Many people assume that because the Duchess of Cambridge is a member of the Royal Family (and married to a prince), she automatically takes the title of ‘Princess Catherine’. In this post, I’ll explain why this isn’t the case and why, to the disappointment of many fans, she will – as things stand – never hold the title of Princess Kate.
The drama began with the declaration on Prince George’s birth registration back in 2013 that Kate was a ‘Princess of the United Kingdom’. A common royal description on such documents, yet this time the title aroused big questions from some who saw it as an indication Kate had been made a princess.
After consulting with Kensington Palace, we were told the reason why she was referred to as a Princess of the United Kingdom on the birth document is because she is one… but not quite as you think.
Through marriage she is ‘Princess William’, because she takes the female form of her husband’s titles. In the same way as when a commoner marries, the wife takes her husband’s name and rank, the same is very much true for titles.
Despite this title being held through marriage, it’s incredibly unlikely Kate will ever be made a princess in her own right. In Europe, there is a precedent for this – where in many of the European monarchies, those who marry into the royal families are, by default, made ‘prince’ or ‘princess’ in their own right. This arguably simpler system is not used in the UK however where custom and usage has evolved so that the title is – almost invariably – only given to royals-by-birth or ‘blood royals’.
A special document known as the 1917 letters patent regulates the use of the title Prince/Princess for the most part, detailing that it is to be held by all children of any Sovereign, all children born to sons of any Sovereign and the eldest son of the eldest son of the Prince of Wales. In 2012, The Queen created a new letters patent which now grants the title to all children of the eldest son of the Prince of Wales. In practice, this part means that all children of Prince William will be Princes and Princesses now.
There have been very few occasions when those who do not fit the description of ‘blood royal’ have been given the title in their own right, and this mostly happens in the case of royal widows, such as Princess Alice, Duchess of Gloucester – allowed to use the title of Princess by The Queen and Princess Marina, Duchess of Kent. Needless to say, Kate fits neither of those criteria.
Another side of this is the question ‘what about when William is Prince of Wales?’ If and when the title of Prince of Wales is granted to Prince William after Prince Charles becomes King, he would simply become HRH The Prince of Wales, whilst Catherine (currently Duchess of Cambridge) would adopt the title of ‘HRH The Princess of Wales’. But that would still not make her ‘Princess Catherine’ – the title of Princess of Wales is not the same as being a Princess.
For instance, even though people refer Diana, Princess of Wales ‘Princess Diana’, she never actually held that title and it was used by many as a shortened – though incorrect – version of her title. The same applies to Kate – if and when she becomes Princess of Wales.
In the normal way of things now, she’ll never become a ‘Princess’ in her own right. There’s no precedent for affording the title to royals in her position and there’s no reason to think that this tradition will be broken any time soon – or at all.
If you have any further questions about Kate’s titles or anything you’ve read here, enter them into the comments box below.
Photo Credit: Defence Images
I also seem to remember that at the time of their wedding it was said by either Buckingham Palace or Clarence House that there would be no objection to calling her Princess Catherine – I so wish it was adopted by one and all as I’m heartily tired oh hearing her referred to as Kate Middleton by commentators and newspapers!
Never say never. She could one day end up HRH Princess Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge (Alice, Marina) due to unfortunate circumstances.
Both of them were Princess on their own right.
No, they were not. Princess Alice was born The Lady Alice Montagu-Douglas-Scott. Her father was the 7th Duke of Buccleuch & Queensberry. She was only HRH by marriage. The Queen allowed her to use the title Princess Alice, Duchess of Gloucester as a courtesy it did not make her a princess in her own right. Marina was a Princess of Greece and Denmark but that does not qualify one to use the title Princess before their christian name as a member of the British Royal Family. Princess Marina was never addressed as “Princess Marina” after her marriage until, during her widowhood, she sought and received HM’s permission to be known as Princess Marina, Duchess of Kent. Marina was said to be very disturbed by not receiving higher precedence and the right to continue to be known as “Princess Marina” after her marriage. That is simply not how it works in the UK. Recall the problem with JFK’s sister-in-law and her husband not being addressed as Prince or Princess during the state visit because they had not received permission to use their foreign titles in the UK.
Even if HRH Princess Alexandra of Luxembourg married Prince Harry she would not be entitled to style herself as Princess Alexandra of Wales or as Princess Alexandra, The Duchess of Sussex after their marriage. She would become HRH Prince Henry of Wales or HRH The Duchess of Sussex (the title Harry is said to be promised). She would have to seek the Queen’s permission to style herself as Princess Alexandra (of anything or nothing) after the marriage. I suspect that HM would not allow grand her permission to use the title of Princess before her christian name because it is the British custom that only females of British blood royal are permitted to use the title before their names during their marriages. During her widowhood she would likely follow HM’s new tradition of being styled HRH Princess Alexandra, Duchess of Sussex.
If Princess Alexandra of Luxembourg married Prince Harry, she would take the title of HRH Princess Henry/Harry, and/or Duchess of Sussex; not Prince Henry of Wales (as your comment said).
Prince Henry is NOT “of Wales.” He is Prince Henry, who, when occasion demands (such as the military) must have a surname, when he does not. Using
Wales” as a surname, by someone who has no surname, is a matter of bowing to a computer society when certain “boxes” must be filled. We no longer do business by “cards” (although BP may, on some occasions).
I will ignore the comment on “sex” since I have never been partial to frowsy red heads (which is how I see Harry after his “round” in Las Vegas), where he pranced around (like a r**** (no, not royal) w*****) in his birthday suit.
With all due respect, I am quite certain that he is “His Royal Highness Prince Henry of Wales.” I would invite skeptical readers to check with any credible online source; Wikipedia is as good as any other.
Or perhaps Royal Central could settle the question for us.
You have the right to ignore sex, but I would dissent on that as well, and urge you to reconsider your position.
Ricky, I read that Charles will not be King Charles III, out of deference to Bonnie Prince Charlie, and unfortunate associations with Charles I and II. He will be King George VII, if I have the number right (not sure re number).
The original source of that story was one of the tabloids, trying to boost their circulation. Clarence House has discredited that, saying Prince Charles has no such plans.
But if it were true, your number would have been correct.
Thanks!
Princess Alexandra could choose to keep her title after marriage as she is in line to the Luxembourg throne so she can keep calling herself Princess Alexandra of Luxembourg if she chooses to retain her rights in place of becoming a “Duchess of Sussex” in other words she would remain part of the Luxembourg nobility rather than British
If she married into the British Royal Family, she would have to stop using her Luxembourgish titles. She would not have a choice in the matter. Carolina’s post above explains in detail the same kind of situation that disturbed Princess Marina so much.
She was born a princess of a foreign royal house, but could not continue to style herself as a princess after marrying Prince George, Duke of Kent. It would be exactly the same today for a hypothetical marriage of Princess Alexandra of Luxembourg to Prince Harry.
Earlier, Marina was still styled as Princess and that is why they still called her princess Marina. Prince Philip could have remained a Prince, but he renounced all his titles, because of the war.
The Queen could do that today but will not because of the problems that would arise with what to call Camilla. (Be still my soul.)
I agree. The Queen made Philip a Prince in 1957. He renounced his title of Prince when he married her so he was NOT a Prince at the time she granted him that title in his own right in 1957. At some point in the future she could do the same for Catherine, but she won’t because of the problems you mention. However, I really believe Charles will make her a Princess in her own right when he becomes King….Long Live the Queen!!
Absolutely NOT! Your mad desire to “democratize” EVEN ROYALTY is complete nonsense!
A PRINCESS IS BORN, NOT MADE!!!! It is a CONDITION OF BIRTH not a “rank.” Diana was NEVER MADE a princess! She gave birth to royalty because of her HUSBAND’S RANK! Princess Margaret was ALWAYS a princess. Diana NEVER WAS AND NEVER WILL BE! (That’s why Tony Blair ran with that “Princess of People’s Hearts” baloney!)
NO ONE CAN “CREATE” ANYONE A PRINCESS!!!! She is either born a princess, or she never will be. That is why it is such a RARE title.
Oh, but what to call Camilla when her husband predeceases his mother?
If Prince Charles died before the Queen, Prince William would become the Prince of Wales, with several subsidiary titles including Duke of Cornwall. As his wife, Catherine would become the Princess of Wales, Duchess of Cornwall, and all the corresponding titles according to William’s elevated status.
Camilla would then be known as the Dowager Duchess of Cornwall —- unless the Queen published a Letters Patent indicating otherwise.
Not so. The Prince of Wales title must be granted…while the Dukedom of Cornwall is automatic. Were Charles to die before the Queen, she could decide to grant the Prince of Wales title to William. However, Cornwall is limited to the “eldest living son and heir” of the sovereign – meaning, if Charles dies while QEII is still on the throne, William will never become Duke of Cornwall.
Thank you, Scott. I stand corrected!
It isn’t really likely that we’ll ever again see a royal “dowager” since The Queen has instituted the tradition of styling royal widows as HRH Princess HerName, Duchess of Husband’sPeerage. It is an elegant modernization of how royal dowagers are styled. HRH Princess Camilla, Duchess of Cornwall is the most likely title for Camilla in this sad scenario.
I think Camilla would much rather have the title you mention, Carolina. That was also the case for Princess Alice, Duchess of Gloucester, wasn’t it?
Mary, like all other queens, stopped being HM The Queen and used the title HM Queen Mary after she was widowed. She never used dowager because ‘Queen Mary’ instead of THE Queen is how it is customarily done. The Queen Mother decided to use the style HM Queen Elizabeth, The Queen Mother to avoid confusion with her namesake daughter.
Yes, it was the case with Princess Alice, Duchess of Gloucester and Princess Marina, Duchess of Kent. I rather like using this for dowagers.
Princess Marina was already a princess before she was married, that is why she retained the title.
When the Queen granted special permission to her aunt, the late Princess Alice, Her Majesty established a precedent but I think it’s going a bit far to call it a “tradition”. It will be interesting to see what happens if the current Duke of Kent, for example, were to predecease his wife. Given her professed distain for continued use of her royal style (she purportedly prefers to be addressed nowadays simply as ‘Katharine Kent’), I think it unlikely that the Duchess of Kent would petition the Queen to style herself ‘Princess Katharine’. So I would bet that, in due course, she would come to be known as ‘HRH The Dowager Duchess of Kent’.
As for the Duchess of Cornwall, as has already been said, if the Prince of Wales were to predecease his mother then, all things being equal, she would become ‘HRH The Dowager Duchess of Cornwall’.
If Prince Charles passed away before his mother, The Queen. The Duke of York would be King surely?
No!
Thanks for your question, Charles. This is a lot of fun, isn’t it?
Prince Andrew, the present Duke of York, was indeed second in line for the throne for many years, but that changed with the birth of his nephew, Prince William, in 1982.
Prince Charles, the Prince of Wales, is of course first in line. Prince William is second; after him comes his newborn son, Prince George of Cambridge, who is third in the line of succession. Prince Harry is fourth at present.
Because of a recent change in the rules of succession, Princess Anne is fifth. Only then comes Prince Andrew, now sixth in line. He will be farther down the list if and when William and Kate have any more children.
I hope this is helpful (and not too much information!).
Princess Anne is most certainly not 5th in line to the throne. Firstly because the Succession to the Crown act hasn’t come into force yet and secondly, the clause on primogeniture is only retrospective to those born after 28th October 2011 – Princess Anne was born in 1950! Prince Andrew is and will remain 5th in line to the throne, even when the Succession to the Crown Act is in force. Princess Anne remains 11th in line.
Once again, this brash American has learned something new on this fascinating subject, and stands corrected.
But I hope you will agree I was right about one thing:
This really is a lot of fun!
I don’t think the recent change bumped Anne up in line. I think it went into effect for George’s generation
You’re correct. I’ve done some research into this since I posted my earlier comment, and I have to retract that part of my post.
That’s true and somewhat sad really.
Good news. With Princess Charlotte, Prince Andrew goes down another peg to 7th in line.
And his two daughters also drop down yet another peg.
And it seems both of Andrew’s daughters soon will be living in the US.
Absolutely not. Prince William, Prince George, Princess Charlotte, Prince Harry – all come before Andrew.
Charles, your question makes sense, if one thinks of the monarchy as “linear.” But, it descends, rather like a dog’s leg. When there was no “third generation,” and starting with the Queen it made sense to think of the succession as (linear) the eligible receivers were (1) Charles, (2) Andrew, (3) Edward, and (4) Anne. BUT, as soon as Charles was married and had legitimate children, the “dog leg” appears, because it drops down a level, and works out through (1) William, or (2) Harry. BUT, as soon as William was married and had legitimate children, the line of succession drops down another level. And, as soon as Prince George grows up, and starts a family, the line of succession will drop down another level. HOWEVER, if Prince George does NOT have “legitimate” issue, the right of succession transfers (in a linear fashion) to Princess Charlotte (who may have married and had (for example) 3 children, and the line would then go to Charlotte and then her first born. But, the line would first go to George, whether or not he had children. Only when “King George” dies without issue (or volunteers to give up his throne, since he has no obvious issue), does the crown go to Princess Charlotte. If she is dead, then it would go to her oldest child, and his/her issue; if he/she dies without issue, then it goes to Charlotte’s second child, then the third. However, if both George and Charlotte die without issue, then we look to Harry, or Harry’s children as the next in line.
Queen Victoria became the (unlikely) next in line to become monarch when her father (Duke of Kent and Strathearn, the 4th son of King George III, married a beautiful young widow, Princess Victoria of Saxe-Coburn-Saalfeld and they had his first legitimate child and her third child, Princess Victoria, who became the likely next Queen of England (due to all of his older brothers having no issue or out of wedlock issue).
That was a wide linear, until Queen Victoria, who then produced a long direct (downward) line of succession that produced first King Edward VII, who produced King George V, who produced King George VI, who produced Queen Elizabeth II. (Yes, there was the “year” of Edward VIII, that generally is reduced to an asterisk (he was “proclaimed” the next
“king” after George V, but was never crowned.)
Lets not go there for the way she has done to Prince Charles and the rest of the Royal family. The only thing she is deserving is the title is Divorcee for treating Prince Charles like she over ranks him and orders him around!
I dislike hearing talk of the death of Her Majesty, The Queen. She is a wonderful woman and Queen and I pray that she lives many more years. Everyone seems to be in the planning stage. LONG LIVE THE QUEEN!
Catherine can become a princess in her own right, by letters patent as a gift of the Sovereign, just as the Duke of Edinburgh was granted the title Prince of the United Kingdom
The only difference is that Prince Philip was already a Blood Prince (he was born a Prince of Greece and Denmark), so granting him the title, while a wonderful gift, was not a surprise since he was already royal in his own right.
He first had to renounce his non-British princely titles, then become a commoner as Philip Mountbatten. King George gave him the title Duke of Edinburgh just before his wedding, but he wasn’t a prince anymore.
He didn’t become a prince again until ten years later, when in 1957 the Queen issued a Letters Patent giving him the designation of Prince of the United Kingdom.
That is not totally correct. In the 1948 Letters Patent, King George VI stated: GEORGE THE SIXTH by the Grace of God of Great Britain Ireland and the British Dominions beyond the Seas King Defender of the Faith To all to whom these Presents shall come Greeting Whereas His late Majesty King George the Fifth by His Letters Patent dated the thirtieth day of November in the eighth year of His Reign did declare His Royal Pleasure that certain members of the Royal Family therein more particularly mentioned should have the style title or attribute of Royal Highness And Whereas We are desirous of defining and fixing the style and title by which the children of the marriage solemnised between Our Most dearly beloved Daughter Her Royal Highness Princess Elizabeth Alexandra Mary Duchess of Edinburgh and His Royal Highness Prince Philip Duke of Edinburgh shall be designated And Whereas for that purpose We deem it expedient that the aforesaid Letters Patent should be amended and extended la manner hereinafter declared Now Know Ye that in the exercise of Our Royal and undoubted prerogative and of our especial grace we do hereby declare Our Royal Will and Pleasure that the children of the aforesaid marriage shall have and at all times hold and enjoy the style title or attribute of Royal Highness and the titular dignity of Prince or Princess prefixed to their respective Christian names in addition to any other appellations and titles of honour which may belong to them hereafter And We do further declare Our Will and Pleasure that our Earl Marshal of England or his Deputy for the time being do cause these Our Letters or the Enrolment thereof to be recorded in our College of Arms to the end that Our Officers of Arms and all others may take due notice thereof In Witness Whereof We have caused these our Letters to be made Patent Witness Ourself at Westminster the twenty-second day of October in the twelfth year of Our Reign.”
