Prince William and Catherine Middleton Possible Titles

[branchg]

This is what I believe is the case. More than anything, The Queen is well-aware that divorce is now a reality for the royal family and will be reluctant to add any wrinkles to the already established practice and precedent for styling of wives.

 

[Sister Morphine]

What is wonky to me about this article is that William doesn't want a dukedom or earldom or peerage of any kind, but he wants his wife to be styled as a blood-royal princess. Perhaps he's not as smart as I thought.

That's partly why I don't believe anything in these articles. That's the inconsistency that leads me to believe it's all a bunch of hooey.

 

[Sister Morphine]

This means what, exactly? Unless it's coming from a Palace source, or William is physically interviewed on TV and the words come out of his mouth, it's mere speculation not to be taken as fact. Hence why I said, "for the last time, there's no proof etc,."

Of course we'll find out next Friday, but continuing to say that doesn't change the fact that it's highly unlikely the Queen will do something for a granddaughter-in-law she didn't do for any closer relations, especially women who are nearer to the crown than Catherine will be.

The only woman closer to the crown than Catherine will be after April 29th is Camilla. Therefore, I have to differ with you on this issue.

She didn't make Diana a princess in her own right, she didn't make Camilla a princess in her own right, she hasn't made any of her other daughters-in-law princesses in their own right, she didn't make any of her cousins' wives princesses in their own right, she has not at any time during her reign given anyone princely status in their own right EXCEPT Philip, and that was merely to restore the princely status he had before he married her. That's it. She's allowed two women to call themselves Princess X, and that was the Dowager Duchess of Gloucester and the Dowager Duchess of Kent, and she was born a princess of the blood royal to begin with. However they were her aunts and very close to her. Catherine is the wife of her grandson, and while said grandson will be King, he is of no more importance now than his father.

 

[Royal_Eagle]

What is wonky to me about this article is that William doesn't want a dukedom or earldom or peerage of any kind, but he wants his wife to be styled as a blood-royal princess. Perhaps he's not as smart as I thought.

Or more likely the newspapers got it all wrong. Wouldn't be the first time nor the last time they did that.

 

[1222]

Or more likely the newspapers got it all wrong. Wouldn't be the first time nor the last time they did that.

Very true you can never really believe the newspapers .I think some of the newspapers will print anything about the royals to sell the paper.

On Catherine's title come next Friday. I believe Prince William will respect his Grandma choice. The Firm is like any where else you work, there are rules to follow.

 

[Thena]

Perhaps, after having been known as Prince William his entire life, he doesn't wish to assume another name. A new title wouldn't give him any more position or income than he currently has. And he would wish for Katherine to retain her own name as well. Allowing Katherine to be styled as Princess Katherine need not upset an entire apple cart of tradition. They're young, they're modern, they are the hope and future of the monarchy.

To be fair, in the military, it is known and expected that people will change titles as they move up through the ranks. William might view the royal family in the same way. As members of the The Firm move up in rank and importance, they gain new titles. Not only do royal men gain dukedoms on their marriage, but it also marks that William has been taking on additional duties in representing his grandmother abroad.

On the other hand- heaven forbid, if William were to die, Katherine would be left without a real title- except for that of "Princess William."

I'm sure that if that were to happen, the Queen (or Charles, if he was king at that point) would grant her some sort of title in her own right.

 

[Sister Morphine]

Once Charles is King, Catherine automatically becomes The Duchess of Cornwall, the Duchess of Rothesay and a host of other titles. So if William predeceases his father, Catherine would become the Dowager Duchess of Cornwall. She'd have a title. If William dies before the Queen does, but after he and Catherine have had children, and William hadn't been given a dukedom/earldom on his wedding day, the Queen (or later on Charles) could give Catherine some title as the mother of the future king/queen, but who knows.

