Letters Patent Issued (Dec 31, 2012): All Cambridge Children to be Princes/Princesses

[Osipi]

As I said in my post above yours in the UK we have only the Monarch and the Peers of the Realm (dukes, marquesses, earls, viscounts and barons) who are not commoners. Everyone else is a commoner. Kinghts/Dames/Baronets are not peers of the realms so they are also commoners

As I was musing and calculating the words (of which some of them are wrong) of my post, you posted your reply in the same minute I did. Glad you got there first.

 

[PrincePatrick]

Just throwing this in there because it was asked a couple of times earlier in the thread... They likely still don't know the sex of the baby. Even if she was 11 weeks pregnant at the announcement of her pregnancy they'd only be able to tell the sex THIS WEEK (16 weeks gestation). However, most obstetricians wait until 18-20 weeks to do the sex-identifying ultrasound because you have to wait until this time to rule out any number of physiologic/anatomical defects. Of course, this is the likely future sovereign, so I suppose they could be doing ultrasounds every two weeks!

 

[Osipi]

I have to laugh .. its up to the parents themselves to want to know the sex of their unborn child. As far as i know, there's been no LP issued that all unborn children's sex shall be made known to the monarch as soon as possible. I do think Henry VIII would have loved that one though .

Reminds me of an old episode of the sitcom "Full House" where they didn't want to know the sex. Walking out the door, it sunk in the doc said "babies".

 

[Iluvbertie]

The Prince of Wales did take his seat in the House of Lords as did The Duke of Edinburgh for those who are interested.

All these LPs have done is reverted from the 1917 LPs to the 1898 LPs issued by Queen Victoria which took George V's children from HH to HRH (at the time George V was the eldest son of the Prince of Wales so his children were in the same position as the unborn child). Two future monarchs were born as HH - Edward VIII and George VI. They were then upgraded to HRH by LP in 1898 and Queen Elizabeth has simply reverted to those LPs rather than her grandfather's 1917 LPs with regard to the children of the eldest son of the eldest son of the Prince of Wales.

Non-royal Dukes are actually referred to as 'princes' but not HRH - usually only heard at their funerals.

 

[csw]

...When Prince William is created the Prince of Wales with his eldest child being a daughter his grandchildren would not bear the title Prince/Princess unless a new LP would be issued.
But what about his grandchildren through his eldest son ? They would bear the title.

I am wondering that too. I suppose it won't be hard for a new letter patent to be issued if needed in future but more careful wording noe would make it unnecessary. Perhaps this does only apply to William's children similar to how the family female rankings are person specific in those letters patent

 

[hkittybaby]

Some more articles:
Queen issues formal decree to guarantee princess title if Duchess of Cambridge has a girl - Telegraph

Daughter For Kate And Wills Would Be Princess

Daughter for Prince William and Kate ‘will be a Princess’ | The Sun |News

 

[Lady Ann]

So is all this true about the POW being againts the law or some parts of the law? Will anyone who knows.. help me out? or is it all hoopla I can see the points about the church and what of the Duke titles ..feel free to move this if it don't belong here..

The Duchess of Cambridge and the right royal baby battle - UK - News - London Evening Standard

 

[hkittybaby]

So is all this true about the POW being againts the law or some parts of the law? Will anyone who knows.. help me out? or is it all hoopla I can see the points about the church and what of the Duke titles ..feel free to move this if it don't belong here..

The Duchess of Cambridge and the right royal baby battle - UK - News - London Evening Standard

Has POW's opinion been confirmed?

 

[qzwxec]

I think even if no changes had been planned, the Letters Patent would have still been issued.
It was always almost a certainty the children of the Duke of Cambridge - Heir Apparent to the Heir Apparent - would not be "mere" Lords and Ladies.

But then I don't understand why you need this. Once Cambridge becomes The Duke of Cornwall on his father's accession, his children then become HRH and Princes and Princesses as grandchildren of the new King, Charles.

 

[HRHHermione]

But then I don't understand why you need this. Once Cambridge becomes The Duke of Cornwall on his father's accession, his children then become HRH and Princes and Princesses as grandchildren of the new King, Charles.

Yes, but Her Majesty is in good health and could live for a long time... and it makes sense to have the Cambridge children styled as HRH from birth as they're in the direct line of succession.

 

[Osipi]

So is all this true about the POW being againts the law or some parts of the law? Will anyone who knows.. help me out? or is it all hoopla I can see the points about the church and what of the Duke titles ..feel free to move this if it don't belong here..

The Duchess of Cambridge and the right royal baby battle - UK - News - London Evening Standard

Anything the Prince of Wales does is available through the Court Circular, his own wesbiste, the website of the British Monarchy and other sources people that know more than I can steer you towards.

Charles has said a lot of things and his views are known on a lot of subjects that are on the record. My rule of thumb is that if I read it in a newspaper first, its a supposition. You want to know the "real" Charles? Get his book Harmony.

 

[branchg]

So is all this true about the POW being againts the law or some parts of the law? Will anyone who knows.. help me out? or is it all hoopla I can see the points about the church and what of the Duke titles ..feel free to move this if it don't belong here..

