Prince William and Catherine Middleton Possible Titles

[Iluvbertie]

She will still be a royal she will just be titled and styled as Lady x Windsor until her grandfather is King. weather or not this new law passes all William and Kate's children will be royals.

Zara and Peter Phillips do not carry any title...but they are still a part of the Royal family and are still Royals.. I guess it depends on how you look at it I have seen people on this forum say that Prince Albert is not a royal and that you need a HRH to be a royal.. I have a diffrent veiw,Prince Edward Choose to have his Children styled as children of an Earl does that mean they are not Royals...

Princess Anne has stated that her children aren't royal - they just have the Queen as a grandmother. I think her description of her children is currect - they aren't royal.

 

[Iluvbertie]

As I'm sure everyone has seen, the government are thinking of changing the succession laws so that if William and Kate have a girl first, she will be Queen.

However, it has occured to me that if they have a daughter in the Queen's lifetime, heir or not, she won't actually be royal. Check out my blogpost on it:

Kate

The Queen will very likely do what her father did in 1947 and shortly before the birth issue LPs to create all of William's children HRH.

Under the 1917 LPs without new LPs issued Charles would have been born as Earl of Merioneth (his father's second title which he would have used as a courtesy title) and Anne as Lady Anne Mountbatten.

George VI prevented that by issuing LPs a week before Charles was born.

 

[Lady Ann]

Then I stand corrected .... on Zara and Peter.......

 

[Polly]

Personally, I like Duke of Clarence. I'd like to see Duke of Clarence and St Andrews, revived, or Duke of Clarence and Avondale. Perhaps, though, the gossip and innuendo surrounding Albert Victor will rule out the latter.

 

[Lady Ann]

I just cant wait till the announce the title...

 

[Iluvbertie]

You know I am beginning to think that there won't be a title at all and that the Queen will simply let it be known that Kate can be known as Princess Catherine - with no official LPs or anything - in much the same way that she let it be known that Louise and James are Lady Louise and Viscount Severn.

Her will is all that it needs so if she says 'yes' then that is all that is needed.

We may very well have seen the last of the royal dukes, particularly now that they don't get automatic seats in the House of Lords so the title won't stop them being able to stand for a seat in the House of Commons.

 

[Lady Ann]

Can you imagine the pages that would generate...on this forum

 

[branchg]

The Queen will very likely do what her father did in 1947 and shortly before the birth issue LPs to create all of William's children HRH.

I think she is likely to do this in any case because William's children will be HRH as the male-line grandchildren of The King and may even become the children of The Sovereign if The Queen manages to outlive her son.

 

[branchg]

You know I am beginning to think that there won't be a title at all and that the Queen will simply let it be known that Kate can be known as Princess Catherine - with no official LPs or anything - in much the same way that she let it be known that Louise and James are Lady Louise and Viscount Severn.

Her will is all that it needs so if she says 'yes' then that is all that is needed.

We may very well have seen the last of the royal dukes, particularly now that they don't get automatic seats in the House of Lords so the title won't stop them being able to stand for a seat in the House of Commons.

I still think The Queen will grant a Dukedom the morning of the wedding. The fact is William may never become The Duke of Cornwall if his father doesn't survive to be King, or he would the heir to the throne for a relatively short period of time.

If The Queen lives to be 105, she will be on the throne another twenty years and Charles will be 83 years old when he is King. There is also the possibility the Government and Parliament may decide to skip Charles and crown William instead due to his advanced age.

 

[PrincePatrick]

I still think The Queen will grant a Dukedom the morning of the wedding. The fact is William may never become The Duke of Cornwall if his father doesn't survive to be King, or he would the heir to the throne for a relatively short period of time.

If The Queen lives to be 105, she will be on the throne another twenty years and Charles will be 83 years old when he is King. There is also the possibility the Government and Parliament may decide to skip Charles and crown William instead due to his advanced age.

I could see Charles becoming Regent after his mother becomes too disabled to perform her duties, but I wouldn't be surprised at all if she outlives him.