 

[Americanskipper]

You need to travel back to George III. He was Prince of Wales but never the Duke of Cornwall, because he was not George II's eldest son and heir, he was his grandson. In order to be Duke of Cornwall, you must be the sovereign's eldest son and heir. If Charles dies before the Queen, William cannot be the Duke of Cornwall, because he is not the Queen's eldest son, though he would be her heir.

I think you misread my post. You give an example of one who is heir but not the monarch's eldest son. My question was regarding how one could be the eldest son of the monarch, and not be the heir.

 

[Americanskipper]

Reading everyone's post, I still think making William an Earl makes the most sense. Every other scenario has some slight negative consequence. Making William an earl has positive results all around!.

 

[Sister Morphine]

It was said before that in order to be the Duke of Cornwall, you must fulfill two roles: You must be the eldest son of the sovereign, and you must be the heir. You can't be one or the other, you must be both. You then asked why everyone says there are two requirements, and I answered by giving an example of an heir who was not the eldest son, and thus was not the Duke of Cornwall.

Obviously if you are the eldest son, you are also the heir, unless of course Letters Patent are issued or something else happens where that changes. However, you asked a specific question about why people say there are two requirements, and I answered that.

 

[abcdxyz]

I can't think of any time when the eldest living son of the monarch would also not be the heir apparent. Except maybe if the eldest living son was Catholic or married to a Catholic.

I think you just answered your own question!

 

[HRHofNothing]

There have been no situations thus far where the eldest son was not also the heir. This can only happen as it currently stands in two ways:

1)The eldest son loses his rights if he marries a Catholic or becomes on himself

2)An Act of Parliament names a different heir for whatever reason

If the law of sucession were to be changed to allow equaly sucession rights for both genders then another reason..

3)He is the oldest son but has an older sister who is the heir (the situation in Sweden right now)

 

[Iluvbertie]

)

The Prince William brand is a strong one- it's good for the monarchy for the heir presumptive to have a strong brand.

Prince William is not the heir presumptive.

He is the heir apparent to the heir apparent.

Heirs apparent can't be replaced in the line of succession and no new child to his father can replace William as his father's heir apparent.

Heirs presumptive can be replaced in the line of succession - the Queen was always the heiress presumptive because a younger son would automatically replace her.

 

[Iluvbertie]

I think you misread my post. You give an example of one who is heir but not the monarch's eldest son. My question was regarding how one could be the eldest son of the monarch, and not be the heir.

Under the current situation you can't be the eldest son and not the heir apparent but you can be the heir apparent and not be the eldest son.

You have to be both of these things though to be the Duke of Cornwall and Duke of Rothesay.

There have been only a couple of cases where the heir apparent wasn't the eldest son - George I and George III are the only two I can think of. Neither were able to hold the titles of Cornwall and Rothesay because neither of them were ever the eldest son of the monarch.

Monarchs like William IV, Victoria, George VI and Elizabeth II were all only ever heirs/heiresses presumptive as the birth of a legitimate child/son would have replaced them so they also were never eligible (and the same with James II, Anne, Mary I and Elizabeth I).

 

[Duke of Leaside]

Under the current situation you can't be the eldest son and not the heir apparent but you can be the heir apparent and not be the eldest son.

You have to be both of these things though to be the Duke of Cornwall and Duke of Rothesay.

There have been only a couple of cases where the heir apparent wasn't the eldest son - George I and George III are the only two I can think of. Neither were able to hold the titles of Cornwall and Rothesay because neither of them were ever the eldest son of the monarch.

Monarchs like William IV, Victoria, George VI and Elizabeth II were all only ever heirs/heiresses presumptive as the birth of a legitimate child/son would have replaced them so they also were never eligible (and the same with James II, Anne, Mary I and Elizabeth I).