The Duchess of Cambridge and the right royal baby battle - UK - News - London Evening Standard

Assuming the article is true (which is always questionable), it does not state Charles is against the changes, but has valid questions about the impact on hereditary peerages, inheritance of the Cornwall duchy, etc.

These issues will undoubtedly have to be addressed over time as constitutional and government officials review them. For now, the immediate issue of William's first-born daughter being allowed the style of HRH Princess at birth is taken care of.

 

[AdmirerUS]

Actually if you really get into it, you find out that a title of Duke outranks a title of Prince in some cases. A Duke is a peer. A Prince is not.

Yes, and there is also the issue of making a living. Many Dukes still hold estates which earn livings for said Duke/Duchesses. Most Princes, however, lack estates and depending on their situation may be Prince in title only - when the government no longer recognizes the monarchy - but does recognize a Duke's landholding because of laws of possession. Likewise, as government financial support for royal families decreases the problem of income source becomes ever more critical.

I'd rather be a comfortable to wealthy Duchess than a poor Princess any day.

 

[Lumutqueen]

Has POW's opinion been confirmed?

The Prince of Wales opinion will never be confirmed.

 

[misselle]

This is good news for gender equality!
I wonder if there will be changes made to the title Princess of Wales for the heiress apparent? Or will the tradition remain that Princess of Wales remain the styling for the wife of the Prince of Wales?

 

[Lady Ann]

Thanks for all your answers and opinions... I was not sure just asking.. If it is true or not the article brings up vaild issues with the law change. Looking forward to seeing how it all turns out.

 

[GracieGiraffe]

I had no idea that princes/princesses were simply "commoners" until the Queen gives them, such as William, a peerage. I know that those with courtesy titles, such as "Lady Diana Spencer" were commoners.

You really do learn something new every day.

 

[Iluvbertie]

In the UK there are three levels of person:

a) the monarch
b) the peers - those people with substantive titles such as Dukes and the Bishops and above of the CoE
c) the commoners - anyone who doesn't have a substantive title including - Princes/Princesses, Lords, Ladies and plain Miss, Mr, Mrs, and Ms.

Not everyone who is called by a title has a substanative title: e.g. people call James Viscount Severn but he isn't The Viscount Severn - his father is. It is traditional in the UK for the son and heir to a title to use his father's second title as a courtesy title and if there is a grandson that grandson will use the third title as his courtesy title. In the meantime the holder of the substantive titles is the peer while his son and grandson, however grandiose their titles, are still commoners but will be peers one day.

Take the Duke of Gloucester. He is a peer of the realm, took his seat in the House of Lords and all the rest - lost his seat in the 1999 reforms to that house as well. His son has always been known as the Earl of Ulster (little 't' the) while his father is The Earl of Ulster (capital 'T' The). The Duke's grandson is known as Lord Culloden which is the third of the Duke's titles. When the Duke passes (many, many years from now I hope) and his son moves up to the title of The Duke of Gloucester, young Lord Culloden will take on the style of the Earl of Ulster and if by then he has a son that son will take on Lord Culloden.

The interesting thing in all this discussion about William's children and their titles is the fact that The Queen included the usual remainder in the title - heirs male of the body' so if the first born child is a girl and the second a boy the girl is destined to be the monarch while the boy could end up with the title Duke of Cambridge and that title, like Gloucester and Kent before it, and as Edinburgh is intended, being lost to the ranks of HRHs (that would happen if William died before becoming King and so his title didn't merge with the Crown).

 

[Molly2101]

I am glad this has been changed, it is only right that if the baby is a girl she can be a Princess, particularly if she will definitely be Queen if a girl is first.

This statement though only highlights that Louise and James can use their HRH style if they wish. No LP were issued regarding their styles, thus they are not permanent.

 

[Alison H]

Kate is the Princess William .

I doubt they know at this stage if it's a boy or a girl, and even if this one's a boy then they might have a girl in future: I think it's just been done to make sure there are no queries over titles when the baby's born.

The eldest son of a duke or an earl normally has his own title - Earl of Ulster, Earl of St Andrews, Viscount Linley, Viscount Severn, etc - so the Queen could even give the baby his (or indeed her, in keeping with the new spirit of equality!) own title. I'm not sure how old the Duke of Clarence (Queen Victoria's great-grandson) was when he was made a duke in his own right ... oh, not until he was 26, according to Wikipedia!

Just getting totally ahead of myself: the baby isn't due for months yet!

 

[NGalitzine]

^^^^
Prince Albert Victor,The Duke of Clarence was Victorias grandson not great-grandson.

 

[SLV]

Take the Duke of Gloucester. He is a peer of the realm, took his seat in the House of Lords and all the rest - lost his seat in the 1999 reforms to that house as well. His son has always been known as the Earl of Ulster (little 't' the) while his father is The Earl of Ulster (capital 'T' The). The Duke's grandson is known as Lord Culloden which is the third of the Duke's titles. When the Duke passes (many, many years from now I hope) and his son moves up to the title of The Duke of Gloucester, young Lord Culloden will take on the style of the Earl of Ulster and if by then he has a son that son will take on Lord Culloden.

