgh so either His Grace The Duke of Edinburgh or HRH The Duke of Edinburgh. No use of the name at all. The only time anyone has a name and a title used is Charles in Scotland where he is HRH The Prince Charles, Duke of Rothesay. At all other times the use of the title is done without the name so:

HRH The Duke of Edinburgh
HRH The Prince of Wales
HRH The Duke of Cambridge
HRH The Duke of York
HRH The Earl of Wessex
Viscount Severn
HRH The Duke of Gloucester
Earl of Ulster
HRH The Duke of Kent
Earl of St Andrews

but...

HRH Prince Henry of Wales
HRH Prince Michael of Kent

Once there is a title no names are used.

 

[Artemisia]

Thank you all for clearing up a lot of misinformation that has been swimming around my brain.
Is this to say that the Duke of Edinburgh was a peer and the future monarch, was not? After they got married?
You are right: Princess Elizabeth was not a Peeress in her own right, having no peerage title of her own. Her husband, on the other hand, was The Duke of Edinburgh - and as such a Peer.

And, does this also mean, that there are no female peers?

There are female Peers, however most of them are life and not hereditary ones. That is to say, there were ennobled for their contributions to society but cannot pass their title to their children. Hereditary peerages passed through female line are extremely rare but do exist. Usually, a new title is created by the Writ of Summons or the Letters Patent which specify how the title can be succeeded to.

Most titles have pretty straightforward succession - descendants of the person the title was originally created for based on rules of primogeniture. For example, if Peregrine Cavendish, 12th Duke of Devonshire had no sons, the title would have been succeeded by his nearest male relative - Hugh Cavendish, Baron Cavendish of Furness (great-grandson of the 7th Duke).

Some titles can only be inherited in direct line, from father to son, to total exclusion of other relatives (male and female). One such title is the Duke of Westminster; the current Duke - Gerald Grosvenor, 6th Duke of Westminster - only has one son, Hugh Grosvenor, Earl Grosvenor who is unmarried and has no children. Since the title can only be succeeded to in a direct line, if the young Earl Grosvenor has no sons, the title will become extinct.

Sometimes, in very rare circumstances, titles can be inherited by females or in female line. Usually, the original Letters Patent do not contain reminder for female inheritance; however, when the male line dies out, the Letter Patent is amended (or a new one is issued) allowing female inheritance. One such case would be the title of the Duke of Marlborough. The original Letter Patent only allowed inheritance through male line; however, since Sir John Churchill, 1st Duke of Marlborough had no living male heirs, the Letter Patent of the title was amended allowing his daughter, Lady Henrietta, 2nd Duchess of Marlborough, to inherit the Dukedom. The new wording of the Letters Patent stated that the Dukedom could by succeeded by "all and every other the issue male and female, lineally descending of or from the said Duke of Marlborough". Thus, should there be no male Heirs to the Dukedom, females can inherit the title.

 

[Artemisia]

I always thought that but as this came from BP to the British High Commission I have had doubts about the official nature of his renounciation. Did he send a formal request that was formally acknowledged by the King and the Parliament or was it a more informal situation whereby he told everyone he no longer wished to use the HRH Prince of Greece and Denmark title but still held them - like Louise and James are still really HRH Princess Louise and HRH Prince James but don't use those titles at there parents' request?

That's very interesting and I suppose open to debate. To the best of my knowledge, no official request was ever made to either the Danish or the (former) Greek Monarchs. If no formal renunciation was made, then I suppose technically speaking Prince Philip's children and male-line descendants are not only Princes of the UK, but also of Greece and Denmark.

Either way he will still by The Duke of Edinburgh so either His Grace The Duke of Edinburgh or HRH The Duke of Edinburgh. No use of the name at all. The only time anyone has a name and a title used is Charles in Scotland where he is HRH The Prince Charles, Duke of Rothesay. At all other times the use of the title is done without the name so.

You are right, of course. I just wanted to stress the Prince bit (that James will legally have the title if he chooses to), hence the use of name.

 

[Frelinghighness]

...Lord Mountbatten's eldest daughter inherited the title from her father and so became a peer in her own right.

Any reason why Countess Mountbatten was able to inheirit, not just because there were no male children, because then it might have gone to the next closest male relative. Was it because some titles allow women to inheirit the title if there are only female children?

 

[Artemisia]

Any reason why Countess Mountbatten was able to inheirit, not just because there were no male children, because then it might have gone to the next closest male relative. Was it because some titles allow women to inheirit the title if there are only female children?

As with most titles, the line of succession to the title was limited to the descendants of the person who the title was originally created for. The title of Earl Mountbatten of Burma was created for Louis Mountbatten, 1st Earl Mountbatten of Burma and could only be inherited by his descendants - not any other relative, male or female.

