Prince William and Catherine Middleton Possible Titles

[texankitcat]

...As, say Duchess of Hogwarts...

Duchess of Hogwarts?

I don't see the Queen investing William as the Prince of Wales if Prince Charles should pass before she does. The title is too long associated with Prince Charles, and if he should die still bearing that title, then I think it would only be proper to skip a generation (if William has a son) before it would be invested on another heir.

 

[branchg]

The Queen would most certainly create William "Prince of Wales" if Charles predeceased her as he would be the heir to the throne.

 

[texankitcat]

The Queen would most certainly create William "Prince of Wales" if Charles predeceased her as he would be the heir to the throne.

She certainly could do so, but as Bertie and others have pointed out it's not a hereditary title, therefore it's at the Monarch's pleasure as to whether she would bestow it. Based on the Queen's age and the fact that in 16 years she will be 100 years old, if Prince Charles were to pass within the next decade or so before the Queen, then she may very well not invest Prince William as the POW, since he would already have the heredity titles of Duke of Cornwall and Rothesay, and realistically it wouldn't be much longer before he was crowned King.

Also, to invest a new POW so soon after the death of the current one, when it is not a hereditary title that is automatic after the death of the current title holder, may not be something William would want or the Queen would grant.

If Prince Charles passed before Camilla and the Queen, then I wonder if Camilla would still be known as Duchess of Cornwall and Rothesay. Wouldn't that present an issue as to what title Kate would bear since she would then be the Duchess of Cornwall and Rothesay?

 

[magnik]

No matter of the title which they may get he will be Will, Prince William and she will be Kate, Katherine or Princess Kate/Katherine
untile they become HMs.

 

[Nice Nofret]

..If Charles passes away, while the Queen still lives; Camilla would be still Duchess of Cornwall

 

[AuroraB]

She certainly could do so, but as Bertie and others have pointed out it's not a hereditary title, therefore it's at the Monarch's pleasure as to whether she would bestow it. Based on the Queen's age and the fact that in 16 years she will be 100 years old, if Prince Charles were to pass within the next decade or so before the Queen, then she may very well not invest Prince William as the POW, since he would already have the heredity titles of Duke of Cornwall and Rothesay, and realistically it wouldn't be much longer before he was crowned King.

Also, to invest a new POW so soon after the death of the current one, when it is not a hereditary title that is automatic after the death of the current title holder, may not be something William would want or the Queen would grant.

If Prince Charles passed before Camilla and the Queen, then I wonder if Camilla would still be known as Duchess of Cornwall and Rothesay. Wouldn't that present an issue as to what title Kate would bear since she would then be the Duchess of Cornwall and Rothesay?

Please reread Iluvbertie's reply #568. In order to be Duke of Cornwall you must be both the eldest son of the monarch and heir apparent.

 

[Iluvbertie]

She certainly could do so, but as Bertie and others have pointed out it's not a hereditary title, therefore it's at the Monarch's pleasure as to whether she would bestow it. Based on the Queen's age and the fact that in 16 years she will be 100 years old, if Prince Charles were to pass within the next decade or so before the Queen, then she may very well not invest Prince William as the POW, since he would already have the heredity titles of Duke of Cornwall and Rothesay, and realistically it wouldn't be much longer before he was crowned King.

If Charles died in the present reign then William would never be Duke of Cornwall and Rothesay as he wouldn't meet the two necessary criteria -

1.the eldest living son of the monarch is one of the criteria and he could only be that if Charles is King
2.the heir apparent - he would be that.

The best precedent is George III. His father was the eldest son and heir apparent and so was automatically Duke of Cornwall etc when his father became King and his father then created him Prince of Wales. However when Frederick died George III became heir apparent but never Duke of Cornwall etc because he wasn't the eldest son of the King but a grandson.

Also, to invest a new POW so soon after the death of the current one, when it is not a hereditary title that is automatic after the death of the current title holder, may not be something William would want or the Queen would grant.

George V took 6 weeks before creating his son and heir PoW. They get created. Having an investiture is not necessary.

If Prince Charles passed before Camilla and the Queen, then I wonder if Camilla would still be known as Duchess of Cornwall and Rothesay. Wouldn't that present an issue as to what title Kate would bear since she would then be the Duchess of Cornwall and Rothesay?

Like the widow of every other title holder Camilla would continue to hold the titles - Princess of Wales, Countess of Chester, Duchess of Cornwall, Duchess or Rothesay etc. Just as she will become Queen Consort when Charles becomes King and keeps that title is she outlives him she would keep her current titles if he dies before becoming King. If happens all the time. George III's mother was known as Princess of Wales, Duchess of Cornwall etc after the death of her husband and George III was The Prince of Wales (but never Duke of Cornwall etc as he was not the eldest living son of the monarch and heir apparent - he was only the heir apparent after the death of his father but he was created Prince of Wales.

It would actually be easier for Camilla as it would be years before a female could hold those titles again as it would have to wait until Willliam's eldest living son and heir apparent married before they would be used again.

 

[mrsbugman]

I just love all this information!

 

[texankitcat]

Please reread Iluvbertie's reply #568. In order to be Duke of Cornwall you must be both the eldest son of the monarch and heir apparent.