So, as you can see, in 1948 he was considered Prince Philip Duke of Edinburgh.
There’s a lot of confusion over the Duke of Edinburgh’s title at this time because of this reference to him as a Prince in the 1948 letters patent. Whilst he is referred to as ‘Prince Philip’ in this document, all subsequent documents and official communique thereafter until 1957 refer to him without the Princely style. Additionally, the King himself amended a reference to ‘Prince Philip’ on Prince Charles’s birth certificate in 1948 to just ‘Philip, Duke of Edinburgh’.
I was hoping Royal Central would see this discussion so we could be sure about Philip’s titles. I’ve read about this issue from many different sources and was pretty sure of my facts.
And while I have your attention, I’d like to say this:
I sometimes post comments in other forums, and I often see posts that are so vicious they make me cringe. How I wish they could be as civil as the discussions here at Royal Central.
We can discuss issues here with courtesy and respect for each other, even when we might disagree. We can justly be proud of ourselves and our site, and other blogs could take a lesson from Royal Central.
Many thanks to the editors, writers, and other staff at Royal Central for the education and enjoyment they provide. I think we have something very special here, and their work is much appreciated. 😉
Amen Ricky. I think the civil discourse is evidence that we Royalists truly understand the concept of discussion without rancor!
Sophia Naturalization Act 1705; This naturalized Empress Sophia of Hanover and “the issue of her body” if Protestant. Any descendant of Sophia could claim to be the “issue of her body”, as Philip is, therefore making him a British subject and also a Prince of the United Kingdom.
Descendant, certainly. British subject, yes after he renounced his Greek and Danish titles. But not being a son of the monarch or grandson in the male line, until Elizabeth made him one was he Prince of the United Kingdom. Not sure of King George VI intentions in referring to him as prince but perhaps Elizabeth felt the need to make certain.
Rather interesting that husband’s of Elizabeth I and Victoria are titled “prince” while the husband of Mary I was king consort in England and king regnant in Spain. Henry, Lord Darnley may or may not have been king consort as was Lord Bothwell of Scotland, of course. Victoria had been so dominated by her mother that she wanted to be ABSOLUTELY certain that her rank as Queen was unsurpassed.
Queen Elizabeth I never married.
But it was not an individual one. This covered the mediate royal family ; the future children of the Queen and The Duke as the Queen and heir presumptive not and heir apparent, due to being female and the male perogative succession. If The Queens father had not done this then the children of the Queen and Duke would have had not tiles at all being only grand children of reigning monarch through the female line as created by George V in 1917. Hope that helps
Actually it came to light a few years ago that those looking into it at the time gave the incorrect information and that Prince Phillip need not and should not have had to renounce his non British titles. That was because of his blood line through his mother with Queen Victoria. It has been suggested that the civil servants in the Royal Household were so displeased at his marrrying Elizabeth that they were thrilled at any means to put him in his place.
That’s incorrect. Whenever foreign royalty marries into the House of Windsor, they must renounce all their non-British titles.
While it’s true that many palace courtiers thought Philip was an unsuitable husband for Princess Elizabeth, it had nothing to do with why he had to renounce his Greek and Danish titles.
Hi again Ricky – while these odd ‘tweets’ have been popping up I noticed this answer from you which intrigues me. (that they have to give hop their titles to marry into our royal family). What basis do you have for that statement? I confess this is not a topic I had thought of and so in spite of many years of royal watching I don’t know. However, without getting out a reference book, I can’t think of any royal, apart from Prince Phillip who has given up their titles. Secondly, it has now, some years ago been agree by the Herald/genealogists & legal eagle type people that Prince Phillip was not required and should not have been required to give up his titles since he has a direct line through his mother through Queen Victoria. Certainly the wives of Georges I II III & IV did not give up titles. And our most famous foreign royal Prince Albert most certainly did not and his were more impressive and his link to the throne nearer than that of Victoria herself. I don’t remember ever reading the Danish Princess who became our Queen Alexandra, nor May of Tek our Queen Mary did. Or did they?
Hello, Kathleen;
There haven’t been many examples of foreign royalty having to give up their non-British titles when marrying a Windsor because it wasn’t an issue until 1917. It began when King George V issued a letters patent requiring all German titles to be renounced because of anti-German sentiment at the time.
Since that time, the only foreign royals to marry into UK royalty were Prince Philip and Princess Marina. As you know, Philip was created a Prince of the United Kingdom through a Letters Patent ten years after having to give up his Greek and Danish titles.
I’ve read multiple sources that say Princess Marina was rather haughty, and very much resented having to give up her Princess of Greece title. The Queen gave her permission to be called Princess Marina in her widowhood, but only as a courtesy title; not by a Letters Patent. Alice, the Dowager Duchess of Gloucester was given the same permission, as I’m sure you already know.
This point has made me curious, as to my personal knowledge she was always affectionately known as Princess Marina rightly or wrongly, much like the late “princess” Diana, the difference being that Marina actually was a Princess in her own right.. So this afternoon I have been doing a bit of searching. I have read of her early life, engagement, marriage etc., in four bio’s and in not one of them does it mention her giving up her title/s. I did however, establish, as I already knew, that she retained the title of Duchess of Kent (refused to be called Dowager Duchess) until, her son was about to marry and the title was needed. Still refusing the ‘Dowager’ she chose to formally revert to her own title, the one by which she was best known, i.e., Princess Marina and HM The Queen readily agreed to this. I have also looked on the internet again without any reference to giving up the title. If you should come across anything on this I would be really interested. Could it be that the female line was not so hounded?
I think you might be confusing your story with that of Princess Alice, Duchess of Gloucester. Princess Marina wouldn’t have needed the permission of the Queen to use a title she was entitled to use by right of birth, whereas Princess Alice was a Princess by marriage only. Maybe you need to check your facts.
~Thanks but I am fully aware of all those facts and have indeed been putting them on this site for over a year. There are those who claim lots of knowledge but in fact know little who insist that Princess Marina was ‘forced’ to give up her titles to marry when there is no evidence whatever of nthat fact. She was always know informally as Princess Marina in the same way Diana was known as Princess Di even though she was in fact HRH Duchess of Kent. Widowed early, she loathed the title Dowager Duchess so unofficially retained her title of Princess. When her son was due to marry she was forced to give up the title of Duchess of Kent (without the Dowager) and she did, therefore seek permission from HM to be known as Princess Marina. Alice was not a Princess but a Duchess (other than Princess Henry) but was granted special permission on her widowhood, in recognition of HM’s great affection
I do actually know that “Princess Alice” was a Duchess rather than a Princess by birth and was granted permission to use the title of “Princess Alice” by the Queen. However, Alice was a Princess by marriage; albeit more correctly her formal title would have been HRH Princess Henry…..However you are incorrect about one minor detail regarding Princess Marina; she was a Princess of Greece before her marriage and retained this status and style so when her son became Duke of Kent she merely used a title she was already entitled to use. I really do not think she needed the permission of the Queen for that; the permission for a non bloody royal to use the title Princess followed by their Christian name was granted to Alice whereas Marina was already entitled to do this.
Well you see IF she had been required to give up her titles (as some suggest) then she would have required permission. As it was she ‘sought’ permission anyway.
Who are you referring to in this reply? Princess Marina or Princess Alice?
Well since only one (as far as I have seen) is alleged to have been forced to give up her titles, I would have thought the answer was obvious.
Not really obvious as I thought the discussion was about which one needed or sought permission from the Queen regarding whether or not they could style themselves as a “Princess” following the death of their husbands, rather than whether or not they had to give up their titles.
The point I was making was that Princess Marina was a princess from birth, so was entitled to style herself with the style Princess followed by her own christian name without the permission of the Queen as she was simply reverting to the style she used before marriage, which she did not give up when she got married. The only thing she asked to drop was the word “dowager” and to distinguish herself from the new Duchess of Kent, she was styled HRH Princess Marina, Duchess of Kent (without the word “dowager”) and the new Duchess was known as HRH The Duchess of Kent etc.
Regarding Princess Alice, as she was a princess by marriage rather than birth, she was not initially or officially entitled to use the style Princess followed by her own christian name (only blood royals can do this) and during her marriage she was known as HRH The Duchess of Gloucester, (or Princes Henry etc had he not had a Dukedom) because she was a Princess by marriage). When Prince Henry died and was succeeded as Duke of Gloucester by their second son, Alice requested permission from her niece, the Queen, to use the title and style HRH Princess Alice, Duchess of Gloucester instead of adopting HRH The Dowager Duchess of Gloucester. The Queen allowed her aunt to adopt this title, in part to avoid confusion with her daughter-in-law, the new Duchess of Gloucester. Alice was not created a British princess by letters patent, I believe she was awarded the style by the Queen also in recognition of her charity work and marriage to a prince who was the son of a monarch.
Although the situation was similar to her late sister-in-law, Princess Marina, Duchess of Kent, even following the marriage of her elder son in June 1961 to the new Duchess of Kent, Marina was a princess of Greece and Denmark by birth, a title she did not lose upon marriage.
So, therefore, neither lady had to “give up” any titles when they got married.
I am unable to get to the follow up post you made to this but I can assure you that there is nothing in it that I did not already know and have posted on here in various parts on many occasions. I am fully aware and conversant with the lives of both Princess Marina and Princess Alice. Yes, you are correct in that no Letters Patent were issued concerning the change of title to Princess Alice, because as I also said earlier, it was made very clear at the time that her new title was a courtesy title as a mark of respect for her long years of service and duty and devotion and that it was for her lifetime only with no hereditary connotation .
Princess Marina did not give up her title, but she did need permission from the Monarch to use ‘Princess’ in the UK because it was a foreign title. Outside of the UK she could use it anytime she wanted to by right of birth but not in the UK. It was the same way for her cousin Katherine.Katherine was Lady Katherine Brandram in the UK and Princess Katherine of Greece outside of the UK.
Princess Marina did not give up her title of Princess of Greece upon her marriage. Only Princess Alice required the permission of the Queen in the manner to which you refer.
In spite of Ricky’s answer, Prince Phillip is the only Royal I can think of who has been required to give up a title! That’s because since 1917 when George V issued Letters Patent to that effect, there have been few (or none?) royals marrying royals and it is even less likely to happen nowadays. In more recent years it has also been agreed by everyone from the Royal Heralds, Genealogists, legal bods that Prince Phillip should not have been required to give up his titles anyway since he, as well as Princess Elizabeth has a direct blood line (through his mother) to Queen Victoria.
The only other one I can think of is Princess Marina.
Princess Marina did not give up her title of Princess upon her marriage to the Duke of Kent. I think you need to really be sure of your facts on this; you are quite incorrect if you think that to be the case.
I can find no evidence of it either
Princess Marina did not have to give up her Greek titles upon marriage. However, since that was a foreign title she needed permission from the Monarch to use it in the UK.
He renounced his title and his nationality a few weeks before the wedding. He was made Duke of Edinburgh on his wedding day. Thats why its called duke of ed award not prince phil award. Sometime after a 11 month seperation in the late 50s early 60s. Phil to south America lizzy left alone. He came back was made a hrh Prince and tjey had 2 more kids
i agree but you know who will be offended,charles missus,thats why,which she shouldnt anyway being a devorcee,but kate should be granted as she gave birth to a future king of england,and the queen mother wasnt royal either but was given the title,so as you say the queen could grant it,charles wont because if hes not allowed to give the title to camilla he wont let kate have it either.
What about Queen Mary also.
What about her?
WTF planet are you on!? For a start she is NOT “Charle’s missus” she’s Her Royal Highness The Duchess of Cornwall. For another, Charles cannot grant any titles to anybody, he isn’t King yet. When he becomes King, I fully expect him to grant Camilla the title Queen Consort, which will be only right. Also, Camilla IS at the moment The Princess of Wales, she just chooses not to use that title out of respect for the previous holder. Who by the way was NEVER “Princess Diana”, as this article rightly says.
It has been announced that if and when Charles becomes King, Camilla will take the title Princess Consort even though her Constitutional title would be Queen Consort. I wonder if she will be crowned like Elizabeth, the Queen Mother?
Well, the Queen Mother was the last Queen Consort crowned. Like others here, I assume The Duchess of Cornwall will be crowned Queen Consort. I’ve not heard of Princess Consort before!
Actually Jennifer (no idea why this old post has popped up) but the late Queen Mother was not Queen Consort, nor was Queen Mary nor Queen Alexandra. Consort is a title that has to be bestowed individually by the Monarch of the day and confers near-equal status. This is unlikely to happen. The last Consort was Albert Prince Consort to Queen Victoria given to him to pacify him as he had believed that on marriage he would share the Monarchy as in fact, he was nearer to the throne in the line of succession than Victoria was. Princess Consort is only a possibility at this time. As wife of the King her title will automatically be Queen whatever they decide to call her at the time.
You should be aware that the rank of Queen be it as a consort of a King or as a Queen regnant and in either capacity is a higher ranked title than Consort (in fact a title of “Consort” in itself does not exist) or Prince Consort or Princess Consort. Please don’t ever apply for a role as a constitutional expert; you’d fail abysmally
I am more than aware and I have been saying all along that the title of Consort (capital C) is a very special title granted only rarely byte the Monarch of the day. Do read and learn.
I think it is actually you who needs to read and learn when it comes to the correct use and application of constitutional titles. The point I was making (which you clearly missed) was that the word Consort would never be required to be added to follow the word Queen when referring to the wife of a King as by definition and virtue of their status as Queen they are already the official consort to the Monarch; hence why no spouse of a King who holds the title of Her Majesty the Queen has never had the word Consort added. It is not required to elevated their status higher because as it is already the highest title. In the case of Prince Albert he was given the title Prince Consort in recognition of his status as the Queen’s husband and as a means of differentiating him from other “Princes” as her official consort. A “Queen” already has that status recognised by the very virtue of the word Queen and no superfluous word of consort (small of capital c) is not required. That’s why it has never happened.
You need to read a whole thread JJ. I ha e been making this point since I don’t know when. People on here constantly refer to earlier Queen’s (and possibly Camilla) as Queen Consorts which they are (but it is a lesser title and never spoken)
What they said is that Camilla is ‘likely’ to take the title Princess Consort. Prince Charles has made it know that he wants Camilla to be his Queen. As the wife of The King she is automatically The Queen. Whether they choose to call her that remains to be seen.
Sorry but her title will be Queen as the wife of a King,, Queen Consort is a title which could bestowed only by the Monarch as is Princess Consort. As the wife of Prince Charles she should and probably will be crowned alongside him just as the late Queen Mum was.
It was suggested that Camilla’s title might be Princess Consort but that is only a suggestion at this time. Her constitutional title would be Queen. As the wife of a King she is automatically Queen. Queen Consort or Princess Consort is another ball game and would have to be personally conferred upon her by the then King. Giving her the title Queen Consort gives higher and near-equal status. No Queens in living memory have been made Consort. Not the late Queen Elizabeth, Queen Mary nor Queen Alexandra although as wives of the King they acted as consort. The last Consort in the British Royal Family was Albert Prince Consort to HM Queen Victoria. He was granted that title to pacify him as he had expected joint status with Victoria and because he was in fact closer to the British throne than Victoria was.
Er actually you are not quite correct in your explanation – the wife of a king is automatically the consort of a King and referred to as Queen; they are consort by the very nature of their position and status as Queen so there would be no need to add the word “Consort” in that capacity ; Prince Albert was already a Prince at the time of his marriage, albeit of a minor German principality or duchy, and the Prince Consort title was to give recognition of his status as the Queen’s husband.
Precisely my point. Why do you not read what is written. The wife of all British Kings is Queen, followed by queen consort (small c) which is a lesser title than Queen. To make a Queen a Consort (capital C) – is a different step entirely. Prince Albert had more and greater titles than Victoria and as such assumed he would have equal rule. His hopes were dashed by the then Parliament of the day. He was granted/appointed Consort (capital C) seventeen years afer his marriage with the agreement of Parliament to satisfy his vanity and demands and because Victoria loved him very much but not enough to hand him equality to the throne. He remains the only Royal in living memory to be granted that Style and Title
I’ve already covered this in another response. Essentially, I feel you are getting confused between a Queen consort and a Queen regnant, which is obviously higher than the status of a Queen who is the wife of a King. There is no requirement to add the word Consort to the wife of a King to make “Queen Consort” as there is no such need or indeed no such title. Their status as the wife of the King and as a consort is assures. As I’ve said previously, Albert was granted the style of Prince Consort to differentiate and show his higher status as spouse of the Monarch and precedence above other Princes and of that after the Queen. Albert also did not have “greater titles” she out ranked him as a Queen regnant, which is why she also has to propose to him rather than the other way round. He was a prince from a minor principality or duchy and not the Monarch of a larger and much more prominent Country.