I think what we're missing here is that the two requirements are
1) must be heir apparent
2) must be oldest LIVING son of the monarch

It is because of this 2nd requirement that George V could be Duke of Cornwall in Jan. 1901 when his father became King Edward VII. He was oldest LIVING son and heir apparent. (Not oldest son because his older brother Prince Albert Victor, Duke of Clarence and Avondale had died in 1892) Because Prince Albert Victor died without having had any children, The Duke of York (future George V) was able to become Duke Of Cornwall when he became heir apparent.

So if Charles had died with no children, Andrew would have become Duke of Cornwall, but if Charles died now: no Duke of Cornwall.

William would be heir apparent but not oldest living son of the monarch.

Andrew would be oldest living son of the monarch but not heir apparent.

In summary, for Duke of Cornwall it's Heir apparent and oldest LIVING son of the monarch. If not for the "living" part, George V couldn't have been Duke of Cornwall.

I hope this helps.

 

[Kataryn]

This is what I believe is the case. More than anything, The Queen is well-aware that divorce is now a reality for the royal family and will be reluctant to add any wrinkles to the already established practice and precedent for styling of wives.

Especially as she cleared that situation after both Andrews and Charles divorce. I read on these forums that Sarah was allowed to keep her HRH after the divorce till the queen issued explicit letter patents to remove this title from her and Diana (that is: from divorced wifes in general).

After all, it's not her problem that the media and some of the public don't seem to understand the principle - I bet William knows it extremely well and thus knows that Catherine can always sign her private letters with either just "Catherine" or with "Catherine Wales" like he is known as "William Wales" when they refer to just name and not title. OTOH on accepting a peerage he must change his professional name from Flight Lieutenant William Wales to Flight Lieutenant William X (Cambridge, Clarence, Sussex, whatever peerage he will get) and maybe that's what he doesn't want and thus want to stay Prince William of Wales.

 

[pacomartin]

Princess Marina

She's allowed two women to call themselves Princess X, and that was the Dowager Duchess of Gloucester and the Dowager Duchess of Kent, and she was born a princess of the blood royal to begin with. However they were her aunts and very close to her. Catherine is the wife of her grandson, and while said grandson will be King, he is of no more importance now than his father.

In the case of the Dowager Duchess of Kent, she remained a Princess of Greece and Denmark, so I don't think she actually needed the permission of the queen to use the title she was born with.

In the case of the Dowager Duchess of Gloucester, the additional problem is that there was still another "Princess Alice" alive who was a princess of the blood royal. The two Princess Alices were sisters in law.

You seem 100% sure that the Queen will not modify tradition. It was not that long ago that “Mrs. John Smith” was proper etiquette for commoners. The precedents of Diana, and Camilla are not that relevant, as neither woman was saddled with the Princess male-firstname style.

 

[Kataryn]

In the case of the Dowager Duchess of Kent, she remained a Princess of Greece and Denmark, so I don't think she actually needed the permission of the queen to use the title she was born with.

I think she needed it because on becoming a British citizen Marina could only keep and use her foreign title of princess through Royal permission. But I guess she got that permission already on marrying into the BRF.

 

[Stefan]

In the case of the Dowager Duchess of Kent, she remained a Princess of Greece and Denmark, so I don't think she actually needed the permission of the queen to use the title she was born with.

In the case of the Dowager Duchess of Gloucester, the additional problem is that there was still another "Princess Alice" alive who was a princess of the blood royal. The two Princess Alices were sisters in law.

You seem 100% sure that the Queen will not modify tradition. It was not that long ago that “Mrs. John Smith” was proper etiquette for commoners. The precedents of Diana, and Camilla are not that relevant, as neither woman was saddled with the Princess male-firstname style.

The 2 Alice's they where not sister-in.-laws. Princess Alice, Countess of Athlone was a granddaughter of Queen Vicotria, through Vicotiras youngest son Leopold, Duke of Albany and Princess Alcie, Duchess of Gloucester a daughter.-in-law of King George V.

 

[Iluvbertie]

I think she needed it because on becoming a British citizen Marina could only keep and use her foreign title of princess through Royal permission. But I guess she got that permission already on marrying into the BRF.