In addition, the title was rare in the respect that the original Letter Patent creating the title contained a remainder allowing it to be inherited in female line, should the 1st Earl have no male hers. In essence, the reminder stated that in absence of sons, the Earl's eldest daughter Patricia and her descendants (male, or in their absence, female) must inherit the title. If Patricia's line were to end, the title would be inherited by the Earl's younger daughter Pamela (and her descendants). If no legitimate descendants of the 1st Earl through either of his daughters remain, the title will go extinct.

 

[NGalitzine]

).

Some titles can only be inherited in direct line, from father to son, to total exclusion of other relatives (male and female). One such title is the Duke of Westminster; the current Duke - Gerald Grosvenor, 6th Duke of Westminster - only has one son, Hugh Grosvenor, Earl Grosvenor who is unmarried and has no children. Since the title can only be succeeded to in a direct line, if the young Earl Grosvenor has no sons, the title will become extinct.

I not sure that is correct. The Westminster title has in the past been inherited by brothers and cousins, although all descendents of the 1st duke, not only father to son to the exclusion of other male heirs If the current heir dies without sons the dukedom will be extinct because there are no male heirs of the 1st duke remaining. The Westminster marquessate will continue though and be inherited by the Earls of Wilton who is a descendent of the 1st Marquess of Westminster.

The 2nd duke was the grandson of the 1st duke. The 3rd, 4th and 5th dukes were 1st cousins of the 2nd duke. and children of youngers sons of the 1st duke. The 4th and 5th were brothers. The only case of direct succession from father to son is between the 5th and the current 6th duke.

I am not sure I have ever heard of a peerage created that excludes any male male line descendent of the orginal grantee, meaning only direct from father to son excluding all other male line heirs. It would be a recipy for rapid extinction of the peerage.
I am aware of titles created that had a remainder to brothers of the original grantee, and their male heirs. Kitchener would be one such title, but it has since become extinct in the male line.

 

[NGalitzine]

Having a female remainder was not uncommon when granting titles to serving officers.

in the Mountbatten case the succession is to the heirs male of Patricia and then to the heirs male of Pamela. Other than Patricia and Pamela there is no female succession to the Mountbatten of Burma peerage.

The letters patent creating the title are rare in that they specified a remainder allowing the title to descend failing heirs male,

...to his eldest daughter Patricia Edwina Victoria, Baroness Brabourne, by the name, style and title of Baroness Romsey, of Romsey in the County of Southampton and the heirs male of her body lawfully begotten; and in -default of such issue to every other daughter lawfully begotten of the said Louis Francis Albert Victor Nicholas, Viscount Mountbatten of Burma, successively in order of seniority of age and priority of birth and to the heirs male of their bodies lawfully begotten...
​

As a result Lord Mountbatten of Burma's eldest daughter Patricia succeeded as The Countess Mountbatten of Burma upon the former's death. Should the legitimate male line of descent of the 2nd Countess Mountbatten of Burma go extinct, the title will be inherited by her sister, Lady Pamela Hicks, and her legitimate heirs male. Should the legitimate male line of both sisters go extinct, the titles will become extinct.

 

[Artemisia]

I not sure that is correct. The Westminster title has in the past been inherited by brothers and cousins, although all descendents of the 1st duke, not only father to son to the exclusion of other male heirs If the current heir dies without sons the dukedom will be extinct because there are no male heirs of the 1st duke remaining. The Westminster marquessate will continue though and be inherited by the Earls of Wilton who is a descendent of the 1st Marquess of Westminster.

You are right; my apologies for the mistake.
The error came from the wording of the original Letter Patent where I interpreted "direct descendants" as direct descendants of the current Duke only. However, upon re-reading the Letter Patent, it is obvious that the direct descendants of the original Duke were meant.

Having a female remainder was not uncommon when granting titles to serving officers.
in the Mountbatten case the succession is to the heirs male of Patricia and then to the heirs male of Pamela. Other than Patricia and Pamela there is no female succession to the Mountbatten of Burma peerage.

As far as I know, such reminders are extremely rare in cases of hereditary peerage. You are, however, definitely correct about Patricia's descendants; only male descendants are eligible to inherit the title. This said, I don't doubt that should both Patricia and Pamela have no surviving male descendants, a new reminder or letter patent will be released granting female descendants right to succeed to the title.

 

[Iluvbertie]

I don't know about that as there are male heirs now but in the future the connection between the Mountbatten's and the royals will lessen so the idea of giving them special treatment not given to other families will not happen.

 

[NGalitzine]

I don't know about that as there are male heirs now but in the future the connection between the Mountbatten's and the royals will lessen so the idea of giving them special treatment not given to other families will not happen.

Agreed, and granting hereditary titles outside of the immediate royal family has also gone out of style.

 

[Iluvbertie]

Another issue is that the title can't pass into the younger daughters descendents - past that daughter's son as he has only had daughters, but there are at least five eligible boys in the line from the current Countess.

The interesting thing with the Countess is that her husband was a peer in his own right so their descendents will inherit two titles, one from each parent.