I am afraid you need to look at European royalty as it was then rather than it is now. Victoria, although about to accede the British throne, was considered something of a poor thing by the rest of Europe. She was, after all, ‘merely’ the lowly daughter of the fourth son of a King. Albert on the other hand was the son (albeit the second) of a reigning Monarch. Whether you think it or not their was an hierarchy. Albert’s father was the ‘reigning Duke of SAxe Coburn Gotha, the emphasis on the ‘reigning’. He was also
I am actually looking at European Royalty as it was then. I really think it is you and not me who needs to go back and do a little more research. What you are saying is indeed absolute and utter nonsense with regard to Albert being closer to the British throne over and above Victoria. Let me be clear and for fear of repeating an earlier post – Victoria was a closer and more direct descendant in the male (patrilineal) line to the British throne. She was a member of the house of Hanover who at the time was the reigning royal house of Great Britain. Albert was far removed from this line and was related to Victoria through her mother, i.e. her mother was his aunt and they were first cousins. However, her mother married into the house of Hanover by marrying the then Duke of Kent. I do know that Victoria was the son of the fourth son of a King BUT at the time of her birth she was IN LINE to the succession. As those preceding her in line then died, she therefore was the next in line and most appropriate and closed direct male line descendant of George III – all of his sons and heirs before her had died. In fact, if Princess Charlotte had not died at an early age then she, rather than Victoria, and her descendants would have acceded to the throne following the death of George IV and there would not have even been a William IV. Rather than the rest of Europe considering Victoria as being something of a poor thing, it was actually Albert who was considered too lowly for her by some quarters. I am not disputing that he was the son of a reigning Duke of Saxe-Goburg-Gotha (not Coburn as you put) however it was a SEPARATE royal house and duchy which was not in line or closely associated (albeit they might be related in some way) to the British throne. I cannot emphasise enough how mislead you are indeed are – Victoria was the closet living heir descended in the male line (fourth son or not, as the others had died without legitimate heirs) from a Monarch of the at the time “reigning” house of Hanover. At the time Saxe-Goburg-Gotha was NOT the reigning house of Great Britain – this happened after Albert married into the British Royal family and his descendants to the throne (the first being Edward VII) took his name thereafter, which does not mean that Albert had a higher or stronger claim to the British throne either before she acceded to the throne, whilst she was the reigning Monarch and these facts do not change now. Jesus Christ – you are so wrong. I do not think you indeed understand how the line of succession, either now or then, actually works. Plus I obviously know she was the son of the fourth son of George III (the then Duke of Kent) as I more or less said this in my earlier post HOWEVER when those in line die then those after them move up in precedence and importance.
I thought I had replied to this, however my post has disappeared. In any case, you are wrong. It was in fact the other way around; Albert was considered too lowly to marry Victoria.
Albert may have been the son of a the reigning Monarch of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha and a Duke of Saxony, however this royal house was not the reigning house of Great Britain at the time in question and therefore it’s members were not in the direct line of succession to the British throne. The members of the House of Hanover, the reigning royal house of Great Britain and more specifically the male line descendants George III at the time, were in direct succession and had a stronger claim than any member of the house of Saxe-Goburg-Gotha at the time we are talking about. It doesn’t really matter that she was the daughter of a fourth son of a King; as many in the line of succession had predeceased her, she had rightfully moved up in the line of succession. Albert’s titles belonged to another separate royal house and this did not affect or change Victoria’s higher status in terms of succession to the British throne.
And please do explain why you feel he was closer to the British throne than Victoria was??
That’s a long answer. I suggest that you do your own research of his family tree. He was in DIRECT line, whereas Victoria became Queen by default as a neice.
You are not quite correct. Victoria was indeed the neice of William IV however she was also a grandaughter of George III in the male line through her father the Duke of Kent and was therefore (on the death of her father) next in line to succeed her Uncle King William IV (the older brother of her father) as William had not produced an heir through his marriage to Queen Adelaide. Therefore, Victoria did indeed have a stronger claim to the British Throne and Albert was not closer to the throne. Your sarcasm about the length of my answer also shows a level of immaturity.
What a load of crap your talking you obviously know nothing about royality go home please!!!
caroline: Your post is both nasty and incorrect. You are completely ignoring the “context” of each situation. And, Charles PAYS CATHERINE’S BILLS so he isn’t exactly “mean” to her! Your thoughts of Charles, his relationship to his mother, and to Camilla, are odd and mean and sad.
Sorry you are also incorrect HM The Queen could not create Catherine a Princess in her own right. She can only ever be Princess William, etc. The title of Prince/Princess is reserved for a child of a Prince or Princess and currently, the title will not be granted to any royal babies other than those in direct line to the throne – i.e the children of Prince William and the children of Prince Harry. Th
Sorry but you are incorrect. HM The Queen could not create Catherine a Princess in her own right, Her title is Princess William, Duchess of Cambridge. The title of Princess is only for children or Royal Blood. Catherine is not, It is for a child of a Prince/Princess which Catherine is not, Currently, and in the future, the title of Prince/Princess will be granted only to those children in direct line to the throne. The Queen Mother was never ‘princess’, nor was she Queen Consort, she was Queen, as wife of The King. Just as Camilla will be Queen as wife of The King. The title Queen Consort or Prince Consort is a title bestowed by the Monarch to a husband or wife. If, at the time, they decided Camilla will be ‘Queen Consort (which is currently only a suggestion) Prince Charles will have to confer that title on he after his Coronation.
There are 4 types of Queens: Queen Regnant, who is queen in her own right such as Queen Elizabeth II, Queen Consort, who is married to the King such as Queen Elizabeth the Queen Mother, Queen Mother who is a former Queen Consort who is the mother of the new Monarch, and Queen Dowager who is the widow of a former monarch. A Queen Mother is always a Queen Dowager but a Queen Dowager isn’t always a Queen Mother. All are commonly referred to as HM The Queen. In rare instances the descriptor is used also. Queen Regnants are the only type of Queen that will have an ordinal if applicable.
When a Queen regnant or a Queen Consort’s husband is on the throne, her title is “Her Majesty the Queen.”
A Queen Dowager or a Queen Mother’s title is “Queen (name).”
Prince Phillip is a Prince in his own right. He was Prince Phillip of Denmark and Greece when he married Princess Elizabeth. He relinquished any claim to these kingdoms to marry Elizabeth.
No, he wasn’t….he renounced all his titles and was plain Lt. Mountbatten when he was engaged. He was born a prince, but wasn’t a prince at the time of his engagement. He was created HRH Philip, Duke of Edinburgh by George VI. The Queen issued letters patent making him a Prince in his own right in 1957, so that Charles wouldn’t out rank his father. He was then officially known as Prince Philip, The Duke of Edinburg.
The title of Prince of the United Kingdom was given to Phillip as a salve to his ego since his children would not have his surname but that of the royal family.
Originally it was so Charles wouldn’t outrank his father. The Queen issued him Letters Patent in 1957 so he became Prince Phillip. Now the family is known as Mountbatten-Windsor. So Edward & Sophie’s daughter is known as Lady Louise Mountbatten-Windsor, although technically she is a princess.
Not quite true. Only direct descendants of the Monarch take the title Prince or Princess.
No, the Queen can bestow a title by letters patent as she did for Prince Philip in 1957. She created him HRH. She has also done the same thing for the children of the Cambridges, she issued letters of patent to be sure that their children would be HRHs since as great grandchildren, they would not have been eligible.
Not quite.
The day before he married Princess Elizabeth in 1947, Lieutenant Philip Mountbatten, RN knelt before King George VI, his soon-to-be father-in-law.
The King created him Duke of Edinburgh, along with several subsidiary titles, and conferred the style of Royal Highness on him.
He also invested Philip and Elizabeth into the Most Noble Order of the Garter, doing this for the Princess first, so she would have precedence in the order before her husband-to-be.
She can. But she chooses not to. It is believed that this step has been taken at the request of Prince Charles who wishes the Royal Family to be slimmed down to promote only the direct descendants to the throne unlike earlier times. Hence currently only direct descendants of Prince William and Prince Harry will be styled Prince/Princess. Beatrice and Eugenie are the only exceptions.
Charles made noise about the time Lady Louise was born that Beatrice and Eugenie should also be known as “Lady” but Andrew through a fit! The Queen had to issue the letters patent before George was born so that he would be a HRH at the time of his birth. Otherwise he would have been a Lord.
This has since been proved by Prince Andrew himself to be untrue.
No, you are wrong. Since he was a GREAT GRANDSON of the monarch, Prince George would NOT have been royal if his GREAT grandmother hadn’t issue letters patent declaring that any children of William and Kate would be styled Royal Highnesses. You can look it up. Andrew was the Son of a Sovereign and his daughters were grandchildren of a sovereign, that is why they hold royal titles. It is only sons of Sovereigns that can pass down the royal title, not daughters. That is why Princess Anne couldn’t pass down her royal title to her children. However, great grandchildren WERE not included.
By Letters Patent of George V, the eldest son of the eldest son of The Prince of Wales is automatically an HRH, therefore Prince George didn’t need Queen Elizabeth to issue Letters Patent.
Queen Elizabeth II issued new Letters Patent on December 31, 2012 declaring that all of the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge’s children will have the title of Royal Highness and be styled Princes and Princesses. The document states, “The QUEEN has been pleased by Letters Patent under the Great Seal of the Realm dated 31 December 2012 to declare that all the children of the eldest son of The Prince of Wales should have and enjoy the style, title and attribute of Royal Highness with the titular dignity of Prince or Princess prefixed to their Christian names or with such other titles of honour.”
The Queen’s Letters Patent revises King George V’s 1917 decree that only the eldest son of the Prince of Wales’s eldest son was entitled to be styled His Royal Highness and a Prince. According to this document, the daughters and younger sons of the Prince of Wales’s eldest son were to be styled as children of a Duke. These ducal titles would change to royal titles once the Prince of Wales succeeded to the throne.The Queen’s decree ensures that if the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge’s eldest child is a daughter, she will be styled a Princess rather than a Lady.
In the post I replied to you said that George wouldn’t have been a HRH as he was the great grandchild of the Monarch. I was pointing out that he was automatically an HRH by Letters Patent. However, you are correct about the Queen’s Letters Patent allowed all of William’s children to be hRH.
So what?
WRONG AGAIN! None of the HRH’s have surnames, so you don’t know what you are talking about. “Salving his ego” is ridiculous. DO NOT apply your own insecurities and jealousies to others.
Yes they do have a surnames! It was Windsor but now it is Mountbatten-Windsor. Lady Louise tho technically a princess goes by the name of lady Louise Mountbatten Windsor..
Lady Louise Windsor is not a princess, and her brother James, Viscount Severn is not a prince. The Earl and Countess of Wessex wanted it that way.
Technically, they ARE prince and princess, because they are the grandchildren of the sovereign by a male son, (based on the letters patent by George VI) but both the Earl and the Countess do NOT want them addressed that way. The title hasn’t been revoked, it just isn’t used.
Prince Edward’s children are entitled to have the rank of Prince/Princess of the Blood, along with the style of Royal HIghness.
I’m not sure if a Letters Patent was issued to establish their present status without them, though. Without it, they’d automatically have those princely titles and dignities from birth, so it’s possible that a different status might’ve required a Letters Patent.
You’re correct about their parents not wanting them to be addressed as such. I can understand their reasons for that, but I have mixed feelings about it.
Could someone explain the reason as to why the Earl and Countess do not want their children to be addressed as Prince/Princess. Also, why do neither of Princess Anne’s children have any titles? I have read that after Anne’s marriage they preferred not to have titles. Is this true? As someone outside of the United Kingdom, I don’t quite understand why. Do the members of the royal family that do not have titles receive the same benefits? For example would Zara Phillips be entitled to the same benefits (income,housing,etc.) as Princess Beatrice? I am trying to find more research on these things, but its seems hard to find. Thanks in advance for your explanations!
Good question. The Princess Royal and Mark Phillips wanted to give their children as normal an upbringing as possible, and thought that royal or noble titles would be a burden on them. Much to his credit, Mr Phillips declined the Queen’s offer of an earldom when he married Princess Anne.
I don’t know for sure, but the Earl and Countess of Wessex probably declined titles for their children for the same reason as Princess Anne and Mark Phillips.
This has much more to do with Prince Charles’ well known intention of streamlining the royal family so that only those members who are in direct line of descent will hold the senior titles of Prince /Princess. This trend is expected to continue. At the time of their marriage Buckingham Palace also announced that any children of that marriage would take the style and titles of an Earl. Hence they are Viscount Severn and Lady Louise Windsor. The Princess Royal’s children, allegedly at her request did not take any titles.
This was not their choice. It must be assumed that HM The Queen followed the wishes of Prince Charles’ whose intention is to streamline the Royal Family so that only those in direct line of descent take the senior titles of Prince & Princess. When Prince Edward was created Earl of Wessex, it was also announced by Buckingham Palace that the children of that marriage would take the titles of an Earl. Hence they are styled Viscount Severn, and Lady Louise Windsor. This trend is likely to continue. Princess Anne actually chose not to have titles for her children. Although it has never been confirmed this was believed to be because she felt they were too far from the throne that a title was irrelevant.
There is no suggestion whatever that Prince Edward chose not to give his children titles in fact quite the opposite because they do have titles, just not those of Princess and Prince. This is believed to be Prince Charles’ decision in his bid to streamline the royal family so that only those in direct line to the throne hold the senior titles.
I was speaking only about royal titles such as prince or princess and the style of HRH; not in regard to all titles in general.
Technically they maybe, but they have been prevented from using the title of Princess/Prince by the issue of a Buckingham Palace statement on the day of Prince Edward’s marriage and his creation as Earl of Wessex, to the effect that any issue of that marriage will take the style and tile of a Viscount. Hence, their titles are Lady Louise Windsor and Viscount Severn. They may not use others. It is most unlikely that this was at the request of Prince Edward, since his children DO hold titles. It is believed to be Prince Charles’ decision as he intends to slim down the royal family and in future only those in direct line to the throne (ie Williams and Harry and their children) will hold the senior title of Princess & Prince.
Like you, I’ve read quite a bit about Prince Charles’ plans to slim down the royal family in the last couple of years.
The Earl and Countess of Wessex married in 1999; almost 18 years ago. Do you believe The Queen saw fit to acquiesce to Charles’ intentions that far back? I’d be interested to hear what you think.
In all honesty I don’t know Ricky and nor does anyone (except those in direct contact!). But it did seem to start the trend. If as some suggest this change of titles was requested by Prince Edward then he would not want any and we know this is not the case. If it is 18 years (seems impossible) HM was already almost 70 and Prince Charles had begun to make his views on the future lineup known and long since been involved in taking over – or at least learning – HM’s role. Knowing what we now know, I do strongly suspect and so do others with more clout than me, that it was Prince Charles request/decision rather that of either HM or Prince Edward.
One thing we do know for sure, is that HM had originally planned to bestow a dukedom on Prince Edward, as is the custom when a royal prince marries. I understand that she had reserved the title Duke of Cambridge for him, but Edward requested the title Earl of Wessex after seeing a film with a character who had that title.
I believe that any children of a royal duke would automatically be princes and princess, and carry the style of HRH.
Perhaps if Edward hadn’t seen that film, we wouldn’t be having this interesting conversation!
That seems logical and possible. Perhaps he liked the outfit and beret as it is rather unusual! But the point is that either way his children take the titles of an Earl so it obviously was not his request that they did not receive titles. However, according to Royal CEntral that is no longer the case and Harry’s children (if any) are also likely to be Lord/Lady. We shall see……
Right, but I meant the titles of prince/princess and the HRH that goes with it.
Yes so did I! I think that it is speculation rather than fact that HM intended a dukedom for Edward. BP does not announce what it might have done only what it has done. There could be a proviso for Harry just as there was for Edward (though I agree less likely) as it may be considered that as he is already fifth in line, Charles will think the line is safe. It is also possible there will be more Cambridge children. The children of other dukes do not hold the title of Prince/Princess. The Duke of York is the exception. Only time will tell!