She didn't need permission to be HRH Princess Marina of Greece and Denmark. She couldn't be deprived of that on marriage. Like a 'Lady' who marries they remain a Lady xxx.

She wasn't Princess Marina of the UK but she was always a princess in her own right.

After her marriage to refer to her as Princess Marina of Kent was wrong but she was still Princess Marina of Greece and Denmark.

 

[Americanskipper]

Another issue which related to titles for William and Kate which I don't think has been discussed at all, is the simply and very practical issue of salary. As Duke of Cornwall, Charles gets alot of money to support himself. While I realize William is not going to go hungry, I think some dukedoms (I don't know which ones) come with land and financial rewards, while others do not. Is the same true of earls? Does Andrew and Edward earn alot of money as a result of their titles? If so, what would be the financial rewards of being made duke or earl of the leading candidates?

 

[Iluvbertie]

Another issue which related to titles for William and Kate which I don't think has been discussed at all, is the simply and very practical issue of salary. As Duke of Cornwall, Charles gets alot of money to support himself. While I realize William is not going to go hungry, I think some dukedoms (I don't know which ones) come with land and financial rewards, while others do not. Is the same true of earls? Does Andrew and Edward earn alot of money as a result of their titles? If so, what would be the financial rewards of being made duke or earl of the leading candidates?

Andrew and Edward get nothing from their titles as there is no set land or other income associated with these titles (same for Gloucester and Kent). These four are supported by the private income of the Queen.

Cornwall was set up to provide an independent income for the heir to the throne - independent of the monarch by the way.

The other royal duchy which provides an income is Lancaster - but that is the private income of the monarch.

Other Dukedoms that have incomes have come about because they also included estates at a time when land provided wealth. The landed aristocracy frequently were able to diversify into some form of industry to add to their wealth e.g. Duke of Westminster. The Duke of Marlborough was given Blenheim and its land as a thank you from the monarch and nation (for a peppercorn rent of one flag about the Battle of Blenheim to be handed personally to the monarch on the anniversary of that battle - hence the Duke of Marlborough is always at Balmoral for the start of the grouse hunting season as the battel was either the 11th or 13th August and the grouse hunting seasons starts on the 12th). A similar situation arose with the Duke of Wellington only his flag has to be presented on the anniversary of the Battle of Waterloo. The nation and monarch (actually the Prince Regent) gave the first duke the lands around his estate.

William is independently wealthy thanks to his mother's death as he inherited half her estate and would be very close to gaining full control of his share (I think that is next year). In the meantime he has the income from his share of the estate and he has whatever allowance his father has made for him from the income of the Duchy of Cornwall. He also has his military pay (and as I heard that Harry's would be getting a pay rise to about 70,000 pounds or dollars - I can't remember - with his most recent promotion) and William is on the equivalent rank I would assume that William will be on a similar income.

No title that the Queen gives him will come with any income.

 

[Sister Morphine]

The precedents of Diana, and Camilla are not that relevant, as neither woman was saddled with the Princess male-firstname style.

Yes they were. They just had other titles to use. Both Diana and Camilla were/are HRH The Princess Charles, Princess of Wales, Duchess of Cornwall, Duchess of Rothesay, etc,. Had Charles not been a peer at the time of either wedding, they would have been HRH The Princess Charles.

Just because they didn't use it doesn't mean they didn't have it. Sophie is HRH The Princess Edward, but she has a title and she uses it -- the Countess of Wessex. Sarah was HRH The Princess Andrew, but she had a title and she used it -- The Duchess of York.

 

[branchg]

I think she needed it because on becoming a British citizen Marina could only keep and use her foreign title of princess through Royal permission. But I guess she got that permission already on marrying into the BRF.

