Prince William and Catherine Middleton Possible Titles

[branchg]

George VI came up with Duke of Windsor because it referenced Windsor Castle and the name of the royal house, which he felt was appropriate for a former King. Edward liked it and it was settled. Interestingly, he did not create an Earldom or Viscountcy with the Dukedom of Windsor, as is usually the case for royal dukedoms.

I doubt Windsor will be re-created again unless there was another unusual breach in the line of succession.

 

[Saragli]

I don't see the Duke of Windsor title coming up again, but I think it would be a very nice title for the heir to the heir. Its significance and imagery is very appropriate. But with the Queen still alive and the abdication crisis still a memory, I don't see it coming back for a few generations.

 

[texankitcat]

I don't see the Duke of Windsor title coming up again, but I think it would be a very nice title for the heir to the heir. Its significance and imagery is very appropriate. But with the Queen still alive and the abdication crisis still a memory, I don't see it coming back for a few generations.

I am sure someone more knowledgeable will correct me if I am wrong, but wasn't the title Duke of Windsor created specifically for King Edward VIII when he abdicated? From what I have read other titles were considered but thrown out for various reasons. The Duke of Windsor title was created with provision that although he would remain HRH due to his being born son of the Duke of York and a former Sovereign, any woman he married could not share the HRH status. This is why Wallis was styled Her Grace rather than Her Royal Highness after marriage. Considering all this, I don't see that the Duke of Windsor title will ever be resurrected in any generation.

 

[melissaadrian]

George VI came up with Duke of Windsor because it referenced Windsor Castle and the name of the royal house, which he felt was appropriate for a former King. Edward liked it and it was settled. Interestingly, he did not create an Earldom or Viscountcy with the Dukedom of Windsor, as is usually the case for royal dukedoms.

I doubt Windsor will be re-created again unless there was another unusual breach in the line of succession.

Yes but the Dukedome never existed before. It would have made more sense, for the Duke of Berkshire, as duchies tend to be counties, larger areas, not simple royal buroughs. There are exceptions, but Earl of Windsor would have been more likely.

The Dukedome was created like a life peerage. There was little chance King Edward would have any children. With no children, he'd have no heirs, and no need to create courtesy titles for his heir.

 

[Kataryn]

The last is a river, and I don't think they usually make a viscount of a body of water. It runs in Glengorn and mainly through the city of Swansea, some of which have titles in use.

Viscount Severn?

 

[melissaadrian]

Viscount Severn?

Yes as was already pointed out before you. But it is exceedingly rare occurence. In the Peerage of Great Britain a viscount is usually either Viscount 1.of a specific place 2. surname. One of the only others from a body of water I can find is an old Viscount of Forth, an extinct title (the river Edinburgh sits on).

 

[Kataryn]

Yes as was already pointed out before you. But it is exceedingly rare occurence. In the Peerage of Great Britain a viscount is usually either Viscount 1.of a specific place 2. surname. One of the only others from a body of water I can find is an old Viscount of Forth, an extinct title (the river Edinburgh sits on).

Obviously the queen and her son Edward kind of liked the use of the name of a river. Who knows what William thinks?

 

[rossop7]

I'm more & more getting the feeling tha those rumours of William not wanting/asking for a title are going to be true & they will be Prince William & Princess William of Wales. Nothing more than speculation on my part, I just get the feeling that they won't mind be Prince William/Princess William of Wales for a while, be a bit more low key, as they seem to like, & certainly whilst William is still serving in RAF & he's still the heir to the heir. Just have to wait & see I guess!

 

[branchg]

The Duke of Windsor title was created with provision that although he would remain HRH due to his being born son of the Duke of York and a former Sovereign, any woman he married could not share the HRH status. This is why Wallis was styled Her Grace rather than Her Royal Highness after marriage. Considering all this, I don't see that the Duke of Windsor title will ever be resurrected in any generation.

Edward was automatically HRH The Prince Edward as a son of George V under the 1917 Letters Patent once the Act of Abdication was passed. His brother announced he would be created Duke of Windsor, but it wasn't officially created until March 1937.

In May 1937, George VI issued additional Letters Patent about a week before The Duke was to marry stating the style and rank of HRH would continue to apply to his brother, but could not be shared by his wife and children, if any.

 

[KittyAtlanta]

Ladies, thank you for the corrections. I can't keep 'em straight!

 

[ladongas]

The more I read about this topic...

...the less I know. Is there a possiblity of Duke of Kensington or Duke of Chelsea?

 

[Lumutqueen]

...the less I know. Is there a possiblity of Duke of Kensington or Duke of Chelsea?

Kensington & Chelsea are a royal borough, but I don't think the title sounds right.
Anything you would like to know?

 

[KittyAtlanta]

Duke of Tooting Common, perhaps. (Just kidding, of course).

 

[Royal Fan]

Viscount and Viscountess Croydon

 

[COUNTESS]

I don't think so, he is 3rd in line for the throne. He will be kind one day. He will not be vicount any one.