The children of Royal Dukes carry the title prince/princess, with the style of HRH. As you pointed out, Prince Andrew is one example. There were also the children of Prince Henry, Duke of Gloucester, and Prince George, Duke of Kent.
When The Queen’s father was known as Prince Albert, Duke of York, she and her sister were both princesses since birth. But as you say, time will tell.
You keep giving me explanations forgetting I know all this by heart. The important point in your reply Ricky is ‘there were’. You are going back to the 1920’s, 30’s and 40’s and in the case of HM The Queen the 1950’s. The children of current Dukes do NOT carry those titles and the only Prince (apart from William) is Prince Andrew Duke of York, for the reasons previously discussed,.
I’m not trying to imply that you’re uninformed, just presenting another opinion. No offence was intended.
Since the time of George V, there have been no royal dukes whose children didn’t carry princely titles and the HRH. Since the monarchy usually continues it’s traditions, I expect this will continue.
But I could be wrong, since I read recently that the Kent dukedom will cease to be a royal one when the present Duke’s son inherits his father’s title. The next duke will be one of ordinary station, without the HRH and will be addressed as “your Grace.” The Kents are extended family, so it could go either way with closer relatives in the future. It will be interesting to see what happens in the decades to come.
I think you will find that this has always been the case – that the second generation becomes ‘an ordinary’ Duke. (Also the Gloucester). You seem to forget that the present Duke of Kent is the only Duke since HRH Prince George Duke of Kent died in 1942 so they are bound by the Letters Patent of 1917. None of his children may take any titles other than his eldest son. The children of Prince William are only styled HRH Prince and Princess because HM The Queen issued Letters Patent to ensure ‘all children of the eldest son of the Prince of Wales will be given the title of Royal Highness’. While this applies to Princess Charlotte herself, she will not be able to pass on the title Princess to her children. Prior to these, the Letters Patent issued by George V were still in force and Charlotte would not have been HRH or Princess but only Lady. It is believed, but not confirmed, that Prince William would have preferred to remain a Prince in the belief that would have made Catherine his Princess when in reality she would always have been Princess William.
Not really, it is a preference. Elizabeth never issued anything saying that they were not to be style HRHs, The Earl requested that they use the titles for children of an Earl. Legally, they are HRHs and could use that title as they get older if they wanted to.
It isn’t a preference by Edward and Sophie as has been suggested by some on here.. That is obviously not true because they do have titles. By issuing a statement that ‘issue of this marriage will take the style and titles of an Earl….’ before the marriage had even taken place, they were prohibited from using the titles Prince/Princess. This is believed to be in line with Prince Charles’ known intention to streamline the royal line such that only those in direct line of succession will take the style Prince/Princes.
I think Edward was smart enough not to take a Royal Dukedom and settle for the title of Earl. Charles wants to streamline the royal family, and Andrew wants some role for his girls.
Sorry but you are wrong. All the Queen and Prince Phillip’s children have a surname. As the Heir to throne Prince Charles is Windsor all other three children have the surname Mountbatten-Windsor as do Beatrice and Eugenie and Lady Louise and Viscount Severn, the children of Prince Edward.
I think you will find that Beatrice and Eugenie use the territorial designation of the area over which their father holds (i.e. York) as their “surname” rather than Mountbatten-Windsor. In any case, “Windsor” isn’t actually a surname as such, it is the name of the Royal House that they belong to.
Descendents of Elizabeth and Philip who aren’t HRH or descendents of females who have married are Mountbatten-Windsor. Those with HRH are Windsor.
It was actually given to him out of HM’s love and respect for her husband because it came to light that there was confusion as to whether or not he was actually a prince according to the edict set down by the late King George VI. What has to be borne in mind here is Prince Phillip was born a Prince of Denmark and Greece and was in fact higher in rank than the then Princess Elizabeth. Secondly if he was found not be a Prince of the UK, his son would outrank him. Obviously a smack in the face for Prince Phillip. It has, however, become immaterial because in more recent years, the Lords Herald, the genealogists and the legal eagle type people have agreed and decided that Prince Phillip could not and should not have been
required to give up his titles due to his direct link, through his mother, to Queen Victoria. It was much more than a gesture to salve his ego. – as someone on here has suggested.
Elizabeth had higher rank than Philip as Heiress Presumptive to the throne. He was the grandson of the Greek Monarch from a minor branch of the family. Both were Great Great great grandchildren of Victoria, but so is everybody else!
I know all of that and it is totally true, but it was still certain that HM wanted it sorted out of love for her husband too.
Verity: YOU have missed the point! The Duke of Edinburgh was a Prince TWICE, having been born the ONLY son of a Prince of Greece and Denmark. His great-grandfather (on his father’s side) was King Christian IV of Denmark. His grandfather was King George I of Greece. His great-great-grandmother was Queen Victoria. He is a DIRECT DESCENDANT OF QUEEN VICTORIA the same as the Queen. In fact, Philip’s titles were MORE numerous and grand than the Queen’s!!!! (After all, Bertie married a commoner; Lady Elizabeth Marguerite Bowes-Lyon. The Queen Mother (though loved) was the daughter of an Earl and their French cook.)
Philip GAVE UP all of his royal titles, and any loyalty to any foreign countries, just to marry Princess Elizabeth (heir apparent) to the British throne.
King George VI (the Queen’s father) knew that the nation should NOT have a female monarch who was “out-ranked” by her husband. Or, some of the people would wonder WHY Philip was not the King (he was, after all, just as “related” to Queen Victoria, as Elizabeth was, AND he was “higher born” than she was. King George VI used ALL of his power to make sure that Philip was stripped of his titles BEFORE he was welcomed into the family (this was done to PROTECT his daughter). Therefore, in consideration for his sacrifice, and to have a husband “worthy” of Princess Elizabeth (the next monarch) King George “restored” Philip’s birth title of “Prince” but he made it “of the United Kingdom and NOT those other countries.
You seem to be looking for romantic reasons, but this monarchy business is a BUSINESS, and there were political reasons for taking away Philip’s titles, and then, for making him a prince again. None such reasons surround Catherine; chiefly of all (1) SHE WAS NOT BORN A PRINCESS, and (2) SHE IS NOT A PRINCESS OF ANOTHER COUNTRY and (3) SHE IS NOT A DIRECT DESCENDENT OF QUEEN VICTORIA!!!
Phillip gave his titles when he joined the navy. And neither f Elizabeth ‘s parents liked him or wanted him for a son in law. And if thecQueen wants to, she can make Catherine a princess in her own right
I am afraid you are incorrect. HM The Queen could not make Catherine a Princess in her own right. She is Princess William, Duchess of Cambridge. A female can only be a Princess if she is of Royal blood, i.e the child of a Prince/Princess
No, she can bestow the title on Catherine if she wanted to do so. Her father created Philip HRH Duke of Edinburgh, and in 1957, the Queen, through letters patent, created him a Prince of the UK. She recently issued letters patent declaring that any children of William and Kate would be Royal Highnesses. This is because the letters patent only went as far as grandchildren, and not great-grandchildren. So she could do it, but there isn’t any need to make Kate a princess in her own right. Many people thought she would make Diana a princess since she was the mother of a future King, but that didn’t happen.
Sorry, but you are quite wrong, Prince or Princess can only be bestowed upon a person of Royal birth, Catherine is not. Prince Phillip is a totally different situation. He was born a Royal Prince. Prior to his engagement he was a Prince of Denmark and Greece ands is therefore a Prince in his own right, He was conferred Prince of other UK by George VI to increase his status and to compensate for giving up his ‘foreign’ titles in order to marry Elizabeth who was heir to the British throne. The two situationsare entirely different and entirely incompatible, Catherine can never be a Princess in her own right any more than Diana Princess of Wales could.
Philip renounced his title of Prince of Greece and Denmark before he married then-Princess Elizabeth in 1947. The day before the wedding he knelt before King George VI, who ennobled him with several titles, gave him the style of Royal Highness, and made him a Garter Knight.
But the King did not make him a prince; it was the Queen did that by a Letters Patent in 1957. From the time he took the name Philip Mountbatten until 1957, he was not a prince.
Hi Ricky. I can’t get back to the link. Sorry but I must have clicked on the wrong ‘reply’. Currently have a thumb in plaster! Long time no speak.
Hello, Kathleen. Sorry to hear you hurt your hand, but glad you’re on the mend. Get better soon!
Wow, Kathleen Ames, when you get it wrong (as your do quite frequently) you really get it wrong. Arrogance and ignorance are an annoying and unattractive combination. Now call me names in your low born American way.
You initiated this conversation by digging up very old history. If you can’t do the time don’t do the time.
At the moment, Catherine holds the feminine equivalent of her husband, as is known as HRH The Duchess of Cambridge. If William had not been given a Dukedom she would have been known as Princess William; however, that is never used either written or spoken as the title of Duchess surpasses that of Princess. She is a Princess of the United Kingdom by marriage, rather than in her own right. Indeed her “occupation” was listed on Prince George’s birth certificate as “Princess of the United Kingdom”. Again, this is correct as she is a Princess by marriage. Technically I do think that she could be made a Princess in her own right by letters patent but there really would be no need for this, it would be superfluous to requirements.
The queen mum was not the daughter of a cook. That story was made up by Edward VIII and his waspish wife Wallis
Elizabeth was born Princess Elizabeth of York and became heiress presumptive upon the abdication of Edward VIII. While Phillip was indeed a direct descendant of Queen Victoria, his English/UK was in the female line and therefore he was NOT a Prince of the United Kingdom until his wife made him one. While King George VI REFERRED to him as Prince Phillip he didn’t issue letters patent MAKING him one. His intentions were thus unclear. Phillip had renounced his foreign titles as had the Battenburgs become Mountbatten in 1917 so they wouldn’t sound German or in this case simply foreign. And make no mistake, William is VERY MUCH in love with his wife and very protective of her. The Queen revised the order of precedence such that if Kate is on her own, she is outranked by the “blood Princesses,” and thus must curtsey to them but when she is with her husband, she is sort of an extension of him and outranks them.
Actually she was heiress presumptive from birth and would have remained so until Edward had children.
Princess Elizabeth was not heiress presumptive until her father became King in December, 1936.
OK smarty pants. Forget the word presumptive. She was heir to the throne from birth.
At the time of Princess Elizabeth’s birth in 1926, her grandfather, HM King George V was on the throne. At that time the heir apparent was HRH Edward, Prince of Wales.
When he became HM King Edward VIII, the heir apparent was his brother, HRH Albert, Duke of York.
When the Duke of York took the throne as HM King George VI, only then did Princess Elizabeth become heiress presumptive.
Yes I know all of that as well as you do and you have already replied to that affect.. Why do you feel the need to comment on everything twice? She was still in direct line to the throne and therefore was heir to it! You must lead a very shallow life.
Why must you call people names just because you make factually incorrect statements and were called out on them? Do you believe you have the right to make false statements with impunity?
Because that guy regularly gets his facts wrong and then when someone corrects him, he replies again with the correct answer so that the post shows up as if he made it in the first place.
She was not the direct heir actually – she was in the line of succession to be specific.
Read what I have written, I said she was heir (an heir) to the throne – which she was – from the moment of her birth. And she would have remained such until her Uncle David had children which we all know did not happen.
No you didn’t you stated she was THE Heir to the throne from birth, which she was not. She was in the line of succession and was AN Heir. You also stated she was heiress presumptive from birth, this was also incorrect. The term Heir Presumptive and Heir Apparent are only used to refer to the person who is directly next in line, which at the time of her birth was not. Your original post was actually employing the incorrect use of the word presumptive.
Agreed I used there wrong title but she was an heir to the throne of England from the moment of her birth and you are splitting hairs.
I do not think I am splitting hairs – there were a lot of inaccuracies in some of your posts. For example, in one post you alluded to the fact that you thought if her Uncle David had produced heirs then she would have not have remained an heir to the throne; this was incorrect as she would have remained in the line of succession, just lower down in the line.
Do read all the post or none at all. I know that in at least two I have spoken about her remaining an heir. It is not necessary to give a full history to every answer to every person. Even those with little knowledge know that she would remain wan heir even if things had not turned out as they did – obviously
You may have mentioned it in subsequent posts, however in your original post, you were incorrect in what you stated about Elizabeth effectively being removed from the line of succession, had Prince Edward produced heirs, which was incorrect as she would have remained in the line of succession. I am able to comment on this if I wish.
And if I wish to give a full history to every answer, then I can. I do not need your permission regarding what I include in my responses. You even said she was “heir to the throne from birth” which she was not, as there is only one “heir to the throne” at any one time – when she was born, this was Prince Edward. Subsequent “heirs” are referred to as being in the “line of succession” and would inherit or move up the line should the “heir” die or, as in the case of Edward, abdicate.
Dear oh dear. I know exactly where she was in the line of succession without you keep instructing me. I’ve grown up with her and the rest of the royal family. Please feel free – with my permission – to post as much or as little as you wish. Just leave me out of your replies. Kind regards. Over and out.
This sounds a bit like sour grapes to me if I am honest. It seems you do not like being told that you are wrong. Grown up with them have you? What is even the point of that comment – it’s irrelevant. If you had grown up with them then you wouldn’t have got in wrong in the first place.
The future George Vl was (by my reckoning) only heir PRESUMPTIVE while his brother was king. To be Heir Apparent there must be no chance that another with more right is born – which would have happened if Edward VIII had remained king, married and had children.
No, she wasn’t heir to the throne from birth. She only became heir when EdwardVIII abdicated and her father became George VI.
Sorry to contradict you but she was a direct heir to the throne from the moment of her birth behind Edward VII, David, Prince of Wales, (later Edward VIII) her father Albert Duke of York,( later George VI). She would have remained in direct line to the throne until Edward VIII had children – which we now all know did not happen.
She was not HEIR to the throne – she was IN LINE for the throne while her grandfather and her uncle were the sitting monarchs. If Edward was first in line, his brother Albert would have been the heir presumptive. When George (Albert) became King after Edward’s abdication, THEN and only then did Elizabeth become the heir presumptive. It’s just a matter of wording but yes you are correct in saying she was in line for the throne from birth – 3rd when her uncle was King, had he stayed King and had children then she would probably never have become Queen at all. She would just have kept moving down the line of succession just like Prince Harry does every time Will and Kate have a child. In all honesty I think had Edward not abdicated he probably still would never have had children, so when Elizabeth’s father passed before his brother it still would have made her heir presumptive and she would have taken the throne when her uncle passed away. Luckily Albert had a daughter who was able to step up and knew what she had to do no matter how hard it was. Otherwise can you imagine Princess Margaret on the throne? Might not have ended up so great.
King Edward VIII was unable to have children because he caught mumps at an age when his hormonal development was at a delicate stage. When friends would ask the Duchess of Windsor why she and the Duke had no children, she would respond by saying he wasn’t “heir conditioned.”
So even if he had stayed on the throne until his death in 1972, the succession to the throne would’ve been the same; only delayed 20 years. Princess Elizabeth, Duchess of Edinburgh would’ve then become Queen.
There is absolutely no evidence that David Prince of Wales was unable to father children as this information was not revealed and never would be. Many men, including my own father, suffer mumps and go on to father children, and that statement is mere speculation. There was also a suggestion that Wallis was unable to bear children and her sexuality was questioned over and over. Certainly, although she produced no children both her former husbands, in later relationships did. It is also suggested and highly believable that that Duchess of Windsor did not want children since she had none with three husbands. The Duchess became a bitter and twisted woman very unhappy with her lot in life and she would hardly admit that the fault was hers.
Hello, Kathleen. This is a bit off-topic, but I wanted to let you know that some of my earlier comments were made on another computer, and under a different ID. When you saw comments by “Simon Axelby,” that’s me on my older, alternate account before I got it straightened out. 🙂
BTW, how’s the thumb that was in plaster?
Well I never! Have we have crossed paths on both names then? The thumb is now fine – just the teeniest bit mis-shapen!
Yes, we’ve crossed paths, and maybe swords, too! Glad your thumb has healed, and it’s good seeing your posts.
Even if we don’t always agree! 😉
I know all of that. Probably better than you as I have lived it. She was AN heir to the throne from the moment of her birth and she would and did remain an heir until Edward VIII had children which we all know now did not happen.
Actually, Elizabeth was second in line with her father being first.
No she did not. She was an heir (or in line) from the moment of birth and would and did remain so until her Uncle Edward had children which we now know did not happen. The line went from her grandfather, the then Prince of Wales, her own father Albert and then Elizabeth. From birth!