Edit: As for William's title(s) I rather like the Duke of Cambridge. Can't wait to follow all this next week and the months and years to follow!

 

[cmbruno]

I don't know if this has been discussed before but I think it is very weird that it is wrong to call Kate Princess Catherine; the correct way being Princess William. But when William becomes King the correct way to call her will be Queen Catherine and not Queen William.
I just wonder what was the logic used when English (British) styling was created and if in Scotland the styling was the same before the United Kingdom.
And I think that Iluvbertie might be correct, no titles for William and Kate for now...

 

[PrincePatrick]

I don't know if this has been discussed before but I think it is very weird that it is wrong to call Kate Princess Catherine; the correct way being Princess William. But when William becomes King the correct way to call her will be Queen Catherine and not Queen William.
I just wonder what was the logic used when English (British) styling was created and if in Scotland the styling was the same before the United Kingdom.
And I think that Iluvbertie might be correct, no titles for William and Kate for now...

I think you could question the logic behind a lot of British Royal traditions, but it all boils down to someone did it this way 500 years ago and we're not going to change now...

 

[Melis9900]

I'm a first time poster and not nearly as learned in all of this as you all are but I was wondering if there is a chance that the Queen would create a title for Mr. Middleton . .Perhaps as a baron.

Melissa

 

[Royal_Eagle]

If The Queen lives to be 105, she will be on the throne another twenty years and Charles will be 83 years old when he is King. There is also the possibility the Government and Parliament may decide to skip Charles and crown William instead due to his advanced age.

There is almost no chance of Prince William "skipping" Prince Charles--it would take an Act of Parliament and is such a huge step to skip generation that it may cause unintended consequences. For one, it'd set a dangerous precedent where it'd become a "popularity" contest everytime there is a change of the Crown. If Prince Charles isn't fit to take on the duties once he becomes King, then Prince William will probably become the Regent until his Dad pass away. The main idea of the monarchy is to provide a stable and predictable Head of State, especially the transition part.

In any case, Prince Charles apparently take a very good care of himself and probably has the same long life genes that his parents and his grandmother has, as well as improving medical care, so he'll probably live long enough to ascend to the Throne while still sharp.

JMHO though....

 

[cmbruno]

Who am I to suggest anything to be changed in a culture and a way of living that isn't mine... I just think that there is always an explanation for everything. It is like Grammar, some people simply tell you it is so because it is so but if you dig down you will certainly find a an explantion, sometimes an amazing one.

 

[Royal_Eagle]

I'm a first time poster and not nearly as learned in all of this as you all are but I was wondering if there is a chance that the Queen would create a title for Mr. Middleton . .Perhaps as a baron.

Melissa

Very interesting question....however the Royal Family has a history of ignoring the parents of whoever married into the Family--although that's NOT to say Prince William will do the same though. Maybe in a few years or so, the Queen might be persuaded by Prince William to grant them a title, although I suspect the Middletons don't really care about that sort of thing anyway.

 

[Royal_Eagle]

Who am I to suggest anything to be change in a culture and a way of living that isn't mine... I just think that there is always an explanation for everything. It is like Grammar, some people simply tell you it is so because it is so but if you dig down you will certainly find a very an explantion, sometimes an amazing one.

Yep, there's always something behind all these tradiations--that's part of the fun!

 

[PrincePatrick]

Yep, there's always something behind all these tradiations--that's part of the fun!

Yes and in this case, women were Princess Husband's Name because it reflects more the tradition in marriage of the woman being subordinate to her husband; however, in the case of a Queen she is annointed and crowned in her own right, albeit alongside her husband. So, even though Queen Consorts don't take precendence over, and aren't really equal to their husbands, there's something greater that goes along with it that allows more conservative cultures to view them as something above your average woman (even a Princess!)

Just my take...

 

[texankitcat]

And they are also wrong if they, or any of us, refer to Camilla as Camilla, Duchess of Cornwall, Sophie as Sophie, Countess of Wessex and Sarah - when married - as Sarah, Duchess of York.