Yep, now I see. Thank you!

 

[Patra]

This stuff is amazing- all the possible senerios are fascinating!

 

[texankitcat]

This stuff is amazing- all the possible senerios are fascinating!

It is! Just when I think I understand how it works, I realize I have it all wrong. Such a complex system.

 

[Lady Gudgeon]

Assuming Charles outlives the Queen then William will automatically become Duke of Cornwall etc but it will be up to his father to decide when, and even if, he creates his son Prince of Wales - note that the Queen took over 6 years before creating Charles Prince of Wales, George V took 6 weeks and Edward VII took nearly 10 months before creating George V PoW. He himself had to wait a couple of weeks although he was born Duke of Cornwall etc.

Sorry, this is a little OT - I'm curious as to why there could be such a long wait? Why did the Queen wait so long to create Prince Charles the PoW? I assume it was inevitable she was going to name him PoW so why would there be a wait? Has it ever happened that the eldest son/heir was not named PoW? Thanks to you all for being so knowledgeable! I read lots of Regency romance novels (Georgette Heyer is awesome) so know a bit about titles and such, but they don't deal with royal titles so this is all so new and interesting!

 

[Lumutqueen]

It's not inevitable, Wales might decide to kick up a fuss and not want another Prince of Wales. It's up to Prince Charles to create his son Prince of Wales or not.
Elizabeth II father was never POW, he was Duke of York. I don't know about anyone else.

 

[Nice Nofret]

No, of course was King GeorgeVI never POW, as his brother was the POW and was expected to marry and have kids of his own .. thats a totaly different case.

 

[Lumutqueen]

That still doesn't change the fact that he was a King and he was never POW. He was the heir to his brother, so this answers partly Lady Gudgeons question.

 

[branchg]

She may very well not invest Prince William as the POW, since he would already have the heredity titles of Duke of Cornwall and Rothesay, and realistically it wouldn't be much longer before he was crowned King.

As others have pointed out, William would not become The Duke of Cornwall and Rothesay if Charles predeceases The Queen as he would not be the eldest son of The Sovereign who is also the heir. The peerage can only be held by meeting both criteria.

Like George III when his father, Frederick, Prince of Wales, died, William would very likely become The Duke of Edinburgh as he would inherit his grandfather's peerages if Philip died before The Queen. Once he became King, the title would merge with the Crown and be re-created for The Earl of Wessex as originally announced.

 

[branchg]

It's not inevitable, Wales might decide to kick up a fuss and not want another Prince of Wales.

A highly unlikely scenario, but if it became a political matter, the Prime Minister would advise the Crown not to bestow the title. Otherwise, it would happen without question when The Sovereign deems it appropriate.

 

[Lumutqueen]

It might be a highly unlikely scenario, but as you pointed at the PM would advise the Crown not to bestow the title. Therefore becoming POW for William is not inevitable.

 

[Iluvbertie]

Sorry, this is a little OT - I'm curious as to why there could be such a long wait? Why did the Queen wait so long to create Prince Charles the PoW? I assume it was inevitable she was going to name him PoW so why would there be a wait? Has it ever happened that the eldest son/heir was not named PoW? Thanks to you all for being so knowledgeable! I read lots of Regency romance novels (Georgette Heyer is awesome) so know a bit about titles and such, but they don't deal with royal titles so this is all so new and interesting!

The argument that I have read a number of times is that she felt becoming Duke of Cornwall etc all at once was enough for the small Charles and that he should be older and more aware of his future before she created him Prince of Wales. In addition 1958 was a good year as the Commonwealth and Empire Games were held in Cardiff that year and the announcement was made at the end of those games. I would suggest that if Cardiff hadn't had the games in 1958 she might have waited a bit longer but she certainly felt that at nearly 10 he would have a greater understanding of what it meant than he would have had a 3.5 when he became Duke of Cornwall.

The heir not being named PoW has happened a number of times e.g. George VI, William IV, Frederick, Duke of York (2nd son of George III who was George IV's heir until his death in 1828), George I (who was Anne's heir after the death of his mother), James II (heir to his brother Charles II), James I (heir to Elizabeth I). I think that is the full list but there may be another one back in the middle ages.

Edward III and Henry VI both appear not to have been created Prince of Wales by their fathers. who were Kings at the time according to http://www.princeofwales.gov.uk/per...fwales/abouttheprince/previousprincesofwales/. Of course Henry VI was only the heir for 9 months before becoming King after the early death of his father. The Wikipedia article on him does refer to him as Prince of Wales but I would go with the offficial Prince of Wales site over Wikipedia. Edward III though was very early in the piece with regard to the Prince of Wales title as his father was the first ever Prince of Wales created by an English King.

 

[Lady Gudgeon]

That's fantastic info, thanks, Iluvbertie!

