 |
|

07-12-2008, 10:36 AM
|
 |
Royal Highness
|
|
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Somewhere Street, United States
Posts: 1,657
|
|
The Duke of Cornwall would be the senior title over any other dukedom he might be granted for his wedding. He and Harry would also acquire the all important "The", HRH The Prince William and HRH The Prince Henry.
|

07-12-2008, 11:51 AM
|
Heir Presumptive
|
|
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: , United States
Posts: 2,735
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by kimebear
The Duke of Cornwall would be the senior title over any other dukedom he might be granted for his wedding. He and Harry would also acquire the all important "The", HRH The Prince William and HRH The Prince Henry.
|
If created The Duke of Cambridge by his grandmother, William would assume the style and title of "HRH The Duke of Cornwall and Cambridge" in England after Charles became King.
Technically, the heir to the throne holds a distinct title and style in England, Scotland and Wales (once created Prince of Wales and Earl of Chester), although in practice this is not followed formally except in Scotland, where Charles is referred to as "The Prince Charles, Duke of Rothesay". But he is also "The Prince Charles, Prince of Wales and Earl of Chester" in Wales, and "The Prince Charles, Duke of Cornwall" in England.
|

07-12-2008, 03:10 PM
|
 |
Courtier
|
|
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Columbia, United States
Posts: 531
|
|
Really, Good People, this is all a bit much. And let us be plain here: the title Prince of Wales has been the title granted to the heirs directly in position to inherit the English/British throne for 7-8 hundred years. Since one of the major characteristics of monarchy is its adherence to tradition why do you people always seem to have the yen to change something, on the dubious assumption that it will somehow be better. Today the colour of choice is some hideous shade of purple. In the 1960's it was some hideous colour of green or orange, which now seems quite dated and ugly, which it always was. People are fickle, so I say, if it ain't broke, why fix it. When the time comes, as it must, HRH William, Prince of Wales, Duke of Cornwall etc will be just fine. As it has been fine for centures as the clear title of honour for the heir to the
British throne it will be so then. Cheers.
|

07-12-2008, 04:41 PM
|
Imperial Majesty
|
|
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: ***, United States
Posts: 16,872
|
|
Easy for you to say... 
The English have always been somewhat disliked by the Welsh, partly because of the legacy of Edward I, who was the one who imposed an English Prince of Wales in the first place. I don't think it'd hurt for the monarch to stop granting Welsh and Irish titles unless it was to royals who genuinely intended to become part of those societies, which William fairly clearly doesn't.
|

07-12-2008, 05:01 PM
|
 |
|
|
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Burbank, United States
Posts: 6,398
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by kimebear
The Duke of Cornwall would be the senior title over any other dukedom he might be granted for his wedding. He and Harry would also acquire the all important "The", HRH The Prince William and HRH The Prince Henry.
|
But I thought only the children & consort of The Queen could have the "The". So won't William & Harry have to wait until they are the sons of the King to have the "the"?
|

07-12-2008, 05:45 PM
|
 |
|
|
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Anywhere, United States
Posts: 952
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by CasiraghiTrio
But I thought only the children & consort of The Queen could have the "The". So won't William & Harry have to wait until they are the sons of the King to have the "the"?
|
I believe that's right. I asked if William wouldn't just continue to use the ducal title he received on his wedding after Charles became king (if William wasn't made PoW), and kimebear noted that Cornwall would take precedence over any other dukedom -- and that he'd get the "The" when Charles became king as well.
__________________
"I have to be seen to be believed." HM The Queen
|

07-13-2008, 08:29 AM
|
 |
Heir Apparent
|
|
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Warsaw, Poland
Posts: 3,661
|
|
What about Duke of Albany (if not a Rothesay in Scotland)? I know that's a title for a younger sons, but...
|

07-13-2008, 09:55 AM
|
 |
Nobility
|
|
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Toronto, Canada
Posts: 356
|
|
Unlikely. Albany is still an extant title (albeit in abeyance); the rightful titleholder could still theoretically claim it.
|

07-13-2008, 11:40 AM
|
 |
|
|
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Burbank, United States
Posts: 6,398
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ella Kay
I believe that's right. I asked if William wouldn't just continue to use the ducal title he received on his wedding after Charles became king (if William wasn't made PoW), and kimebear noted that Cornwall would take precedence over any other dukedom -- and that he'd get the "The" when Charles became king as well.
|
Oh yes, absolutely, kimebear is right. He would become Duke of Cornwall & Rothesay automatically and first and foremost upon his father's accession. Very true.
|

07-17-2008, 11:17 PM
|
 |
Commoner
|
|
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Posts: 19
|
|
I believe William should acquire the correct title administered by the Queen.
|