Please consult a dictionary regarding the word HEIR.
The term HEIR refers to the first in line. The Queen was IN LINE to the throne from birth but not the first in line until the abdication of Edward VIII.
Fully aware of that. If you read the whole thread you will see I have clarified to ‘an heir’ which she was.This is all old news. Where have you been for six months?
Philip’s great grandfather was King Christian IX, not Christian IV.
And the first King of Greece – Wilhelm – was Austrian anyway not Greek and Christian was German. They were given the throne of Greece byte the powers that be of Europe!
There is no evidence that Elizabeth Bowes – Lyon was the daughter of French cook; that is pure speculation.
That was when he renounced his Greek titles. It wasnt until the Queen GAVE him that title.
He was created HRH The Duke of Edinburgh by the Queen’s father. SHE made him a Prince in his own right, in 1957, so Charles wouldn’t outrank him. The Queen is able to grant titles as she did for William and Catherine, creating a Royal Dukedom.
The Queen gave a royal dukedom to Prince William, not to Catherine. As his wife, she automatically takes the female form of her husband’s title, but the Queen bestowed no title on her specifically.
True, she takes the rank of her husband.
But he was already a Prince in his own right. Catherine isn’t.
When the Duke of Edinburgh married then-Princess Elizabeth, he was not a prince. He had to renounce his foreign titles (Prince of Greece and Denmark) before the wedding, and upon doing so, he had the status of a commoner. Philip Mountbatten was a “Duke of ordinary station” at that time.
On his wedding day, he was HRH Philip, Duke of Edinburgh (plus his subsidiary titles). He didn’t become a Prince again until The Queen issued the Letters Patent in 1957.
He was born a Prince but gave up his titles to marry. A mere formality.The fact that he was born a Prince gave him the right to accept later titles. Catherine was not born a Princess and therefore does not have that right.
It was no mere formality; once Philip renounced his Greek and Danish titles, he was no longer a prince. His former status entitled him to nothing in regard to the British royal family. Anyone can receive titles by means of a Letters Patent by the sovereign, and that is the only reason he’s a prince today.
In Royal terms it was a mere formality. Do you imagine this was not discussed and agreed before he gave up his titles? All this was discussed and agreed in the previous year before the engagement was confirmed and announced. He gave up his titles conditional to marrying Princess Elizabeth and receiving those of a Prince of the British Isles.
As a royal historian of over 20 years, I am quite sure of my facts. When a member of a foreign royal house marries into the British royal family, they must renounce all their foreign titles. There are no exceptions, and no secret deals are made to arrange otherwise.
And there is not such title as “Prince of the British Isles.” Philip became a Prince of the United Kingdom by means of a Letters Patent in 1957, and for the ten years before that he was not a prince of any country.
Oh you are such a smarty pants and not nearly as clever as you think. I have in fact corrected you on a number of occasions earlier You seem to think you are the only expert on here. But you are wrong. OK the wording is Prince of the United Kingdom if we are being torrent but to the majority of people on this site British Isles is The United Kingdom. Get a life is this all you do?
I have had to correct you a number of times, and the facts speak for themselves.
As for my life, it is a rich and varied one. I could ask the same question of you, but to answer you, I can go on correcting your errors until you stop posting them.
You have NEVER had to correct me actually except in the earlier today title which in my opinion would be more understandable to many on here. I know all the stories as well and better than you and have lived through them. AND unlike you I have not been on here since our last discussion last year until yesterday because I do have a life
Haven’t been on here since the last time I corrected you about the titles for the Earl Of Wessex’ children. So my reply to this one Ricky is ‘In your dreams. You haven’t got a clue’.
Try telling people in the Irish Republic (Ireland is part of the British Isles). That they’re in the United Kingdom.
Please don’t try to speak for “the majority” many of us know something about geography too.
Philip renounced all his titles and was just plain Lt. Mountbatten when he became engaged to Elizabeth. George VI then created him the Duke of Edinburgh. There was disagreement if he was a Prince in his own right, so Elizabeth rectified that in 1957 with her letters patent.
He was a Prince of Greece. There is no doubt of that. Conditional to his marriage to Princess Elizabeth and acceptance as a Prince of The British Isles, he renounced those titles. The confusion as to whether he was a Prince of Great Britain was rectified by the Queen
Correct. He renounced all his titles, and the Queen issued the letters patent to make sure he was a Prince of the UK. She could do that for anyone, including a spouse of her children or grandchildren, but she doesn’t interfere in that way.
Wrong, wrong and wrong again. Catherine is not of Royal birth.
It doesn’t matter….the Queen has the power to create her a HRH by letters patent if she wanted to – this was the discussion when Diana got a divorce and they decided AGAINST starting that as precedent. Diana isn’t royal either. So it never happened. The Queen DOES have the power to issue those letters for anyone. Once Philip abandoned his royal birth, he was plain old Lt. Mountbatten.
You are totally muddling two stories in this reply. Diana was an HRH by marriage as the wife of an HRH. The debate was whether or not she should retain the HRH after her divorce. A divorced person cannot, apparently, retain the honour of HRH if they have left the royal family as Diana did. You are quite right that Diana was not royal, and nor was she a princess in her own right. She was only ever Princess Charles, Princess of Wales. HM could not have made Diana a Princess in her own right and she cannot make Catherine one now. Letters Patent confer titles on Royals, not on commoners.
There were conversations about giving Diana the HRH Title on her own as the mother of the future King, but they decided against it because they just don’t want to go around conferring titles on people. But the Queen is legally allowed to do so. Letters Patent confer titles on anyone. That is what they are for – Letters patent (always in the plural) are a type of legal instrument in the form of a published written order issued by a monarch, president, or other head of state, generally granting an office, right, monopoly, title, or status to a person or corporation. There is also the “excuse” that George VI gave the Duke of Windsor with his letter patent creating the Dukedom. He stated he “re-created the HRH for the Duke” and it didn’t extend to his wife, Wallis. The Duke abdicated the throne, but he never made clear that he wanted to remain an HRH, so George used that against him.
Once again I agree with almost all you say but you have drifted from the point. You are now talking about Diana and the style HRH. That is a style only and does not give her the title Princess in her own right – which is what we were talking about. HM could not make Diana a princess in her own right when she was married let alone in divorce any more than she can Catherine.
Here is what the head of the Monarchist League stated: Her Majesty has the “power” to create someone a Prince or Princess of the United Kingdom.
While the most obvious example is Prince Phillip, Phillip was already “sang royale” by virtue of being a Prince of Greece, so it is not the best example within the context of this question.
The odds of Her Majesty doing this (Especially within the context of the details) are virtually non existent, but as the Fount, she could elevate anyone she wishes to Prince or Princess and make them part of the Royal Family.
OK I will concede the point for now then that she ‘could’ although I really don’t believe it. However, it has never happened and never will. Regards
There is absolutely no confusion in regard to this uncomplicated situation.
Philip stopped being a prince when he voluntarily renounced his Greek and Danish titles in 1947. He became a Prince of the United Kingdom (not the British Isles) through a Letters Patent issued by the Queen in 1957.
For a period of ten years he was not a prince of any country; he was HRH Philip, Duke of Edinburgh from 1947 to 1957. It’s really quite simple.
He may have been a Prince in his own right yes; however he was not a Prince of the UNITED KINGDOM either by birth or at the time of his marriage.
Yes JJ I am fully aware of that as well.. His titles however, in European Royalty were more and greater than Victoria, Do some research rather than keep stating the obvious.
??? I was actually referring to the title of Prince Philip in this comment and not Prince Albert so where does Victoria come into it ??? I think you are getting confused. You are quite rude when your opinion is challenged. Oh and by the way neither Prince Albert or Prince Philip outrank their wives in any way; as Queen Regnant at the time of her marriage, Victoria would have out ranked Albert and Elizabeth was by this time heir presumptive so would have out ranked Philip
JJ For some reason I cannot get beck to another post but at no time, either by word deed or thought have I thought or suggested that either Albert or The Duke of Edinburgh outranks their wives. There is no doubt whatever that Albert’s titles were greater (??) than those of ~Victoria. The point you have missed in the hereditary line of ALbert is that he was in direct line to the throne. Victoria was an offshoot – a niece – and was indeed ‘fortunate’ for her (bad word) that so many died or failed to produce, before her.
At the time of Victoria’s Ascension, and when she was the heiress presumptive, and when she became Queen regnant, Albert was not higher than her in the line of succession to the British throne. In fact, he was not closely linked at all to the direct line of succession at the time in question.
I am doubting your assertion that Albert’s titles, in terms of being in line to the British throne, were greater – he was a Prince of Saxe-Goburg-Gotha, which was NOT the ruling house of the United Kingdom of Great Britain at the time in question, whereas Victoria was a blood Princess of the United Kingdom of Great Britain, a member of the reigning House of Hanover (at the time the reigning Royal House of Great Britain) and a directly in the line of succession through the male line. In fact, prior to his marriage to Victoria, Albert was “merely” a Serene Highness (spoken style His Serene Highness….) whereas Victoria was a Royal Highness (HRH); Royal Highness being a higher style than Serene Highness. What other titles do you think he had at the time in question which made his claim to the throne more so than Victoria’s??? I would be interested to know. The other one you have stated is that he was the son of the reigning monarch of a royal duchy that was not the ruling house of Great Britain – which therefore makes your logic and your argument irrelevant in terms of the line of succession to the British throne.
Victoria was not an “offshoot” as you say. She may have been a niece but she was at the time the niece of the king and the next male line descendant. See earlier points made in previous points. As those had died before her she was the next in line.
By the very suggestion that Albert had a strong claim to the British throne and that Albert’s title were greater (which is incorrect, see above) you are more or less saying that he outranked Victoria, which as explained above, he did not, neither prior or during his marriage.
You keep saying that Albert was in the direct line to the throne and Victoria was ‘just’ a neice. If Albert was in the direct line then he would have had to have been the son of either George IV or William IV and he was neither. So explain how he was in the ‘direct’ line.
Very old post that just popped up (no idea why) but I am afraid Catherine cannot become a Princess in her own right. She is not of Royal birth. Prince Phillip was born a Prince and gave up his foreign titles to marry. The King gave him a British title as refitted his station as wife of the future Queen. The same cannot happen for Catherine.
Yes, the Queen could make Catherine a princess by letters patent. In fact, she could make ANYONE a prince or princess by letters patent… On the day of Elizabeth’s wedding, Philip was created HRH the Duke of Edinburgh, by George VI. In 1957, Elizabeth granted Philip the title of Prince of the United Kingdom, so he could not outrank his son, Charles. Before that, he held a royal dukedom.
Sorry but you are wrong. There is absolutely no precedent for this nor is there likely to be. Catherine is not royal by birth and only a person born Royal may be granted that most senior title. You have entirely missed the point that Prince Phillip was born a royal Prince and in spite of the fact that he was forced to give up his titles, which in later years it has been agreed that he had no need to do, he remains of royal birth.
That doesn’t mean that the Queen couldn’t do it. She does have the power to do it and she did it with Philip. He was NOT BORN a prince of the UK. There are actually some princesses, like Princess Patricia, that lost their royal title when they married. You do NOT have to be born Royal to have the title issued to you by letters patent. The Queen doesn’t do it, but she CAN do it and that is MY POINT.
Yes it does mean exactly that. HM The Queen cannot make Catherine a Princess in her own right. She w’s not born royal
I can’t argue with you anymore. do some research instead of saying what you THINK instead of what is factual.
I research all the time Verity that’s precisely why I know you are wrong on this point. I see that you are well informed, but so am I and I have lived and loved through much more of royal history than you. I have in fact spent the entire afternoon today researching a different point for someone. I suggest you do the same and find any precedent for the claim you make or any proof that it could happen.
Since I am a royal historian, I will beg to differ with you. I have research this extensively and understand the Queen’s powers and the powers of the monarchy. Just because she DOESN’T use them doesn’t mean they don’t exist. The Queen rarely uses her powers. Here is what the Chairman of the Monarchist League states when he was queried with the same question:
Her Majesty has the “power” to create someone a Prince or Princess of the United Kingdom.
While the most obvious example is Prince Phillip, Phillip was already “sang royale” by virtue of being a Prince of Greece, so it is not the best example within the context of this question.
The odds of Her Majesty doing this (Especially within the context of the details) are virtually non existent, but as the Fount, she could elevate anyone she wishes to Prince or Princess and make them part of the Royal Family.
You are not the only royal historian. I am also one of more than sixty years research. I have also read that but it has never actually been tested legally probably because there has not been anyone she wished to honour in this way but untested nevertheless..
That is MY point, she can legally do it. You said she could not create a title. When the discussions were going on about Diana, the Queen was advised NOT to create her “HRH”, when in hindsight, it might have worked out better.
But Phillip was born royal and that is the point. He was a Prince twice over. Catherine is not. Princess Patricia was also a princess in her own right so I am not sure what point you are making there. I don’t recall the circumstances without checking but she is remembered in many ways such as the Princess Patricia regiment. The two are not compatible.
You told me that the Queen didn’t have the power to make someone a prince or princess unless they are of royal blood. I gave you a direct quote from the Monarchist League Chairman that contradicted your assertion. That is what my point was and it remains true. Philip was “recreated” a royal duke by Elizabeth’s father, then bestowed the title of “prince of the UK” by his wife. It had NOTHING to do with whether he was born royal or not. The Queen has the power to create anyone a royal prince or princess. She just NEVER uses that power.
I replied to you from the bottom up so the posts were out of synch. Somewhere along the line I did concede the point. Regards
I have no idea why this old topic popped up last night and I thought I had already replied to your statement but can’t find it. I am afraid you are wrong in thinking Catherine can become a Princess in her own right. She cannot. Prince Phillip is a totally different circumstance. He was born a prince and was/is a Prince in his own right. Catherine is not and therefore cannot.
Wrong.
Yes you are.
Creation of Peerages – The Queen may create a peerage for any person – whether a life peerage or hereditary one, though hereditary peerages haven’t been issued for decades outside of the Royal Family. This is still one of the powers of the Queen, again, she never uses it – the last time she did was creating William Duke of Cambridge.
Sorry I seem to be reading your replies backwards. I am well aware of this but it is nowhere near what we were talking about. A Life Peerage does not compare to a Royal style or title.
She is PrincessWilliam of Wales
Yes, by marriage. Not by birth. The Queen would have to create her a princess if she wanted to hold the title on her own.
The easy way to explain this is to say that she is a princess by marriage, as all royal duchesses are, but not a princess by birth, so she cannot use the title “Princess” before her own given name. Only princesses by birth can do that.
She is also not a duchess by birth (very few women have ever been duchesses by birth), and the title “Duchess” is simply never used before a given name.
There was one notable exception of a royal duchess who was also a princess by birth. Before the death of King George VI, the present queen was known as HRH the Princess Elizabeth, Duchess of Edinburgh.
It was Philip though that was made Duke of Edinburgh so Elizabeth was Duchess by marriage she was not invested with the title herself
Yes, Philip was given the title by King George VI. Common law directs that as his wife, Elizabeth takes the title, too. It’s the same with his children’s titles before his wife’s accession; when Prince Charles was born he was known as Prince Charles of Edinburgh (plus the other titles).
It’s the same today; Prince William’s son is styled “Prince George of Cambridge,” taking his title from his father.
I don’t think Elizabeth took the title duchess of Endiburg despite the fact her husband the duke. I mean considering the fuss her mom made about the “Windsor” house turning into a complication last name thing again-beside she was already heir to the throne-totally different there.
In official documents of the time, she was referred to as “Her Royal Highness the Princess Elizabeth, Duchess of Edinburgh,”
which was her full title from the time of her wedding until the death of King George VI.
I remember seeing her referred to by this title on the announcement of Prince Charles’ birth, for example.
Royal Central, am I not correct?
WAS Charles a Prince at birth or simply Lord Charles? As grandchildren of the sovereign in the female line even though Elizabeth was heiress presumptive I dont think her children would have been titled prince and princess.
Before Charles was born, King George VI issued a Letters Patent which would give all of then-Princess Elizabeth’s children the title of prince or princess, with the style of Royal Highness.
I know it sounds absurd but Princess Elizabeth was heiress presumptive, not Princess of Wales because of the unlikely possibility that her parents might have the miracle of the birth of a son.
This is incorrect. The title Princess of Wales is only given to the wife of a Prince of Wales.
This issue did arise in the 1940’s, when a royal courtier suggested to King George VI that Princess Elizabeth be created Princess of Wales. But this title was not bestowed on her because of the reason I mentioned above.