Those forms are for divorced wives of peers and the last time I checked Camilla and Sophie are married. Their names simply don't exist in their titles at all. They are HRH The Duchess of Cornwall or HRH The Countess of Wessex. To refer to them by name is fine so long as you don't add the title and thus divorce them from their husbands.

Sarah is now correctly Sarah, Duchess of York as the divorced wife of a peer.

If William is given a title then Kate will be HRH The Duchess/Countess/Marchioness etc of xxx but not Katherine, Duchess/Countess/Marchioness etc of xxx unless she divorces William.

If we can't get it right, and we claim to be followers of things like this, can we blame other people, without our interest or the press who feed the masses their pulp?

Of course Bertie, however the fact is most people just don't understand the archaic and rather sexist titles for wives of the BRF. The media and general public are not going to leave her given name out simply because it isn't technically correct to add it before her married title. It just won't happen. We have known her as "Kate" for nearly a decade, and even with a title she will in the media and uninformed public be referred to as either Kate/Catherine, Duchess of x or Princess Kate/Catherine if William doesn't take another title.

 

[Zonk]

I'm a first time poster and not nearly as learned in all of this as you all are but I was wondering if there is a chance that the Queen would create a title for Mr. Middleton . .Perhaps as a baron.

Melissa

Welcome Melis9900!

In a nutshell I don't see that happening in this day and age. Hundreds of years ago, the family of the person marrying into the British Royal Family were given titles and privileges (think the Thomas Bolyen and the Seymour Family). Princess Margaret's husband, was the last person to be given a title when he was made Earl of Snowdon. And honestly, with the negative press that is being associated with the Middleton's and the Coat of Arms and the nastiness of them not knowing their place...they could definitely do without it.

 

[Polly]

I think that Iluvbertie has a point. I also wouldn't be surprised if he says 'no thank you' to any new title. He's been behaving very independently and speaking out quite purposefully, so far (e.g. he won't allow Catherine's family to be side-lined or ignored as others have been).

 

[rawsilk]

I'm a first time poster and not nearly as learned in all of this as you all are but I was wondering if there is a chance that the Queen would create a title for Mr. Middleton . .Perhaps as a baron.

Melissa

That never occurred to me. I don't know why he would need a title. However, if she wished to honor him for his accomplishments as a man of business, I would think she might knight him. Usually if a man is successful in business or entertainment or whatever, he is knighted. (For example, Elton John became Sir Elton John.) Then, if the Queen wishes to elevate someone further, she makes him a Peer (as she did when she raised Laurence Olivier from being Sir Laurence Olivier to Lord Olivier).

rawsilk

 

[Royal_Eagle]

Of course Bertie, however the fact is most people just don't understand the archaic and rather sexist titles for wives of the BRF. The media and general public are not going to leave her given name out simply because it isn't technically correct to add it before her married title. It just won't happen. We have known her as "Kate" for nearly a decade, and even with a title she will in the media and uninformed public be referred to as either Kate/Catherine, Duchess of x or Princess Kate/Catherine if William doesn't take another title.

I agree with texankitcat--in this group, most of us have this specialized knowledge of the royalty that most people don't. Sure we can go around and correct people all the time, but we'd be thought of as being pedantic about what is seemingly minor issues, and let's admit it--it IS minor thing compared to what most people are concerned about. The sky isn't going to fall just because we don't call them the correct titles.

This isn't the only field with bunch of pedantic people who has specialized knowledge/undersatnding of what most people might consider 'minor'. There are a lot of other narrow fields like this, in which folks who has the knowledge and understand, consider it important (or very interesting at least).

So while we KNOW the correct titles, etc, most people just don't care about it, because it's minor to them. We need to respect their choice.

So I'm just saying there's no need to get all upset just because people don't use the correct titles, etc--people are going to call them by whatever make the most sense to them.

