8 July 2013 - 15:43
Incorrect reporting on Royal Baby’s title


Blogger

It was reported today by some people through Twitter that the title of the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge’s first child has been confirmed by Buckingham Palace. This is not the case.

The Duchess of Cambridge's child will not be known as Prince or Princess of Cambridge.

The Duchess of Cambridge’s child will not be known as Prince or Princess of Cambridge.

The title that the Royal Baby will assume from birth has been known since January of this year when Her Majesty The Queen issued a special letters patent which said that ALL children of the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge will have the title of Prince or Princess and the style of Royal Highness.

This means that the Royal Baby will be either:

His Royal Highness Prince <BABY’S NAME> of Cambridge
Her Royal Highness Princess <BABY’S NAME> of Cambridge

Some major sources have reported that the Royal Baby will be known as the Prince or Princess of Cambridge. This is simply not true and should be corrected urgently.

Advertisment

Cambridge is a Dukedom which is held by Prince William, it is not a Principality.

It is for the same reason, as helpfully explained by one of our Twitter followers, that Prince William was Prince William of Wales but NOT Prince of Wales, which was his father.

British title conventions say that a child takes their father’s territorial designation. E.g. The Duke of York’s daughters are Princess Beatrice of York and Princess Eugenie of York.

The letters patent also granted the style of Royal Highness (HRH) to the children of the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge, so this was also already known.

Photo Credit: © 2013 Karl Cooper, all rights reserved.



Spotted an Error?
Edited by Jordon-Lee




  • Guest

    If you could be so kind to also say the same about Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge’s title and the fact she does not have a Middleton surname, that would be so appreciated.

    • Royal Central

      We have done this, in fact we have a campaign going to encourage the media to do this. See at: http://www.royalcentral.co.uk/sitenews/katemiddleton-7434

    • Rita

      I don’t understand what’s the problem with calling her Catherine Middleton. It’s her dynastic name, and the name she will go down in history as (same way we speak of Catherine of Aragon, Catherine of Valois, and Catherine of Braganza — and not “Queen Catherine”). It’s certainly more correct than calling her “Princess Kate” or (worse even) “Duchess Kate”.

      • Elizabeth

        Because she has chosen to give up the surname of Middleton. It isn’t her dynastic name now as she has married into a new family. If one wants to be truly correct, she never had any dynastic name.
        The three Queen’s mentioned were known by where they came from. Catherine OF Aragon. Not Catherine Aragon. The Duchess of Cambridge does not come FROM Middleton. She was a Middleton and now isn’t, and this by her own choice.

        • Mark Arbeen

          I agree. We never refer to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Queen Mother as Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon, we refer to her as Queen Elizabeth the Queen Mother. The same convention applies here. I guess it is the problem with modern society that does not like women giving up their maiden name and assume their husband’s name.

        • Sami

          Plus the fact that Duchess of Cambridge is her royal title upon her marriage to Prince William/Duke of Cambridge. Referring to her as Catherine Middleton just disrespectful of that title. She doesn’t even like being referred to as Catherine Middleton now that she is married.

  • Marilyn Braun

    The Telegraph and the Daily Mal were reporting that their child would be the first ever Prince/Princess of Cambridge, which is also untrue.

  • Mark Arbeen

    I do have a question: Normally, a son of a duke would take one of the duke’s subsidiary titles as their courtesy title. Since the Duke of Cambridge is also known as the Earl of Strathearn and Baron Carrickfergus, could not his son (if that is what the new baby is) use Earl of Strathearn? Just asking, as a dumb, royalist, American.

    • Royal Central

      The Royal Baby will already hold a title in its own right from birth. Courtesy titles (e.g. Earl of Strathearn) would have been assumed if the [male] child didn’t have a title in its own right already, which it will. Hope this makes sense.

      • Mark Arbeen

        Thank you so much for that explanation. It is much appreciated.

  • mktv2000

    From Royal Examiner – I ended up having to trim my headline to make it fit and makes my article sound wrong…but at least the body of my article was correct!! (ugh) I was surprised that the mayor of Cambridge, or whoever the official was that was quoted all over, was saying the baby was the first one. That didn’t make sense at all. Any google search would have told him that.


This is the short link.

To receive the latest Royal Central posts straight to your email inbox, enter your email address below and press subscribe.

Join 378 other subscribers

Blogs