Prince William Named Prince of Wales


If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
On CNN yesterday, when Anderson Cooper asked what a Queen Consort is, and why the Queen wasn't known as that, not one of the supposed royal experts on hand was able to explain it correctly. Then, Don Lemon referred to Charles as 'His Royal Majesty'.

I don't expect Americans (or even most Brits) to know this stuff, but surely, when an event like this happens, a brief 101 should be issued to anyone who's likely to cover it on TV, so they know the basics?

Wow, that's bad. Why wasn't the late Queen called Queen Consort? Because she was the Sovereign - and her position did not depend on being someone's spouse/Consort (Philip's did)! Do they truly not understand that Charles is the new Sovereign and Camilla is just his wife but not a fellow-Sovereign?
 
Wow, that's bad. Why wasn't the late Queen called Queen Consort? Because she was the Sovereign - and her position did not depend on being someone's spouse/Consort (Philip's did)! Do they truly not understand that Charles is the new Sovereign and Camilla is just his wife but not a fellow-Sovereign?

That or they could have just said the late queen was and now king Charles is the "president" and while prince Philip was the "First gentleman", now Camilla is the "First Lady". Yes, that doesn't explain why Philip was "only" a prince while Camilla is now "queen (consort)" but then that's tradition and 70 years ago there was no "King Consort"-title to be had.

If the US Americans would even then not understand what is going on, the US government must invest much more money into education. (Which I personally think is necessary when I see how wonderful the "Orange One" is still considered by so many people!). Makes one wonder if someone should even try to explain all that in the US but obviously it is a question that interests the more educated people there more than their own president explaining the situation in their own country on prime time TV and none of the major TV programmes were thinking of showing this when they diligently showed King Charles' first speech. (I still shudder thinking about what that tells of the US media!!!)
(Dear Mods, you can delete that if you think it's too political, but I just had to say it at least once. Thank you.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Well, that's CNN for you. I'm fairly positive there was at least one explanation on Fox yesterday of what the title Queen Consort meant. But, then Fox has better royal experts - some of their regular on-air anchors are actual fans of the BRF (Martha McCallum among others), so they are usually pretty good about correcting the unknowledgeable American men who don't care, lol.
 
CNN also keeps referring to Elizabeth II as the Queen of England!

Sent from my moto g play (2021) using The Royals Community mobile app

Americans frequently refer to the British monarch as the King or the Queen of England. And to be fair, that also happens in many other countries (France, Italy, Brazil, pretty much all of Spanish-speaking Latin America, etc.).

That or they could have just said the late queen was and now king Charles is the "president" and while prince Philip was the "First gentleman", now Camilla is the "First Lady". Yes, that doesn't explain why Philip was "only" a prince while Camilla is now "queen (consort)" but then that's tradition and 70 years ago there was no "King Consort"-title to be had.

If the US Americans would even then not understand what is going on, the US government must invest much more money into education. (Which I personally think is necessary when I see how wonderful the "Orange One" is still considered by so many people!). Makes one wonder if someone should even try to explain all that in the US but obviously it is a question that interests the more educated people there more than their own president explaining the situation in their own country on prime time TV and none of the major TV programmes were thinking of showing this when they diligently showed King Charles' first speech. (I still shudder thinking about what that tells of the US media!!!)
(Dear Mods, you can delete that if you think it's too political, but I just had to say it at least once. Thank you.

The United States actually has a much higher percentage of the adult population holding post-secondary degrees than Germany for example, and US universities account for the majority of the world's top universities iin most rankings. So Americans are not exactly uneducated.

K-12 education, however, is not centrally managed in the United States. It is not a federal responsibility per se and not even a state responsibility, although the state governments, or even the federal government, can and do impose some minimum standards and guidelines on things like testing and teachers' certification for example. The bulk of the decisions on curricula, hiring of teachers, and administrative and disciplinary matters in general are made at the local level by elected school boards, which are funded primarily by local taxes with supplementary state or federal funding when applicable. The result is that quality varies widely across the country. Public schools can be very good in more affluent districts and significantly worse in inner-city or rural districts. It doesn't really have much to do with any particular President really, because, as I said, education is not a primarily federal matter.
 