I wonder why William then never uses his fathers secondairy title? It would be according to the rules you mention. And that would mean that ,without the newly published orders, the first son of W&C would have been allowed to use Charles' third title.

 

[NGalitzine]

^^^^^
Royal princes do not uses their fathers secondary titles. For instance HRH Prince William of Gloucester never was known as HRH Prince William, Earl of Ulster and HRH the Duke of Kent was never known as HRH Prince Edwaed, Earl of St Andrews during his fathers lifetime.

 

[padams2359]

I see Prince Charles' concern. The first child is girl, she could be heir to the throne, but a second child, male could be Duke of Cornwall, and separate the Duchy from the heir. I think that is his concern. If the child is truly equal, they need the dukedom be it male or female.

 

[AdmirerUS]

I look at the Letters Patent in a different light, maybe. Depending on if/when Prince Charles chatted up the pols on his concerns, the timing of the Queen's announcement certainly clarifies how she feels about the issue.

 

[Princess Robijn]

I see Prince Charles' concern. The first child is girl, she could be heir to the throne, but a second child, male could be Duke of Cornwall, and separate the Duchy from the heir. I think that is his concern. If the child is truly equal, they need the dukedom be it male or female.

The Duke of Cornwall has to be the oldest living son of the monarch AND the heir to the throne.

 

[Jessgan]

I still don't get it. Prince William was born into the royal family, thus he would have the title HRH. Since in his royal highness status, why was he a commoner?

 

[Iluvbertie]

Kate is the Princess William .

Kate is HRH Princess William - no 'the'. Only the children of the monarch, and the spouse of the monarch in the case of Philip are entitled to the word 'The'. It is one of the distinguishing features between being a common or garden variety prince/princess and being the child of the monarch.

The eldest son of a duke or an earl normally has his own title - Earl of Ulster, Earl of St Andrews, Viscount Linley, Viscount Severn, etc - so the Queen could even give the baby his (or indeed her, in keeping with the new spirit of equality!) own title.

The eldest sons of peer do NOT have their own titles. They usually use their father's second title as a courtesy but it isn't the title of the heir.

The full list of HRH The Duke of Gloucester's titles, for instance, are:

Duke of Gloucester, Earl of Ulster, Baron Culloden.

As a result he is known by his first and most senior title while his heir uses the second title as a courtesy and his grandson uses the third one as a courtesy as well but the title-holder in each case is still The Duke of Gloucester.

 

[corazon]

this is a great news! well, we now can say WE HAVE A LITTLE PRINCE/PRINCESS ON WAY!

 

[Iluvbertie]

I still don't get it. Prince William was born into the royal family, thus he would have the title HRH. Since in his royal highness status, why was he a commoner?

There are three categories of people in the UK:

1. The monarch - he isn't the monarch and so can't be category 1.

2. Peers of the realm - he didn't have a substantive title until he was created Duke of Cambridge so he wasn't a peer of the realm - he couldn't have sat in the pre-1999 House of Lords until he was created Duke of Cambridge so he can't be category 2 which only leave category 3 - a commoner.

3. Commoners - as he wasn't either of the above he was a commoner. He was eligible to vote for and to stand for election to the House of Commons. Kate still can by the was as can Harry, Beatrice, Eugenie, Sophie, Anne, Birgitte, Katherine Kent, Michael and Marie Christine and Alexandra - all HRHs but all commoners.

I remember way way back when Britain first allowed 18 year olds to vote and there was a story in the paper about Princess Anne being eligible to vote in an election and she was asked about that and said something along the lines of :I am eligible to vote but like the rest of my family won't do so.

Queen Victoria often objected to being told to make her sons Dukes but when it was explained to her that if she didn't do that they could vote and stand for election to the House of Commons because they weren't peers of the realm she immediately agreed that she needed to promote them to the peerage. She didn't have to worry about her daughters as women weren't allowed to vote in the UK until 1918 (over 30) and 1928 (over 21 - the same age as men). It is for this reason the the younger sons of Kings have been made Dukes - to keep them away from the frontline of politics which they would have to have been involved in in the Commons but in the Lords they never needed to even turn up.

Interestingly if they were living in Australia they wouldn't have a choice as it is compulsory to vote in all elections here (and you will be fined - and even have to fill in forms and produce death certificates to get out of paying a fine - as we had to do for my father with the local government elections last year when the government sent him a fine notice nearly 12 months after he died).

The simple question to ask yourself is: Is this person able to sit in the pre-1999 House of Lords? If the answer is No, unless they are the monarch of the day, then they are a commoner.

So even though William was born a Prince of the realm he wasn't a peer of the realm until created Duke of Cambridge and so until that day he was a commoner.

The bit jump made on his wedding day was not made by Kate who went from commoner to commoner but William who went from commoner to peer.

I think there is some misunderstanding as to who is actually a peer and who is a commoner amongst many people because the Europeans do/did things differently. In Britain only the title holder is a noble - not his wife or his children. As William didn't hold a title he wasn't a peer and thus wasn't a noble. The only alternative is to be a commoner - a royal but still a commoner.