07-18-2008, 12:41 AM
|
 |
Aristocracy
|
|
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: NY, United States
Posts: 169
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Warren
Without getting into an argument over definitions, the word "commoner" means different things to different people.
• For most, and in general usage, it means anyone who is not royal or aristocratic;
• Prince of Canada's usage as "one who doesn't possess a title in the peerage";
• The Concise Oxford Dictionary as "one of the common people, as opposed to the aristocracy";
• The Wiki as "one who is neither the Sovereign nor a peer";
• and, in a more jocular tone, Princess Marina's view of anyone who was not born of the blood royal.
No doubt there are others.
The more restrictive usages would class Princes William, Harry and Michael of Kent, and the Princess Royal, Princesses Beatrice and Eugenie of York and Alexandra of Kent as commoners. Whether this makes sense or not depends entirely on the meaning one puts on the word "commoner".
We don't need to get bogged down in semantics or to split hairs, and in any case this thread is to discuss "Alternate title for William".
|
I've seen this term before and I'm not sure I understand. Exactly what IS a peerage???? I've heard the term peer used to describe others in your social group/standing, etc...
But specifically what does it mean to the royals????
__________________
The shoe that fits one person pinches another; there is no recipe for living that suits all cases.
-Carl Gustav Jung
Do what you feel in your heart to be right for you'll be criticized anyway. You'll be damned if you do and damned if you don't.
-Eleanor Roosevelt
|

07-18-2008, 01:17 AM
|
 |
Moderator Emeritus
|
|
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: -, United States
Posts: 2,769
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nitefeatherz
Exactly what IS a peerage????
|
A noble title. In the UK they are Duke, Marquess, Earl, Viscount, and Baron (Lord of Parliament in the Scottish peerage). There are hereditary peerages and life peerages. Until 1999, a hereditary peerage entitled a peer to a seat in the House of Lords (the upper chamber of Parliament). Now 92 remain, and plans are in the works to remove them, too. Life peers are all members of the House of Lords.
|

07-18-2008, 01:24 AM
|
 |
Nobility
|
|
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Toronto, Canada
Posts: 356
|
|
Minor nitpick. Plans are in the works to remove all but those whose peerage also confers a ceremonial office that is necessary to the House of Lords. Earl Marshal (Norfolk), for example.
And my understanding is that those 88 or so will be replaced by attrition. As they die, their seat becomes open for election.
|

07-18-2008, 03:30 AM
|
Heir Apparent
|
|
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Melbourne & Sydney, Australia
Posts: 3,977
|
|
What of the 'Duke of Clarence and Avondale'?
I think that to be a fitting title for William. Though I'm not so sure whether it's possible or how it would be perceived. Though currently not held by anyone, and so free to be allotted at Her Majesty's discreation, or even that of the Prince of Wales when he succeeds.
Then again, maybe something entirely new...
__________________
"Dressing is a way of life" - Monsieur Saint Laurent
|

07-18-2008, 07:58 AM
|
Heir Presumptive
|
|
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: , United States
Posts: 2,735
|
|
Clarence, Cambridge, Sussex are all possibilities, as is something entirely new. It's also possible The Queen may create William an Earl for now, given the reality of her age and his succeeding Charles as heir to the throne in due time.
|

07-18-2008, 10:39 AM
|
Heir Apparent
|
|
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Melbourne & Sydney, Australia
Posts: 3,977
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by branchg
It's also possible The Queen may create William an Earl for now, given the reality of her age and his succeeding Charles as heir to the throne in due time.
|
The above would be most fitting at this point in time I think. I quite like it.
If any such decision were to be considered, then to create him an Earl would be quite sufficient.
__________________
"Dressing is a way of life" - Monsieur Saint Laurent
|

07-18-2008, 11:07 AM
|
 |
Royal Highness
|
|
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Somewhere Street, United States
Posts: 1,657
|
|
Yes, but how would it look if William, the heir to the throne, is made HRH The Earl of Some Place upon his marriage and Harry becomes HRH The Duke of Some Place Better when he marries?
|

07-18-2008, 11:34 AM
|
Heir Apparent
|
|
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Melbourne & Sydney, Australia
Posts: 3,977
|
|
When looking at the broader picture, not at all bad I'd have thought.
Harry would remain a Duke, whilst William will become King, and before that inherit the titles bestowed upon the heir apparent if still in observance. Let us place some perspective on it...
__________________
"Dressing is a way of life" - Monsieur Saint Laurent
|

07-18-2008, 12:19 PM
|
 |
Royal Highness
|
|
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Somewhere Street, United States
Posts: 1,657
|
|
I am keeping perspective on it. I don't see the queen allowing the heir to have a lesser title than his younger brother, no matter how briefly. For the same reason as the Prince of Wales ceremony that she insisted upon for Charles. Like making William a Knight of the Garter so young. He will always be held at a higher position because of what he will become.
|

07-18-2008, 04:36 PM
|
 |
|
|
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Burbank, United States
Posts: 6,398
|
|
^Yeah, but I think William was made a KG at this time because it was the only way to get him in at the 1000 spot. The royal family love symbolism.
|
 |
|
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
|
|
Thread Tools |
Search this Thread |
|
|
Display Modes |
Linear Mode
|
Posting Rules
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
|
Recent Discussions |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|