That is correct. Marina was "HRH The Princess George" with marriage to a son of The Sovereign. While she was born a Princess of Greece and Denmark, her royal rank and style in the UK reflected her marriage. Foreign titles can only be used in Britain when The Sovereign formally recognizes it.

With the death of The Duke, she remained "HRH The Duchess of Kent" until her son Edward married Katharine Worsley in 1961. She was permitted to assume the style of "HRH Princess Marina, Duchess of Kent" by The Queen to distinguish her from the new Duchess.

 

[NGalitzine]

She didn't need permission to be HRH Princess Marina of Greece and Denmark. She couldn't be deprived of that on marriage. Like a 'Lady' who marries they remain a Lady xxx.

She wasn't Princess Marina of the UK but she was always a princess in her own right.

After her marriage to refer to her as Princess Marina of Kent was wrong but she was still Princess Marina of Greece and Denmark.

One needs a Royal Warrant to legally use foreign royal or noble titles in the UK. Social use is different. In Marina`s case she did require the approval of The Queen when she wanted to be known as HRH Princess Marina, Duchess of Kent because in the UK she was not a princess in her own right.

 

[ladongas]

Boy, was I wrong!

When this thread began, I thought it would be about a page long. Who knew it would turn into a tutorial?

 

[HRHofNothing]

I was wondering what happens in the following scenario:

William is not granted a title on his wedding day and then pre-deceases his father AND his grandmother. What would Kate be then styled as? The Dowager Princess William? I beleive she would still be a HRH as the widow of a Prince of the blood royal as long as she does not remarry.

Also, in this same secanrio if William and Kate divorce. She cannot call herself Catherine,Princess William I presume as Prince William is a proper name and not a peerage title

 

[Sister Morphine]

I was wondering what happens in the following scenario:

William is not granted a title on his wedding day and then pre-deceases his father AND his grandmother. What would Kate be then styled as? The Dowager Princess William? I beleive she would still be a HRH as the widow of a Prince of the blood royal as long as she does not remarry.

Also, in this same secanrio if William and Kate divorce. She cannot call herself Catherine,Princess William I presume as Prince William is a proper name and not a peerage title

If William predeceases both his father and grandmother, but he and Catherine have no children, she would continue be styled as HRH Princess William of Wales, if William was not granted a peerage. She would lose the title if she remarried. If they had children, and William hadn't been granted a peerage, the Queen could give her a title as the mother of the future king or queen, but I don't know. I would assume she'd be granted a life peerage of some kind, to honor her rank as the mother of the future monarch, but I can't recall off the top of my head a situation where that has happened.

If they were to divorce, she'd take on the style of a divorced woman, but not that of a divorced peeress. I believe she'd go back to being Catherine Middleton. Now, because of what happened with Diana, if they had children, I believe something different and better would be done for her to reflect the fact she's the mother of the future monarch. I do remember reading quite a bit of articles in the wake of Diana's death that more should have been done for her in deference of the fact that William would one day be king, and that his mother shouldn't have just been cast off in the way she was, as it was different than when Andrew and Sarah divorced or when Anne and Mark Philips divorced.

 

[ladyjane61]

It doesn't seem like there would be any particular reason to depart from the usual title, though -- why change it to Princess Catherine? Isn't it also incorrect to refer to Diana as Princess Diana (as the media did all the time?) Wasn't her title (before divorce), HRH Diana, Princess of Wales? Or is "The" supposed to be in there?

i think it would be great if she is named princess catherine, william and catherine is a new generation of the royal family.

 

[Zonk]

We are less than six days and counting to the wedding of Prince William of Wales and Catherine Middleton.

For the last couple of months we have been discussing possible titles for the couple. Now its time to vote.

What title will the Queen bestow on William and Catherine?

The options are: Dukes of Clarence, Cambridge, Sussex, Windsor or Kendall. Or the Earl of Something, My choice isn't listed or Nothing!

Enjoy!

Warren, wbenson & Zonk
British Forums Moderator​