 

[Jenafran]

So, when the heir inherits what will his title be...and will the titles always be connected now? Also, the order of the titles as they are listed ( as in Williams
's situation)...Duke of Cornwall and Cambridge .. Will it be decided on when the title was bestowed or how long the title itself has been in existence?

 

[NGalitzine]

So, when the heir inherits what will his title be...and will the titles always be connected now? Also, the order of the titles as they are listed ( as in Williams
's situation)...Duke of Cornwall and Cambridge .. Will it be decided on when the title was bestowed or how long the title itself has been in existence?

The Countess Mountbatten of Burma's eldest son Norton was known by her secondary title Baron Romsey. When his father died he inherited the peerage and so became Baron Brabourne, a peer in his own right. When his mother dies he will become 3rd Earl Mountbatten of Burma and Baron Romsey and well as retaining the Brabourne barony he currently holds. He will be known as Earl Mountbatten, as his secondary titles are inferior to his earldom.

 

[Iluvbertie]

So, when the heir inherits what will his title be...and will the titles always be connected now? Also, the order of the titles as they are listed ( as in Williams
's situation)...Duke of Cornwall and Cambridge .. Will it be decided on when the title was bestowed or how long the title itself has been in existence?

The order they are listed is according to two criteria -

1. seniority of the title e.g. a Duke before an Earldom
2. age of creation e.g. Cornwall before Cambridge as the Cornwall LPs date to the 14th C while William's Cambridge title is a 2011 creation.

So when The Queen dies William will automatically become Duke of Cornwall and Cambridge as Cornwall is the older creation.

When Edward presumably gets Edinburgh that will take precedence over Wessex as it is a Dukedom not an Earldom.

but ... if, by some chance, Edward inherits all of Philip's titles Merioneth would be listed before Wessex as it is an older creation (for Edward to inherit directly from Philip, Charles, William, Harry and Andrew all have to predecease him and have no legitimate male heirs). Edward would then be Duke of Edinburgh, Earl of Merioneth, Earl of Wessex, Viscount Severn, Baron Greenwich.

This list then shows the two criteria for listing titles - seniority of the title - Duke before Earl before Viscount before Barony and date of creation - hence Merioneth before Wessex.

If Philip dies before The Queen then Charles will probably only give Edward Edinburgh but if he did recreate all their father's titles for Edward then Merioneth would be listed after Wessex as it would be a later creation date.

 

[Grandduchess24]

Does the heir to the British throne always receive the title prince of wales?

 

[Artemisia]

Does the heir to the British throne always receive the title prince of wales?

Usually, but not always.
The Prince of Wales is not an automatic title and it can only be granted to the Heir Apparent to the Throne. Quite a few English and British Monarchs ascended to the Throne without ever holding the title, including George VI, William IV and others.

The Monarch must create his or her Heir Apparent The Prince of Wales. Prince Charles was Heir Apparent to the Throne since his mother's accession to the Throne in 1952; however, he only became The Prince of Wales in 1958, and his investiture didn't take place until 1969.
In that respect, the Prince of Wales differs from most other titles held by the Heir Apparent:
- The title of The Duke of Cornwall is automatically held by the Heir Apparent (who is also the Monarch's son - not any other relative).
- The titles Duke of Rothesay, Earl of Carrick, Baron Renfrew and several others are automatically held by the Heir Apparent (whatever his/her relation to the Monarch)
- The title of Earl of Chester, like that of the Prince of Wales, has to be granted by the Monarch. It is granted to the Heir Apparent, usually at the same time as the title the Prince of Wales.

For example, if Prince Charles were to predecease his mother, it is most likely Prince William would not be created The Prince of Wales (incidentally, he would also be ineligible to be The Duke of Cornwall as grandson - not son - of the Monarch).

 

[Iluvbertie]

I would actually think the opposite, that if Charles were to predecease The Queen she would create William Prince of Wales, precisely because he can't be Duke of Cornwall and thus would be clearly identified as the heir apparent.

The last time a grandson was the direct heir that is what happened - George II created his grandson, George III, Prince of Wales in 1751 only a few months after he had been created Duke of Edinburgh and shortly after the death of Frederick, Prince of Wales, George II's son and heir.

 

[Artemisia]

I think the opposite simply because the title is too much associated with Prince Charles (not a very solid reason, granted).
If he were to predecease his mother, I don't see the Queen immediately creating Prince William The Prince of Wales. And, unless Her Majesty lives for another decade after her son's death (which is unfortunately unlikely), William might never be created Prince of Wales. In that case, he would probably known as the Duke of Rothesay because that title is automatic for Heir Apparent.

 

[wbenson]

William wouldn't be the Duke of Rothesay if that happened. It works the same way as the Duchy of Cornwall does. The Act of the Parliament of Scotland creating the title gives it to "the first-born prince of the King of Scots for ever." I think all of the "automatic" titles for heirs apparent can only be held on those terms.