Last edited:
Americans frequently refer to the British monarch as the King or the Queen of England. And to be fair, that also happens in many other countries (France, Italy, Brazil, pretty much all of Spanish-speaking Latin America, etc.).

And of course, it was very common at the beginning of the Queen's reign, such that she even referred to herself that way in 1953:

So this will be a voyage right round the world - the first that a Queen of England has been privileged to make as Queen.
 
Americans frequently refer to the British monarch as the King or the Queen of England. And to be fair, that also happens in many other countries (France, Italy, Brazil, pretty much all of Spanish-speaking Latin America, etc.).
Yes, but I think we can hold our news anchors to a higher standard.

Sent from my moto g play (2021) using The Royals Community mobile app
 
not quite sure why The US has to invest in education so that poeple can find out the exact title for the head of a foreign country
 
It's not just the UK. People frequently refer to the Netherlands as "Holland", and for years people referred to the Soviet Union as "Russia". It's annoying, though. And I remember Andy Murray once getting quite narky when he was introduced on American TV as an "English" tennis player!
 
Some off topic posts about U.S. education have been removed. Time to get back on topic.
 
I also don't think it's a coincidence that Charles made sure to acknowledge that William would also inherit his important, beloved Scottish titles first or that William was made Moderator of the Church of Scotland with (Presbyterian style) ceremonies last year.
.


William was the Lord High Commissioner to the Church of Scotland. The Moderator is always an ordained minister.
 
Interesting enough, there is no "Louis" in the jacobite succession line as well, though all "heir-generals of king Charles I. of Engalnd and Scotland" are descended from the "Louis"-kings of France up from Louis XIII. (via Henriette Ann's marriage to Louis XIII.'s son Philippe d'Orleans)- BTW - the descendants from Henriette Ann of England and Scotland obviously accepted that the claim died with Cardinal Henry Stuart in 1807 who was the last descendant of James II/VII. to die, thus ending the "Royal Stuart"- male line. That, even though the cardinal had explicitely named his cousin Charles-Emmanuel IV. of Sardinia as heir of the Jacobite claim to the throne of the UK. But obviously after nearly 100 Years of the Hanover dynasty in London it made no sense to discuss Royal inheritance in the North, when the interest of the "Jacobite claimants" lay elsewhere, mostly in Italy and nowadays (since the end of WWI) as a, while once Royal, nowadays a private family in Bavaria.

The Jacobite line has now entered the Royal Family of Liechtenstein through Princess Sophie.
 
It looks inconsistent to me that the Queen Consort should sign "Camilla R" , but the Princess of Wales should not sign "Catherine P".

Preferably they should both sign: The Queen Consort sign "Camilla R" and The Princess of Wales sign "Catherine P".
 
It looks inconsistent to me that the Queen Consort should sign "Camilla R" , but the Princess of Wales should not sign "Catherine P".
Preferably they should both sign: The Queen Consort sign "Camilla R" and The Princess of Wales sign "Catherine P".
Diana signed "Diana" in accordance with tradition.
Camilla is queen and Catherine is a princess. There's a big difference.
 
Diana signed "Diana" in accordance with tradition.
Camilla is queen and Catherine is a princess. There's a big difference.

Camilla is a queen consort. She signs R as his husband.

Catherine is Princess of Wales consort. If her husband signs P, she should too. I know, however, that Diana did not, but Charles himself didn’t always sign P either.

In Spain, Letizia signed “ Letizia, Princesa de Astúrias”, I think, just like Leonor signs today “Leonor, Princess de Asturias “. As Queen consort , she signs “Letizia R”.
 
As far as I am aware and can see, no. There was a Prince Frederick Louis of Wales in the 1700's though.