There is no reason Elizabeth could not have been created Princess of Wales in her own right. Not having happened before doesn’t mean it couldn’t. TECHNICALLY if her parents HAD produced a son, the heiress presumptive part would go out the window.
If King George VI had a son at any time, he could — and almost certainly would’ve been — created Prince of Wales. But this is only for sons, not daughters.
Princess Elizabeth would’ve lost her position as Heiress Presumptive if a baby brother had been born. As I’ve said twice before, the title Princess of Wales is only for the wife of the Prince of Wales.
The fact that it hadn’t happened before doesn’t mean it couldn’t. This was the first heiress presumptive that had children. Mary I was childless, as was Victoria before shebecame Queen.
While not absolutely impossible, protocol regarding titles relies very heavily on precedent, or the absence of it.
This is true. To refer to her as Princess
Catherine is incorrect just as it was when
Diana was referred to as Princess Diana
The correct title would be HRH The Duchess of Cambridge. That is why when she is not with William she has to courtesy to Princess Beatrice as she was born and styled Princess. When Catherine is with William Beatrice would have to curtesy to her as she than ranks
higher with her husband
“Have to courtesy”? Is that the correct spelling of “curtsy”?
Typos puhlees
And that, too, is absurd. Why really should Catherine have to curtsey to those two young ladies. It is border line insulting.
Queen Mary CURTSYED to her own son (George VI) when he became monarch. And YOU are concerned about cousins?
Philip and Charles curtsy to the Queen! Maybe British Royalty isn’t your cup of tea.
Phillip and Charles bow. Women curtsy.
They are royals and direct descendants of HM The Queen. Catherine is not.
The critical difference here is that Beatrice and Eugenie are “Princesses of the Blood.” This means that they were born royal, as opposed to marrying into the Royal Family the way Catherine did.
This is why the York Princesses have precedence over the Duchess of Cambridge, unless she’s with her husband. In that case, Beatrice and Eugenie would be obliged to curtsey to Catherine.
Absurd it may be to you but it is Royal Protocol and The Duchess does have to curtsy to the two Princesses on first meeting for simply that reason: they are Princesses, she is not.
Only if William isn’t present. If William is present, she doesn’t have to curtsy. Usually the younger set ignore this rule, and everyone curtsies to the Queen, but not anyone else.
Yes but again I have to say we were talking about a principle, not specifics. The fact is that Beatrice and Eugenie are Princesses in their own right and Catherine isn’t so they outrank her except as the wife of Prince William. She does have to curtsy to them, and does, in formal circumstances on their first meeting of the day if William is not present.
I really enjoyed the way that you explain that. I didn’t understand about Catherine having to curtsey to Beatrice unless she’s with her husband William His Royal Highness William. Anyway I really like the way you explained it thank you for that
I don’t think that is true anymore than Diana ever curtsied to Anne. I don’t think since her marriage she even curtsies to Charles. This is some weird rumor or if there is a rule book that says so, it’s ignored.
The order of precedence was changed after the death of the Princess of Wales by Her Majesty. The reason was to recognize that the Princesses of York are Princesses by birth and The Duchess of Cambridge takes her rank from her husband.
Nothing of the kind happened after the death of Diana, Princess of Wales. The order of precedence has always been the way it is now for princes and princesses of the blood versus people who marry into the royal family.
And by the way, Diana was not the Princess of Wales at the time of her death. After her divorce from Prince Charles she was given the title Diana, Princess of Wales. A small difference, but the two titles aren’t the same.
Technically, they never curtsy to each other – and during the most formal occasions, Catherine would be with William so they would curtsy. But you NEVER see them curtsy when they are together, unless they curtsy to the Queen. She is the only one that gets a curtsy during informal situations.
This very old post has popped up for some reason (?) but you were wrong in your comment. Diana Princess of Wales did curtsy to Princess Anne on the first meeting on formal occasions. Just as The Duchess of Cambridge does now
The Duchess of Cambridge has to curtsy to anyone of higher rank including foreign Royals, and that includes the Duchess of Cornwall and Princes Anne. It would not normally include Princess Anne, the Princess Royal but HM The Queen made it clear that Anne is the Senior Princess and retained Anne’s rank and title when Prince Charles married Camilla. Normally The Princess of Wales would outrank the Princess Royal;.
Actually Catherine doesn’t “have to” curtsy to anyone but the Queen and possibly the Duke of Edinburgh. Beyond those two, hardly any Royals bow or curtsy to each other although strict precedence says they should.
It now though is out of whack when it comes to Catherine. She is a Countess married to a Prince and now she is the mother of a Prince and a Princess. It’s awkward and would seem that at some point she should be a Princess but not one latched onto her husband’s first name. There should be a level playing field title wise within a household.
There’s nothing at all awkward about Catherine’s titles. You say she is a Countess, which is true enough; but she is also a Princess, a Duchess, a Baroness, and has the style of Royal Highness as well.
Whenever a woman of any station marries into the British Royal Family, she takes titles and styles corresponding to those of her husband unless she already holds other British titles of greater rank.
She has every legal right to all the titles she acquired when she married Prince William. Nothing is ‘out of whack’ here.
I really do understand all of that but I was addressing the fact that colloquially speaking Countess Anybody is a mouthful and while I realize she is Princess William, that, too is awkward. Looking back it was only on formal occasions that Diana was given her proper titled name and she rather quickly slipped into the “Princess Di” name that was completely against the rules of formal British Etiquette.
Maybe my using “out of whack” was the wrong phrase. Let’s see what she does now that she is the mother of a Prince and a Princess. She could use Princess William as does Princess Michael but honestly it’s the problem of Camila that hovers over this. Camilla is I suppose the Princess of Wales but I don’t know a soul who would refer to her that way. So when she married Charles the alternative of Countess was chosen because it made sense given the awkward circumstances but that seems to have spilled over to Kate – dare I say it.
And I realize that a Countess is not necessarily a downgrade from a Princess but to make things a bit simpler it might be better for Catherine to be called Princess – and that the Queen can do though she won’t again because of the Camilla problem. All will change when Charles becomes King. However, God Save the Queen.
She’s not a Countess, she’s a Duchess – Sophie, Countess of Wessex is a Countess.
Catherine acquired several titles when she married; Princess William, Duchess of Cambridge, Countess of Strathearn, and Baroness Carrickfergus. She also has the style of Royal Highness.
If you a re referring to Catherine Douches of Cambridge she is also both a (a)Countess and (b) a Baroness. But those titles may only be used when she is in Scotland (a) and Ireland (b).
But, you DON’T “UNDERSTAND” at all!
It is simply delusional to claim to understand, and then make assumptions that do not follow! Or, ask questions that do not apply!
And, “Countess Anyone” is NOT a mouthful! It is TWO extra syllables (as is Duchess if you are talking about Catherine Middleton). We say “doctor (two syllables) so and so” or “professor” (three syllables) so and so,” all the time. Depending on your country, we say “President (three syllables) so and so” or “Prime Minister (four syllables) so and so” or “Senator (three syllables) so and so” or “Representative (FIVE syllables) so and so” or “Ambassador (four syllables) so and so” and it hasn’t killed us yet!!!!
“Princess William” is NOT “awkward.” (Again, you are allowing your (less than accurate) opinion rule the day, when it only applies to YOU!!!!!)
I refer to Charles’ present wife as “The Princess of Wales” because THAT IS HER TITLE!!! So, please stop saying that “nobody” does!!! If she is forced to use an alternate title, to make her life easier, that is fine with me.
FACT: If the Prince of Wales has a wife, she is the Princess of Wales!!!!!! (Charles DOES have a wife and she is the Princess of Wales, whether YOU like it or not).
FACT: Camilla OUTRANKS Catherine AND ALWAYS WILL!!!! That is because of her age and rank. SHE IS MARRIED TO THE “FATHER” and Catherine is married to the “SON.” That means the OLDER WOMAN outranks the younger woman. (If Catherine was to live in angst by having to curtsy to Andrew’s daughters (who were BORN into the family) then she should have passed on marrying William.
FACT: Camilla is Catherine’s mother-in-law and (hopefully) always will be. That means that Catherine owes a bit of respect to the woman who is married to William’s father. If that bothers her, she should not have “married in.”
FACT: Camilla (and her first husband, Andrew Parker Bowles) were “insiders” to the Royal family since they was teenagers; that’s about 50 years. (She and Andrew used to visit the Queen Mum at her Castle of Mey on the North Coast of Scotland; so they were VERY close friends.) Andrew used to date Princess Anne! The Queen, the Queen Mum, and Princess Margaret attended Camilla’s marriage to Andrew Parker Bowles. Charles is god-father to her children. Anne remains a friend; they were spotted chatting at an event a short time ago.
Catherine was NOT part of the family when Charles married Camilla. Let’s keep things in perspective.
You also said: “And I realize that a Countess is not necessarily a downgrade from a Princess…” THIS MAKES NO SENSE! You don’t “realize” a single thing!
Camilla outranks Catherine NOW. Unlike Russia where Tsar Nicholas II’s mother, the Dowager Tsarina outranked his wife, the then current Tsarina, when William becomes King, HIS wife will outrank the newly Dowager……who will be Dowager NOT Queen Mother.
I was referring to any situation when they are BOTH alive, and in relation to each other. If Charles dies, then Camilla is obviously diminished in rank. Catherine will ALWAYS be “the mother of a monarch.” However, if Charles lives, and William dies, her rank will also be minimalized. Their lives depend on their husbands, EXCEPT of course, Catherine will always be the mother of a monarch, and Camilla never will. However, the notion of William diminishing Camilla seems unlike him. He seems like a decent person, who knows of his own mother’s demons, even if he cannot publicly recognize them. (Although, as a sponsor of mental health problems, he certainly must realize how some will interpret his sponsorship.) I was referring to the fact that William, as son, will always be second to his father. OF COURSE, I mean that that means as long as they both live. When a rank is subject to the husband, EVERYTHING depends on his status as a living or dead person. What if the Royal great-grands die of some odd disease, when they are children? What is Catherine’s status then? We can make note of any and all eventualities, but the normal progression is parent to child. Just because YOU prefer Catherine (for whatever reason) to Camilla, does NOT diminish her status as the wife of Charles, the Prince of Wales, and future king. Of course if Charles dies before becoming King, Camila will always be an erstwhile “Princess of Wales and
Duchess of Cornwall, and Duchess of Rothesay, yadda, yadda” but her future (and final) title seems to depend on the (then) current monarch, which could be the current Queen, or King William. We could nit-pick this to death. . . . (I’m willing).
Um if Charles for whatever reason is no longer sitting on the throne, and William succeeds him while Camilla is alive, Catherine would indeed outrank Camilla.
Fact: Camilla is not Catherine’s mother-in-law. She is not Williams mother.
Fact: When Charles married Camilla we were assured she would not use the title Princess of Wales and would never be Queen Consort. It was not her or Charles decision but the government along with constitutional experts some of whom questioned the legality of such a marriage for the heir to the throne. It was nodded through on the principal of Charles being entitled to a family life.
Your first sentence is indeed factual, but the rest isn’t.
No “assurance” was ever made about Camilla never being Queen Consort. At the time of the wedding in 2005, it was announced from Clarence House (not by the government) that it was the intention that Camilla would take the title Princess Consort when the Prince of Wales becomes King.
This was done to quell some of the hostility the public had toward the couple at the time. But over the last 11 years, opinion polls show a steady rise in the number of people in the UK who approve of Camilla being Queen.
This will happen automatically anyway, when Charles becomes King. After his accession, it would take an act of Parliament to downgrade Camilla’s status. It would also require Royal Assent; that is, the monarch’s signature. Do you really think King Charles II would sign such a document?
With the greatest respect we were never ‘assured’ of either of those things. Firstly Prince Charles was legally entitled to marry. It was decided by Buckingham Palace not the Government that Camilla would not use the title Princess of Wales as a mark of respect to the boys and the late Diana. It was also never ‘assured’ that Camilla would never be Queen Consort. Why would she be? When Prince Charles accedes the throne her title will be Queen. The wife of a King is the Queen. Queen Consort is a totally different title and has to be bestowed personally by the reigning Monarch on an individual. It confers near equal status and is most unlikely to be used. There has been no Consort in our Royal Family since Prince Albert husband of Queen Victoria and that was only granted to pacify him as he had believed he would have equal rights to the throne when he married Victoria as his link to our throne was actually closer than his. And even that honour took 17 years before it was conferred. What was said at the time of Prince Charles’ marriage was that the Duchess ‘may’ take the title Princess Consort – an unknown title so far – and only a possibility. Charles has made it known that he wants Camilla as his Queen and it will be his choice based on public opinion at the time what she will be known as.
The wives of ruling kings of England are Queen Consorts. They are NOT created a consort. The duchess of York, Elizabeth Bowes Lyon, was the Queen Consort to King George VI.
Wrong. The title Consort is a specific and extremely rare role and has to be conferred by the Monarch on that person. Consort confers near-equal status and has not been invoked since Prince Albert. Victoria and Albert were married 17 years before she conferred this title on him. He had been badgering for it since his marriage as he had expected joint rule as he was, in fact, closer to the throne that Victoria was. It was successive Governments that consistently prevented Albert from receiving this honour as it gave him higher status. It is not a title than can be used unless conferred upon a person.; There have been no Queen Consorts in any near living memory. A wife naturally acts as consort to her husband but that is not their title and they are not Consorts per se.
Since the foundation of the Kingdom of Great Britain, it and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland have had ten royal consorts. Queens between 1727 and 1814 were also Electress of Hanover, as their husbands all held the title of Elector of Hanover. Between 1814 and 1837, queens held the title as Queen of Hanover, as their husbands were Kings of Hanover. The personal union with the United Kingdom ended in 1837 on the accession of Queen Victoria because the succession laws (Salic Law) in Hanover prevented a female inheriting the title if there was any surviving male heir (in the United Kingdom, a male took precedence over only his own sisters, until the Succession to the Crown Act 2013 which removed male primogeniture.) In the Austro-Prussian War of 1866, Hanover was annexed by Prussia and became the Province of Hanover.
All female consorts have had the right to be and have been styled as queens consort. However, of the three British male consorts to have existed since 1707, none was considered king consort:
That is not correct. Consort is a specific tile and honour creating near-equal status. The last Consort was Prince Albert and it took him 17 years of badgering before he received that honour. Not Queen Elizabeth, nor Queen Mary, nor Queen Alexandra were created Consort by their husbands. Of course they act as consort and helper but none were created Consort
No, it is NOT, I don’t know what you are reading. Queen Elizabeth, wife of King George VI, was a Queen Consort AND Counsellor of State which IS something that the King appoints. You are correct in saying that the HUSBAND of a Queen HAS to be created Prince consort, but NOT the wife of a King.
You are obviously not reading my responses. Again, I agreed the point that they take that role. But that they are not referred to in that title, and that no one since Albert has actually created – formally – Consort. No one ever referred to the last three Queens as Queen Consort simply because it is a title that is granted. If YOU check your history it confers near-equal status. Which is why it doesn’t happen.
All the past Male Monarch’s have referred to their wives as Queen……..
TECHNICALLY Camilla is Princess of Wales. It was her choice to USE the title Duchess of Cornwall out of sensitivity toward thoughts of the late Diana, Princess of Wales. If Her Majesty didn’t want to put a finer point on it, she would NOT have revised the order of precedence.
Currently – as you say – HM The Queen can not make Catherine a Princess. Nor is this likely to happen in the future. Catherine was not born royal. She takes the style and titles of her Royal husband. There is a story – unconfirmed – that Prince William would have preferred to remain Prince William on his marriage, in the belief that would make his wife Princess Catherine. Sadly that is not the case.
(A Duchess, not a Countess) Edwards wife Sophie is a Countess.
I imagine Sophie is technically Princess Edward also. As a non Brit who is enthralled by the monarchy, the fact that they rely on Public interest and constantly ‘evolve’ is of interest. I have read that name cards at private events read William and Catherine Wales. Will curtsying become obsolete as a less modern tradition?
Goodness, I sure hope curtsying and bowing/kneeling don’t go anytime soon!
It’s great that Royal traditions change with time, but courtesy amongst Royals shouldn’t change in my opinion.
But hey, I’m from across the pond. We don’t kneel over here, so what would I know!?
Prince William holds several subsidiary titles, including Earl of Strathearn. As his wife, Catherine takes the female equivalent titles, so she’s also the Countess of Strathearn.