Personally, I think the Queen will give Prince William a Dukedom, or at the least an Earldom, if only to keep with the tradition. But I wouldn't be too shocked if they went without any new titles.

 

[pacomartin]

Welcome Melis9900!

In a nutshell I don't see that happening in this day and age. Hundreds of years ago, the family of the person marrying into the British Royal Family were given titles and privileges (think the Thomas Bolyen and the Seymour Family). Princess Margaret's husband, was the last person to be given a title when he was made Earl of Snowdon. And honestly, with the negative press that is being associated with the Middleton's and the Coat of Arms and the nastiness of them not knowing their place...they could definitely do without it.

I agree with Zonk. Since 1964 there have been very few hereditary titles given. While Britain doesn't seem interested in dissolving it's peerage, it is no longer interested in growing it.

The titles that have been given are almost all titles for life. Making him a Baron for life is possible, but I doubt a hereditary title is in the mix.

The hereditary titles for the royal family have been very few as well.While Elizabeth I never created a Duke in her entire reign, Elizabeth II has only created one (Duke of York for Prince Andrew).

 

[pacomartin]

As I'm sure everyone has seen, the government are thinking of changing the succession laws so that if William and Kate have a girl first, she will be Queen.

However, it has occured to me that if they have a daughter in the Queen's lifetime, heir or not, she won't actually be royal. Check out my blogpost on it:

Kate

I think the key here is the daughter won't automatically be royal. I would be shocked if William and Catherine have a girl, and the queen does not intervene and make her royal.

 

[rawsilk]

While Elizabeth I never created a Duke in her entire reign, Elizabeth II has only created one (Duke of York for Prince Andrew).

Well, technically speaking, Elizabeth II did not create "the Duke of York", of course! The title had been around for centuries. She simply granted it to Andrew.

rawsilk

 

[rawsilk]

I think the key here is the daughter won't automatically be royal. I would be shocked if William and Catherine have a girl, and the queen does not intervene and make her royal.

I think there is some confusion here over where one is in the line of succession-i.e. whether the line of succession should follow the male line or not-and whether one is "royal". Some people want the line of succession to ensure that a female child born to Prince William and Catherine would have the first place behind William in the line of succession. That is not the same thing as being, "royal". Any child born to Prince William and Catherine would be a member of the royal family.

rawsilk

 

[Iluvbertie]

I think there is some confusion here over where one is in the line of succession-i.e. whether the line of succession should follow the male line or not-and whether one is "royal". Some people want the line of succession to ensure that a female child born to Prince William and Catherine would have the first place behind William in the line of succession. That is not the same thing as being, "royal". Any child born to Prince William and Catherine would be a member of the royal family.

rawsilk

But is being a member of the royal family the same as being royal?

According to Princess Anne - no.

There is no doubt that her children are members of the royal family but she herself has said that they are not royal.

If plain Mr Peter Philips and Ms Zara Philips are not royal but they have the Queen as a grandmother then what makes a person royal?

It would seem to be logically the next step that to be royal one must be HRH Prince/Princess and thus under the present LPs the first born daughter of William won't be royal. It is possible that the Queen will wait until Kate is pregnant and then find out the sex of the child before doing anything - like issuing LPs to give HRH to all of William's children rather than just the first born son - in anticipation of a change in the primogeniture laws.

 

[Duchess of Darwin]

Provided Charles doesn't restrict princely status to children of The Sovereign, wouldn't any children born to William and Katherine aquire Princely status when Charles becomes King?

I know that they are unlikely to be born with princely titles, but won't they gain them when The Queen dies?

 

[MRSJ]

Provided Charles doesn't restrict princely status to children of The Sovereign, wouldn't any children born to William and Katherine aquire Princely status when Charles becomes King?

I know that they are unlikely to be born with princely titles, but won't they gain them when The Queen dies?

I believe so and no matter what as it stands now as the oldest son of the heir then William and Kate's son will be a Prince for sure (once Charles is King I mean and if he makes no changes to titles)......