If you meant the oldest son of the future King George II, he was plain "Prince Frederick" until his creation as Duke of Gloucester.

https://www.thegazette.co.uk/London/issue/5606/page/2

The practice of referring to princes and princesses by the territorial designation of their father had not yet been introduced.


The principality of Wales already can be granted to women in their own right (but never has been). I believe George VI sought legal advice and was told that there's no restriction whatsoever on who can receive the title, though he ultimately decided not to rock the boat. It's the other titles of the heir apparent that can only be held by the sovereign's son.

Except for the Scottish titles, which can also be held by a daughter.
 
Queen Mary, as the teenage daughter of Henry VIII, was sometimes referred to as "the Princess of Wales" because she had her own court in the Anglo-Welsh borders, but she was never officially given the title.
 
Something struck me the other day: The royal children went to school Thursday morning as George, Charlotte, and Louis Cambridge (the names they used at school). By dinnertime Thursday, they were George, Charlotte, and Louis Cornwall (and Cambridge). By the time they went to bed Friday, they were George, Charlotte, and Louis Wales. It reminded me a little of a quote from Princess Margaret from 1936 "I just learned how to spell 'of York' and now I'm Princess of Nothing!"

I imagine the editors of Wikipedia were kept pretty busy too: they had the articles on Elizabeth II, Charles III, and Prince William Duke of Cornwall and Cambridge updated within an hour of the death announcement. Catherine's and the children's took a little longer. Same deal on Friday: William's page had him as shown as Prince of Wales in about 30 minutes.
 
Last edited:
Which surname will the royal children use at school: Cambridge or Wales?
 
probably Wales as they are now the children of the POW
 
The changes that come with being the new Prince and Princess of Wales

Archive (if you can't access above link. For some reason, the last two months I can pass the paywall without login, I don't know why, but maybe it's just me)

"Princess Catherine"? Really?
I kind of expect it from DM or Express, but the Telegraph?

Well, the Telegraph published the Prince of Wales and Duke of Cambridge's "encouragement" to the public to refer to their daughter-in-law/wife as "Princess Catherine" in 2011:

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uk...n-takes-her-place-in-the-Royal-hierarchy.html

Although the Prince's spokesman said he was "honoured" to become the Duke of Cambridge, he had let it be known that he would prefer to remain Prince William and for his wife to become "Princess Catherine".

[…]

In an attempt to get round the issue, the Palace let it be known that people who wanted to call Catherine "Princess" were welcome to do so.

After Friday's Royal wedding, Paddy Harverson, the Prince of Wales' communications secretary, suggested the public be encouraged to use the names Prince William and Princess Catherine if they preferred.

He said: "I think it's absolutely natural that the public might want to call them Prince William and Princess Catherine and no one is going to have any argument with that."
 
I keep seeing Catherine referenced as Catherine, Princess of Wales. This is incorrect, no? She is Her Royal Highness The Princess of Wales?
 
yes but she is probably going to be wrongly referred to, and its alos to distingush her from Diana.
 
I think the Queen might have had a problem with it considering she was pretty firmly referred to as the Duchess of Cambridge, or else as Kate Middleton.

I remember (when you get to my age you remember a lot from decades ago) that when people called the newly married Diana ‘Princess Diana’ she would gently correct them, saying she was the Princess of Wales.

Incidentally, she doesn’t seem to have been referred to by the Press after her marriage as ‘Lady Diana Spencer’. While the commoners Meghan and Kate retained their former family names.
 
I think that Diana started out as Lady Di and when she married the Press moved on to Princess Di. Kate and Meghan were both known to the press for ssome time before their marriage, as single girls and known by their maiden names.
 
I keep seeing Catherine referenced as Catherine, Princess of Wales. This is incorrect, no? She is Her Royal Highness The Princess of Wales?

The correct title is HRH Princess of Wales
 
Back
Top Bottom