Ricky, I find your knowledge interesting. The Royal family ‘evolve’ and very much rely on public interest. As an obsessed non Brit, I find the styles/ titles interesting. I understand why Camilla doesn’t use Princess of Wales, but is Sophie Wesswx not technically Princess Edward as the wife of a monarch’s son? Few modern women would use the title Princess followed by their husbands name as it’s rather demeaning- Princess Michael for example. So- I’ve read that the Cambridges use William and Catherine Wales at private events outside the family. True? Will the Middletons as grandparents to the future king ever be granted courtesy titles?
Kathryn, titles and styles certainly are interesting topics!
Most members of the royal family prefer to use their titles with a geographic designation, in this case, Wessex. If Sophie’s husband had not been granted the earldom of Wessex, she would be known as Princess Edward because it would be her highest title/rank.
I understand that The Queen had originally intended to give Prince Edward the title Duke of Cambridge when he married. However, he asked for the title Earl of Wessex instead, and Her Majesty accommodated him.
HRH Princess Michael of Kent uses that title because her husband does not hold a dukedom or earldom, so Princess is her only title.
Her Majesty and her successors could issue a Letters Patent to grant titles to the Middletons anytime they wish. But there is no precedent for doing this for commoners, so I think it’s very unlikely.
The wife of Edward IV had numerous relatives that received titles, as did Anne Boleyn’s father and brother, so yes, there is precedent. Not recent.
With all due respect, it is ridiculous to be “offended” or “concerned” when you have a number of basic elements wrong! IOW, you need to have complete understanding of a situation before you become incensed that “something is wrong” when there is absolutely nothing wrong.
At the time of King George and Queen Elizabeth (later the Queen Mother) the spouse of the sovereign was also crowned. I’m not sure if they’ll crown Camilla as it has been announced she’ll use the title Princess Consort….or if the Duchess of Cambridge will become Queen Catherine.
READ HISTORY!!! When Princess Elizabeth and Princess Margaret were born, their mother was merely “Duchess of York” (and the world continued to turn on its axis). Of course, the next “Queen Consort” was willing to be a mere Duchess, married to a Duke and a Prince, because there was a possibility that she would be the next Queen. I would SUSPECT that Catherine is willing to curtsy to ALL kinds of people, to be the next after Queen.
You used the term “level playing field” while talking about the Royals. That’s funny. And, you also have an odd notion of family dynamics.
The duchess of York was a princess by marriage. They take the title and rank of their husbands. Royal dukedoms are given to prohibit calling a wife princess Charles or princess William.
I don’t presume to speak for others, but I believe the other commenter was referring to the late Queen Mother. She was known as the HRH the Duchess of York before her husband became King George VI.
Bestowing royal dukedoms has nothing to do with a wife’s title. The living example of Princess Michael of Kent comes to mind.
Yes the late queen mum was the duchess or York before she became queen. The queen can bestow a title and usually does if the person is in direct line to the throne. She bestowed titles on all her sons, her brother in law and prince philip
It is such an old post that it’s not really worth commenting but that is not by any means the reason for giving someone a title! ~The title is bestowed as an honour to the Prince in question and his wife takes his name. Far from preventing a wife from taking his name that is exactly what she does as in Princess William, Princess Michael.
It is such an old post that it’s not really worth commenting but that is not by any means the reason for giving someone a title! ~The title is bestowed as an honour to the Prince in question and his wife takes his name. Far from preventing a wife from taking his name that is exactly what she does as in Princess William, Princess Michael.
When did Catherine become a Countess? Sophie is, I know.
The same day she married Prince William. When he was created Duke of Cambridge, he also received the subsidiary titles of Earl of Strathearn, and Baron Carrickfergus.
As his wife, she takes the female form of all his titles; Duchess of Cambridge, Countess of Strathearn, and Baroness Carrickfergus.
If the Duke and Duchess have a daughter and name her Catherine, there will be a Princess Catherine.
Now we’re getting picky. That wasn’t the subject. When Queen Mary’s husband died, her first act was to curtsey to her son, now her King.
That’s the first thing everyone who meets does to the new Monarch. It’s a case of “The King is dead. Long Live the King.”
Proud of being a smart aleck?
There is a rule of argument; about changing the topic. I suggest YOU learn the “rules of engagement” for argument.
She was correct though! 🙂
A reasonable article, though I would contest that referring to the Duchess as ‘HRH Princess William’ is ‘correct’ in the strictest sense. While it is technically one of her titles, I don’t think it can ever be ‘correct’ etiquette to address/refer to her by that title instead of as the Duchess of Cambridge.
Princess Michael of Kent has had no trouble with being known as that.
HRH Prince Michael has no other title for his wife to use therefore she is HRH Princess Michael.
Her title is HRH The Princess William Arthur Philip Louis, Duchess of Cambridge. She takes the titles of her husband. The Queen will usually grant a dukedom to avoid calling her Princess William, especially for those in line to the thrown.
Only a child of the monarch is entitled to the word “the” in front of their name. The Duke and Duchess of Cambridge do not qualify for this, but the Duke will, when his father becomes King.
The whole world are assuming that HRH Prince George will one day be King, but if HM The Queen outlives Prince Charles then the current Duke of York would be King and as such, his daughter would on his death become Queen
No, if The Queen outlives Prince Charles, Prince William will be King. That’s how the line of succession works. After Prince William is Prince George, this is how it will always be. Prince George will be King bar any unfortunate incident or converting to catholicism etc.
Charles 742, I am confused by your assertions regarding the Duke of York’s claim to the throne. Do you think that Princes William, George, and Harry do not have precedence in succession? If you recognize the succession rights of the Duke of York’s daughters, why not that of Prince Charles’ sons? Is this merely an oversight or are you trying to make a point of some kind?
Since you have made this statement more than once, I am curious as to your reasoning.
I think he is going on the custom of some other European monarchies from the dark ages like the Russian and Kieven monarchies where only the decedents of the Grand Prince could inherit the throne so if your father died before becoming grand prince then all his decedents are removed from the line of succession. Not something that has been used anywhere in centuries and centuries anywhere as far as I know. That is the only place I think he could have gotten it from
The line of succession was the eldest son of the eldest son. Now eldest child of the eldest child. If Charles had died before producing a child, only then would Andrew & his family have become next in line.
You are right but now stick in Princess Charlotte between George and Harry.
The Duke of York could be king if Prince Charles and his descendants would die.
Lots of them would have to die. Prince Charles, Prince William, Prince George, Princess Charlotte and Prince Harry. The Duke of York isn’t measuring for furniture at any of the palaces because he is out of the main picture now.
even if you are born of the blood royal it is your mum and dad who decide ask princess zara phillip
Well Zara Phillips isn’t a Princess – she was never entitled to the title of Princess, even by birth.
Not necessarily in every case. Titles are passed through the father, not the mother. When Princess Anne married Captain Phillips, the Queen had to issue a special proclamation to re-title her as Anne, Princess Royal. If she wouldn’t have done that, Anne would have lost her title due to her husband being untitled. HM also offered a title to Captain Phillips so that their children could inherit titles, but the couple turned it down.
I thought that women inherit their husbands title (or lack of title) only if their current title is below that of their future husbands.
Yes, this is correct. A wife takes her husband’s title unless her own title is higher, thus Princess Anne’s title was unaffected by her marriage to Captain Phillips.
Anne didn’t receive the title of Princess Royal at the time of her marriage to Mark Phillips; that came in the late 1980’s.
Her Majesty could have given Anne this title anytime after 1965, when the previous holder died. This was the Queen’s aunt, Princess Mary, who was King George V’s only daughter. There can only be one living Princess Royal at any given time.
When this title was bestowed on Princess Anne, the media reported the Queen did this this because of Anne’s many years of royal duties and her work on behalf of charities, especially Save the Children.
Princess Anne was created Princess Royal in 1987, not when she got married.
Anne didn’t lose her title when she married, she was still The Princess Anne. She would actually be know as The Princess Anne, Mrs. Mark Phillips in the court circular. Her husband didn’t want a title. The Queen’s sister was still Princess Margaret, but her husband did receive a title, The Earl of Snowdon, that is why she as also knows as The Princess Margaret, Countess of Snowdon.
If Will became king tomorrow he would be HM King William V…. And kate would be ?? HRH Queen consort Katherine, or something? And the baby, HRH Prince George?
Prince William would become His Majesty King William V and his wife would become Her Majesty The Queen or Her Majesty Queen Catherine – Prince George would become HRH The Prince George, Duke of Cornwall.
Is it not true that William can choose to use a different name as king, as Elizabeth’s father, Albert, did when he became George? He will not necessarily be “His Majesty King William V,” though that seems most likely.
Each Monarch can choose their regnal (ruling) name. Albert chose George to give some familiarity and stability to his reign after the Abdication Crisis. William could choose something else if he wanted, but for many of us, it would sound wrong to call him anything other than William. Doubt this will happen again in future.
William could choose any of his 4 names (William Arthur Philip Louis) as a regnal name, but it’s unlikely he would choose anything other than William V.
The Queen’s father chose not to be known as King Albert because it was thought that it sounded too German. This is understandable in the context of the times, when relations between Hitler and the rest of Europe were very tense.
This is great! I’m sharing it with my American friends, so I don’t have to explain it again!
Why was Diana allowed to be called “Princess Diana”? She also had the title, “HRH Diana Princess of Wales”.
That was a concession made by the Queen and Prince Charles during the divorce negotiations. As the mother of a future monarch, Buckingham Palace agreed that she needed to have some sort of title, even though she was having HRH stripped. They settled for ‘Princess’. Same thing actually happened to Prince Philip when he married HM. His previous title of Prince was removed once he married (I can’t remember why just now, but I know it’s easy to find if you wish to look into it), but the Queen issued a proclamation declaring that he still be known as Prince Philip.
Prince Philip renounced his greek titles and became Lt. Mountbatten. When he married Elizabeth, her father George VI granted him, by letters patent, the title HRH the Duke of Edinburgh. In 1957, Queen Elizabeth granted him the title of Prince, by letters patent, so that Charles wouldn’t outrank his father. Victoria did the same thing with Albert, although he was created a Prince Consort.
She wasn’t. That is what the media and the public called her but that was never her title. Before the divorce she was HRH The Princess of Wales (no use of her first name). After the divorce she was Diana, Princess of Wales.
Simple, “commoner” example – the traditional British way, if you like.
Miss Anne Smith marries Mr Alan Brown and her formal title is Mrs Alan Brown
They divorce
She is now Mrs Anne Brown.
Why do the Royals allow the name Kate Middleton to be used instead of Catherine? Do the Royals not like Catherine? Some proclamation needs to be made by some higher royal as to the correct use of her name or punitive damages will be put of those magazines that call her Kate Middleton which is not her name by any means. The Royals and the public are bullying Catherine again!
No matter what anyone says on the subject, the media is still going to call her Kate Middleton even though she has been a married woman for almost 3 years now. Kate Middleton, Princess Kate and Princess Catherine sell papers and magazines rather than her proper title The Duchess of Cambridge or Catherine, The Duchess of Cambridge.
I personally tend to ignore any magazines that refuse to use her proper title when they use her image on the front pages.
No, no one is bullying her. It has to do with SEO (Search Engine Optimization). People search for things online based on certain words. The average person on the street knows who Kate Middleton is but they may not know who The Duchess of Cambridge is.
It’s not a sign of disrespect. People seem to get overly emotional about this issue when there is no reason to. It is a simple case of addressing her in a way that people recognize. And there is no insult in calling a married woman by her maiden name. Many women keep their last names.
Catherine is known affectionately as “Kate”. The same as Diana was known as “Di”. We, as British, like to shorten names of people we love. i suppose you could call it a “term of endearment”!!!
So, then you don’t like Queen Elizabeth (or you would call her Queen Liz), according to your claim that “British shorten names as a “term of endearment.”
Gary: Would it surprise you to know that we referred to John F. Kennedy, as”Jack” and Mrs. John F. Kennedy, as “Jackie?” Or, do you think that is just a “British” trait? We also call Barbara, “Babs.” We call Robert, “Bob.” We call Edward, “Teddy.”
It’s not really bullying. That was her name for a long time when we met her. Think back to Princess Di which was not said to bully her at all. Some of these titled names are more than a mouthful and it seems those royals who are especially liked do pick up nick names. I’m all for Princess Kate but it doesn’t seem to be going that way.
To refer to HRH Catherine, Princess of Cambridge, as “Princess Kate” is a TERRIBLE insult. (1) It is an intentional “mess up” of her name. (2) It is a reminder that she is NOT Royal, and (3) that her daughter outranks her.
Kindness, and courtesy, DEMAND that she be referred to as “HRH Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge. Or, Kate Middleton. Or, Catherine Middleton. Or HRH Princess William.
It is NEVER wrong to refer to someone by their birth name. It is never wrong to refer to someone by their married name. It is never wrong to refer to someone by names that have been (in their case) issued by the monarchy. Any questions about names of the British Royals can be referenced by contacting Buckingham Palace, or Clarence House, or St. James Palace, or Kensington Palace.
But, to “make up a name that YOU think is “cute” or “makes sense to you” is never correct. (Would you like for me to call you “little llewe?”)
Funny, within the last two weeks someone stumbled over what to call her and Catherine said, “Please call me Kate.”
Perhaps we use “Kate Middleton” due to several reasons. Her name appeared for many years in the press as such. But more than that, I would never assume any woman changes her name at marriage. As persons delay marriage, especially educated ones, to about age 30, a woman’s life is established, and thus her indentity, which includes her name. Changing one’s ID, banking, pension, et al is a pain, and often costly. Not that Kate has to personally process those changes. But real women do. I don’t believe the royals have anything to do with “Kate Middleton” being of common usage in most press. Name-changing at marriage is primarily a Western-Anglo convention.
I think the use of “Kate Middleton” as more to do with SEO than anything else. That is how most people know her & they are more inclined to click on a link that says “Kate Middleton” than if it said, “The Duchess of Cambridge”. And I agree that these days a lot of women don’t change their names & it shouldn’t be seen as a sign of disrespect when she is referred to as KM.
The Duchess of Cambridge, Catherine gave birth to a Prince and is a distant cousin to her Prince husband and must do the duties of a Princess. She deserves the right to be Princess Catherine and all of these politics around it should end. She married a prince and is the mother of a Prince. Give her the rightful title. Her son out ranks her. I can see her son ordering her around if he became a belligerent child. SO WRONG!!!!!! Please reconsider this. Then there is the possibility of Prince Charles advocating his son Prince William to King what will Catherine be then? I just do not see this as fair. She’s a Princess in her every right. Let the Queen give her what is is rightfully hers.
Diana wasn’t really Princess?
She was whilst she was married to Charles, but she lost the title HRH Princess of Wales when she divorced him. She was allowed to continue to have the title ‘Princess’ as part of divorce negotiations, but she was no longer a Princess in anything but name.
No, actually even when she was married she was never ACTUALLY a Princess. Only in title.
“Princess” IS a title.
She was a Lady before she met Charles and had more English roots than he ever had.
While she was married she was Princess Charles, plus other titles like Duchess of Rothesay, Countess of Chester, Princess of Wales, and one or two others. But at no time was she ever “Princess Diana.”
The references to Prince Phillip were, and still technically are, a courtisy afforded due to his not unique, but certainly rare, instance of birth.
Prior to his marriage to the present soverign, Prince Phillip was Prince of Greece and Prince of Denmark.
Although he renounced these titles upon his marriage to our present Queen, he is often refered to as Prince Phillip because of his former enoblement under other Crowns; it’s not concidered good form to demote a Royal!
Rather like deposed monarchs, the titles of King, Queen, Prince, and Princess, are the personal possession of the bearer, even though they may no longer reign. The European Court ruled that King Constantine of the Hellenes was fully entitled to retain the title, even although he was no longer the Head of State, there are numerous other examples.
Excellent post, and very well thought out.
I see you describe yourself as an Englishman who will one day live abroad. I’m an Atlanta Anglophile American, so let’s switch residences and we’ll both realize our dreams!
I do hope you’re in central London!
lol
Philip was created a Prince of the United Kingdom by letters patent as a gift from the Queen, that is why he is now Prince Philip. She did that in 1957 so that Prince Charles wouldn’t outrank his father.
I believe that Prince Charles Will bestow on Catherine the title of Princess when he is king George the 6th or 7th….(or on the slim chance he keeps King Charles). It will curry favor of the world who adore Catherine.