 

[Bristol]

Prince of Wales

"The heir not being named PoW has happened a number of times e.g. George VI, William IV, Frederick, Duke of York (2nd son of George III who was George IV's heir until his death in 1828), George I (who was Anne's heir after the death of his mother), James II (heir to his brother Charles II), James I (heir to Elizabeth I). I think that is the full list but there may be another one back in the middle ages. "


Only sons, never brothers, are created Prince of Wales. It is the difference between being the Heir Apparent (ie you are the heir and no other births can change that) and being Heir Presumptive (ie you are the Heir, but if the current sovereign has a male baby, you would be displaced). This is always the case with Kings and their brothers - they are only ever heirs presumptive. It is also the reason why our current Queen was always Heir Presumptive (ie if her father and mother had had a baby boy, however many years later, she would no longer have been the Heir to the Throne), and why she was never made Princess of Wales. As far as I know, the only Princess of Wales in her own right was Charlotte, daughter of George IV; I assume that George gave her the title a) to acknowledge her status when she was in the marriage market and b) because he knew jolly well that he wasn't going to get married again and have any other legitimate heirs!

 

[prsgoddess]

As far as I know, the only Princess of Wales in her own right was Charlotte, daughter of George IV; I assume that George gave her the title a) to acknowledge her status when she was in the marriage market and b) because he knew jolly well that he wasn't going to get married again and have any other legitimate heirs!

Charlotte wasn't "Princess of Wales" in her own right. She died before her father ascended the throne.

 

[Kataryn]

Charlotte wasn't "Princess of Wales" in her own right. She died before her father ascended the throne.

I think there's this error because Charlotte's father was mostly called The Prince Regent before he ascended the throne, but of course he was THe Prince of Wales as well. Thus Charlotte as his daughter was HRH Princess Charlotte of Wales, like today William as son of The Prince of Wales is HRH Prince William of Wales and Beatrice as daughter of The Duke of York is HRH Princess Beatrice of York.

So Charlotte was not THE Princess of Wales but Princess Charlotte of Wales.

 

[Bristol]

Charlotte wasn't "Princess of Wales" in her own right. She died before her father ascended the throne.

Yes, of course, you are quite right - silly me! Well, that would reinforce the point that it's only ever Heirs Apparent who are created Princes of Wales, and never Heirs Presumptive.

 

[Somersby Tulip]

Unless William gets a Dukedom, she will take her husbands name and thus be HRH The Princess William of Wales. Much like the Prince Michael's wife is known as HRH The Princess Michael of Kent.

IF William gets a dukedom, she will follow Camilla and Sarah (and Katharine and Brigitte) and be HRH The Duchess of York (Cornwall, Kent and Gloucester).

In certain countries (i.e. the Netherlands), Maxima was made a Princess in her own right. I don't think that has ever happened in Britain.

Its true that Kate when they marry will become The Princess William of Wales. Whether William is granted a Dukedom or not does not entitle Kate to be referred to as Duchess of anything as she is neither a lady or princess in her own right and you need to be one of them already or possess a hereditary title which she does not to be referred to as Duchess. She is not royal and cannot be affored a title. Only title she can be granted is on paper and on paper only. There is a differeent between a royal title and a paper one. A royal one means she is entitled to .. and a paper one means she is entitled to nothing as she is not royal.

People refer to Lady Diana Spencer as Princess Diana as they saw her as a princess. It was not a title given to her. She was a lady.

 

[cmkrcwi]

No, she will not become "The Princess William of Wales." She will become "Princess William of Wales." Only the children of a British Monarch are "The Prince or The Princess First Name"

 

[texankitcat]

As others have pointed out, William would not become The Duke of Cornwall and Rothesay if Charles predeceases The Queen as he would not be the eldest son of The Sovereign who is also the heir. The peerage can only be held by meeting both criteria.

Like George III when his father, Frederick, Prince of Wales, died, William would very likely become The Duke of Edinburgh as he would inherit his grandfather's peerages if Philip died before The Queen. Once he became King, the title would merge with the Crown and be re-created for The Earl of Wessex as originally announced.

I understand that now. As Prince Phillip is already 90, it is reasonable to expect he won't live beyond 10 more years. If the Queen grants William a dukedom on his wedding day, then why would William assume the Duke of Edniburgh title when his grandfather passes? It makes sense to me that she would grant it to Edward, if it has been decided that he will be granted that title. Of course. I am probably missing something again.

 

[Osipi]

...Whether William is granted a Dukedom or not does not entitle Kate to be referred to as Duchess of anything as she is neither a lady or princess in her own right...

As in the British peerage, the wife's title is taken from her husband's, If William is created a duke, Kate will most certainly carry the title of Duchess. And.. once they do say "I do", Kate most certainly be an HRH and as royal as they come.

The people that would refer to Diana, Princess of Wales as Princess Diana were most certainly wrong as she has never been a Princess in her own right. She was known to correct folks on this matter herself when addressed as Princess Diana. After her marriage to Charles, she was The Princess of Wales taking his titles/styles. After the divorce, she only used the divorced style Diana, Princess of Wales.

 

[Lumutqueen]

Kate will either be Princess William of Wales or Duchess Catherine of wherever. She will recieve a "The" when William becomes the actual heir.

 

[Zonk]

Regarding William and the title Duke of Edinburgh, please check this out http://www.theroyalforums.com/forums/f23/the-future-of-the-duke-of-edinburgh-title-24343.html .