Catherine became a princess the day she said “I do” in Westminster Abbey. The Duchess of Cambridge has several titles, one of which is “Princess William.”
Charles has no intention, as far as Royal reporters are aware, of taking any regnal name other than his own. Catherine will be made Princess of Wales eventually, but I highly doubt she will be made a Princess in her own right for the reasons stated.
She currently is a princess because of her marriage but I understand what you are saying and I agree I think Charles will make her a princess in her own right (as if she were a blood princess). I think he views her as the daughter he never had.
Royal by birth, which means blue blood, it is God’s grace. (people can’t afford it by themselves)
and when you are someone with a blue blood but not in this era anymore, which is extinct, which means no more about it, you only have it by birth like the ancestors,
yes, you feel something which can’t be understood and can not be explained in words,
but
it’s true, you feel it, when you have it in blood.
Therefore i respect the UK Royals that should be strictly maintained.
God bless.
If the Queen’s mum was called the Queen Mother, what will Kate be called when William dies if by that stage he is already King?
Just came to me then and i am now intrigued.
She will be styled Her Majesty Queen Catherine. If King William V is succeeded by King George VII or any of their other children, there’s no reason why she couldn’t be called the Queen Mother.
Dowager Queen….not just Queen Catherine
Why not the Queen mother? That’s how the current Queen’s mother decided to have people refer to her. Dowager today has depressing connotations and I doubt if anyone will ever use it again.
Does it really matter if she ever becomes “Princess Catherine”? When William becomes King, she will be Her Majesty The Queen. :0). What’s more interesting, if Prince William bypasses Prince Charles as King, Prince Harry’s children will not become Princes or Princesses based on the Letters Patent similar to Prince Michael’s children. They probably will be given courtesy titles of Lord and Lady unless he is made a Duke at the time of his marriage. Also, his children will not be HRH.
If all children born to any sons of the sovereign, then why aren’t Prince Edwards children titled Prince and Princess?
Because the Earl and Countess of Wessex wanted it that way. Their children have the titles “James, Viscount Severn,” and “Lady Louise Windsor.” But neither of them have the style of “Royal Highness.”
This is correct. Though on a technicality, Edward won’t ‘inherit’ Duke of Ed title – it’ll have to be recreated for him, but only after both The Queen and Prince Philip die.
Is it correct that the Wessex children automatically inherit the HRH prince and princess titles but that their parents choose they be styled as the children of a non royal duke? They are still technically a prince and princess though, aren’t they?
Viscount Severn and Lady Louise Windsor aren’t children of a Duke at present. Prince Edward is an Earl.
I don’t think the children of a royal Earl like Edward would automatically be princes or princesses. I’m not absolutely sure about this since I can’t recall any other such situations in British royalty.
Perhaps the moderator would know?
Prince Edward’s would automatically be HRH as male line descendents of the Monarch. His title of Earl wouldn’t change that.
While Prince Edward himself has always had the style of Royal Highness, his children do not, for the reasons I outlined in my earlier comment.
Letters Patent were issued by George V in 1917 that covers this. Any male line grandchildren of a Monarch is automatically an HRH, it’s not dependent upon the peerage title. William, Harry, Beatrice, and Eugenie aren’t HRH because their father’s are royal Dukes but because they are male line grandchildren of a Monarch. If being a royal Duke makes your children a HRH then the children of the Dukes of Kent and Gloucester would be HRH but they aren’t because they are great-grandchildren of a Monarch.
I am familiar with the Letters Patent of 1917, but in the case of the Earl of Wessex’s children it doesn’t apply. As I wrote earlier, this is because he and the Countess specifically did not want their children to have the HRH, even though they’re entitled to it.
When the Edinburgh dukedom is recreated for Prince Edward by the future King Charles III, he will become a royal duke. It will be interesting to see if Louise and James, as children of a royal duke, acquire the style of HRH when that happens.
You mentioned the case of the Gloucester and Kent dukedoms, whose children, when the dukedoms were created, would, and do, carry the HRH.
I read recently that the Kent dukedom will cease to be a royal one when the present duke dies. The next holder, the Earl of St. Andrews, and those after him, will be Dukes of Ordinary Station, and will no longer carry the style of Royal HIghness. I would assume the same will be true of the Gloucester dukedom too, but I don’t know for sure.
And the Princess Royal (Anne) went further and neither of her children have any title at all.
If Kate will never be a Princess how come Dianna was Dianna Princess of wales
The article doesn’t say Catherine isn’t a princess; it says we’ll never see a “Princess Catherine.” She acquired several titles when she married Prince William, one of which is Princess William.
As far as Diana, she became the Princess of Wales when she married the Prince of Wales. If/when Prince William becomes the Prince of Wales, Catherine will be the Princess of Wales.
But neither Catherine nor Diana were ever Princesses in their own right; only by marriage.
As an American who studies the British monarchy (not just the modern day monarchy), what bothers me more than the media’s incorrect use of Catherine’s name and title is the lack of use of Camilla’s title. Every reference I see to Catharine, and Diana for that matter, it’s always Princess Kate or Duchess Kate and Princess Diana (all incorrect); however, whenever they cover Prince Charles and the Duchess of Cornwall, it’s just Camilla. Why doesn’t the media ever use her title and call her Duchess Camilla?
For the same reason that the Press should not be using the terms Princess Catherine or Princess Diana. It would be incorrect. She is not Duchess Camilla, she is the Duchess of Cornwall.
Won’t she eventually be known as “Catherine, Princess of Wales”? Just as Diana was known as “Diana, Princess of Wales”?
Indeed, she’ll become HRH the Princess of Wales if and when Prince William is made Prince of Wales. But this still won’t make her ‘Princess Catherine’.
Diana used to have the title HRH the Princess of Wales, but when she and Prince Charles divorced her title was changed. A short time later, the Queen issued a Letters Patent that stripped Diana and the Duchess of York of their HRH status.
Not unless William and Catherine divorce
Somebody please enlighten me as to the circumstances around the Royal Family’s renaming to Mountbatten-Windsor at about the time of Prince Andrew’s birth. Apparently some minor courtier pointed out that the name-change was needed to “legitimise” the birth as it was taking place post-coronation. Charles and Anne were, of course, born before it.
Won’t she become Queen someday?
Yes!
Out of curiosity ,if a blood royal such as a prince adopted a child would that child bear any title ?
I don’t know of any precedents like that in the UK, but it has happened in some European countries. The head of the royal or princely house of that country would decide what, if any, title the child would have.
Will Catherine became a queen, when William become a king?
Yes
Regarding the Prince Harry, the future wife Duchess will also? And the future of his children will be princes / princesses?
Prince Harry will almost certainly be made a Duke when he marries, yes, so his wife would be a Duchess.
As it stands, any children of Prince Harry right now would be Lords and Ladies. As soon as Prince Charles becomes king, however, they’d become princes and princesses, however I suspect if Prince Harry did have children during The Queen’s reign, she would act to ensure they were princes/princesses from birth.
He isn’t “the Prince Harry” yet. Only a child of the monarch is entitled to the word “the” in front of their name. He will have that designation when Prince Charles inherits the throne.
My question is whether future wife and the children of Harry respectively will have the title of Duchess and Prince or Princess.
They will be princes and princesses with the style of HRH, but a Letters Patent might be necessary for this if they’re born while The Queen is on the throne. When Prince Charles is King, Harry’s children would automatically be princes and princesses because Harry would then be a child of the monarch.
If Harry becomes the Duke of Sussex (hypothetical dukedom), his wife will be HRH the Duchess of Sussex, and the children will be HRH Prince/Princess X of Sussex.
If Harry has a son who outlives him, that son would become the next Duke of Sussex.
I think you will find that if Harry becomes a Duke during HM The Queen’s lifetime his children will be styled Lady/Lord as are all other children of Dukes. Prince Charles may alter that or allow them as a secondary title but he intends to reduce the number of family members holding senior titles. HM does not challenge The Prince of Wales in these matters as she knows he is taking the succession forward
For the children of a Duke of ordinary station, that would be correct. But as children of a Royal Duke like HRH Prince Harry, they would be styled as prince or princess.
Whether they would inherit their father’s HRH is doubtful, given Prince Charles’ determination to have a slimmed-down royal family.
That depends on whether Harry is given different titles at the time. They could be given many other titles (such as Earl and Countess) in which case their children would not be styled Prince/Princess although as Prince Harry is in direct line to the throne he may/or may be given any change of title.
Harry is NOT “the” Prince Harry. He is barely Prince Harry through the vagaries of the law and precedent and not wanting to embarrass Prince Charles. He is best not press his luck, and he knows it. The fate of his mother is (even after 19 years) much too close for comfort.
If and when William becomes king????
When he becomes HM King William V, she will be HM the Queen. If William predeceases her after becoming King, she will be HM Queen Catherine.
Will she be queen when William is King, as Queen Elizabeth, the Queen Mother was?
Yes.
Yes.
Why then is Prince Philip not know as King Philip?
Because a King outranks a Queen. Philip is not the monarch, so he cannot outrank his wife.
No, that is up to William.
Yes. As the wife of a King she is automatically Queen.
I mean I feel this is quite lame. We all know that catherine’s title come from her marrige to prince William, she was a normal person before that so it’s quite obvious that she isn’t a princess in her own right. but either way she’s gonna be in the future the “princess of wales” bc of that too. and in some point the queen consort of england and maybe she will recive the letters patents to become a princess in her own right we don’t know that.
There has been only one precedent for conferring a royal rank on someone giving them that status in their own right. That was when the Queen issued a Letters Patent in 1957 that made the Duke of Edinburgh a Prince of the United Kingdom.
For someone in Catherine’s position there’s no real possibility of that ever happening.
Never say never. I think Prince Charles would do it to make William happy and also he sees her as a daughter. And as King, he could grant the letters of patent if he wants to.
There is no precedent for doing this kind of thing on the basis of a monarch’s personal affection for a member of the extended family.
Theoretically, anything is possible but such a move is extremely unlikely. It’s a romantic fantasy.
Prince Charles cannot make Catherine Princess in her own right. She has to be of royal birth. There is absolutely no precedent and in any case It is quite unnecessary because after Charles’ Accession, he will probably make William Prince of Wales and Catherine will become Princess of Wales which is a ‘higher’ title anyway.
I hope this happens. I really want her to be “Princess Catherine.”
She will never be Princess Catherine. She will only ever be Prince William until such other titles take over.
No, she is Princess William; not “Prince William.”
Typo error. I am well informed and aware of all the titles. Obviously time I was in bed!
My bloodlines predate Alexander the great. Holy Roman empire.1100years.queen is a cousin.from prussia monarchy.all cousins.time to grant her official princess title,Victoraivinkrugervonplessen .she’s a princess to me
Sir How should some one refer or adress to the Duchess of Cambrige. HRH/YRH Duchess Catherine of Cambrige?
The correct form of address would be “Your Royal Highness” when first meeting her (for example, at a garden party), thereafter you would call her “Ma’am.”
The correct form of reference would be Her Royal Highness.
I would almost be willing to bet that when Charles becomes King, he will make Catherine a princess of the UK in her own right as Queen Elizabeth made Philip a prince in his own right. I have heard it is what William wanted when they married but the Queen would not agree to it. I have a feeling that Charles will.
Would you care to cite your source for this, please?
He cannot do that. To hold the title of Prince or Princess you must be of royal birth. Catherine is not. HM The Queen made Prince Phillip a Prince of England in his own right and she was able to do this because he was born a Prince. The fact that he gave up his foreign titles does not alter the circumstances of his birth.
There is no such title as “Prince of England.” HRH the Duke of Edinburgh was created a Prince of the United Kingdom by a Letters Patent in 1957.
Sorry I did not mean to imply that was his title. I simply meant he had been made a British Prince. I am aware of his full and correct title. Thanks anyway
If William became King, would Catherine be granted title of Queen?
She would automatically become Her Majesty The Queen.
Being a princess takes a lot of focus, dedication and love. Life experience can be important as well.
Hi Princess Marina was a greek and danish princess by birth. Prince Phillip was made a Prince of the United Kingdom by the Queen in 1957. He had already renounced his greek and danish tiles before they were married and the Queens father created him HRH The Duke of Edinburgh. If The Monarch chooses to, Catherine can be created a Princess in the same way.
Sorry but she could not. She is not of Royal birth. Prince Phillip was even though he gave up his titles that did not change the circumstances of his birth.
Right you are, Kathleen.
HRH Marina, Duchess of Kent, and HRH Alice, Duchess of Gloucester were given permission to use the title “Princess” in their widowhood, but only as courtesy titles with The Queen’s permission.
Quite right. Not sure if you are making a point or not so if you are not please forgive my comments. It was not HM The Queen who gave permission for the title Princess Marina but King George VI as Marina was widowed in 1942. However, the late Duchess of Kent who was a princess of the houses of Greece and Denmark but was always referred to as Princess Marina by themedia except on formal occasions, as the British public had taken her to their hearts from the word go when she became engaged. Leading up to her marriage to the Duke she became a star, the first pop-Princess, her popularity second to none. She was the first fashion icon to brighten the dusty corridors of the Royal houses with her stunning elegance in Parisien and Italian haute couture. When she was suddenly widowed in 1942 at such a young age she and the family were in shock. It was later believed that she had absolutely hated the title Dowager Duchess (much like the Queen Mum many years later) and she simply reverted to the title by which she had become known anyway. During war time I am sure the King had more important things to worry about than her title, as well as his own grief and a desire not to distress her further. I am not sure whether there was even an announcement or whether it was just accepted. Furthermore, and this is the important point, she was a Princess in her own right.
Alice Duchess of Gloucester is without doubt different. But it should be remembered that she had been a loyal and faithful hardworking support to her late husband from about 1935 (?) until the Duke’s death in 1974 (?) and a much loved family member through those years. She too probably did not like the (by now) archaeic title of Dowager. No one knows for sure how her title of Princess was arrived at but when it was announced it was made very clear that it was a sign of HM’s affection and had been granted as an honorary, courtesy title with no hereditary rights for her life time only. She was already a senior and no one could have know she would reach more than 100 years. At no time was the Duchess created a Princess.
OMG.!! Bloodyyy nuisances!!! WHAT is this … I am so confused she is called princess of wales but she is NOT a princess…what in the willy are u talking about…ahahhaha… !! what in Gods green earth are u on about… makes NO SENSE TO ME AT ALL… oiiiiiii dear LORD…SHE IS NOT A HRH OR SHE IS … really at the end of the day she is married to the HEIR to the THRONE of UK n all Commonwealth nations n he is Crown Prince which makes her Crown PRINCESS as well n some day he shall be KING n she will be QUEEN so who really cares n can understand this BS…damnnnnnnnnnn confusing!!
Something /somebody triggered your site to me (don’t know why) so I will respond enough to ask if you understand so little, are you really interested and if not why are you following this site?
I’m glad I’m an American!
Useful suggestions – I learned a lot from the info – Does someone know if my company might access a blank a form document to fill out ?
I find the royal family as sort of a cliche. If you are not born into the royal family you are always consider 1/2 as good or a commonor. The Duichess of Cambridge you are nothing without your husband even though you birthed him to children a “Prince” and “Princess” you are nothing without him. God half your blood runs through their veins you are married to a prince but yet you are nothing more than a breeding chamber. Not right do away with this nonesense.
Yes and eveyone is aware of the abdication that shook the UK back in the 1930’w yet the Prince of Wales was allowed to continue an affair with a divorced tramp and even so much marry her. Thank God she had enough brains to not take the title of Princess of Wales you would have seen riots in the streets I am sure. but my question is how is he able to marry a divorcee and maintain his sucession rights. Oh I get it he has his legitimate son to follow him born of a pure virgin and a spare no less and now he can marry whoever he wants. That issue is taken care of. Although Duchess of so called Cornwall has soften the hostility of the English people I dont think the people will forget her-she is a homewrecker always will be she is a power seeking H-e who does not deserve the HRH title as much as I do. And I am not even English! I dont ever see her as a Queen consort maybe a princess consort but that is all.
As opposed to Diana the six times adulterers and three-marriage homewrecker you mean? Prince Charles was a Widower when he married Camilla not a Divorcee, as his former wife was dead. Edward and Mrs Simpson took place in 1936. Fortunately the world and society has evolved and softened. Believe it or not, people do change partners including many of the hypocrites who constantly criticise Charles and Camilla on this site. At least Charles had only one and went back to the one woman he loved and who loved him. Unlike Diana who slept with any millionaire in trousers and did not care how many marriages and children of those marriages she hurt.