 

[COUNTESS]

Sorry, king not kind.

 

[ladongas]

And my personal favorite:

Duke of Tooting Common, perhaps. (Just kidding, of course).

Duke of Earl(s) Court

 

[ladongas]

Kensington & Chelsea are a royal borough, but I don't think the title sounds right.
Anything you would like to know?

I know that there is the Duke of Westminster (the richest man in England, at one time*), so why could there not be another Duke of a borough of London? I know there is lots of tradition attached to any of the titles, but obviously some of them are just adapted for use as needed. Why not a Duke of London or of something similar?

(*JK Rowling's husband is probably the richest now)

 

[branchg]

When Winston Churchill retired as Prime Minister in 1955, The Queen offered him a dukedom in honour of his long service to Great Britain. He did not immediately decide, but it is said The Queen wanted to create him "Duke of London".

His son, Randolph, asked his father not to accept a hereditary dukedom because he intended to enter politics in the House of Commons, something that would have been impossible at the time if he was the heir to a Dukedom, eventually taking his seat in the Lords. As such, Churchill declined the honour.

This is the last time someone who was not a member of the royal family was offered a Dukedom.

 

[Iluvbertie]

Randolf could still have had a seat in the House of Commons as the heir to a Dukedom but once he inherited he would have to go to the Lords.

Only the substantive holder of the title was eligible to sit in the Lords and the rest could only have seats in the Commons - even with a courtesy title - and many did so over the centuries.

 

[Lumutqueen]

Viscount and Viscountess Croydon

They aren't going to give him a Viscountcy and Croydon?

I know that there is the Duke of Westminster (the richest man in England, at one time*), so why could there not be another Duke of a borough of London? I know there is lots of tradition attached to any of the titles, but obviously some of them are just adapted for use as needed. Why not a Duke of London or of something similar?

(*JK Rowling's husband is probably the richest now)

1; JK Rowling's husband? It's her money not his. Lakshmi Mittal is the richest man in the UK. Duke of Westminster is 3rd.
2; There could be a Duke of another borough, I just don't Duke of Kesington and Chelsea sounds appropriate.

 

[melissaadrian]

I don't think so, he is 3rd in line for the throne. He will be kind one day. He will not be vicount any one.

Did Charles have a bastard he has some how claimed, legitimized, and put before William? Last I looked he was second in line for the throne.

 

[COUNTESS]

Sorry, counted foolishly.

 

[ladongas]

1; JK Rowling's husband? It's her money not his.

Does this mean a commoner can't enjoy the title and style of his spouse?

 

[Kataryn]

Did Charles have a bastard he has some how claimed, legitimized, and put before William? Last I looked he was second in line for the throne.

You can't legitimize an illegitimate child, so he or she can inherit the crown or just a peerage. If it was possible, Charles I. surely would have done it because he had capable and healthy bastard sons but alas, no legitimate heir.

 

[Kataryn]

Does this mean a commoner can't enjoy the title and style of his spouse?

No, he can't. The husband of a peeress in her own right has no share of either her title or her rank. Countess Mountbatten was married to Baron Brabourne. Her eldest son as her heir took her secondary title as Baroness Romsey and used it as a courtesy title till his father, the 7th Baron Brabourne died and he inherited the title of Baron Brabourne in his own right.

 

[Iluvbertie]

You can't legitimize an illegitimate child, so he or she can inherit the crown or just a peerage. If it was possible, Charles I. surely would have done it because he had capable and healthy bastard sons but alas, no legitimate heir.

Not Charles I, who had at least two legitimate sons - Charles II and James II. I think you meant Charles II.

 

[Mirabel]

You can't legitimize an illegitimate child, so he or she can inherit the crown or just a peerage. If it was possible, Charles I. surely would have done it because he had capable and healthy bastard sons but alas, no legitimate heir.

Wasn't the Beaufort line (John of Gaunt's children) legitimized by Richard II?
And then eventually inherited the throne?

 

[Kataryn]

Wasn't the Beaufort line (John of Gaunt's children) legitimized by Richard II?
And then eventually inherited the throne?

Thank you for the correction Iluvbertie, of course I meant Charles II.
As for the Beaufort-children of John of Gaunt, that's what Wikipedia says:
"The Beaufort children, three sons and a daughter, were legitimized by royal and papal decrees after John and Katherine married in 1396, with the proviso that they were specifically barred from inheriting the throne ('excepta regali dignitate')."

I went on to look for sources about this and found that it is disputed that the Beauforts were rightfully escluded from the throne, as the original letters patent which had legitimized them had been signed by Richard II. and ratified by parliament without this exception. Only later Henry IV. changed the letters patent and it is disputed if he could because his change had not been ratified by parliament.

So it seems parliament can legitimize illegitimate children but did probably only once for the Beauforts.

 

[ladongas]

Just my little joke...

No, he can't. The husband of a peeress in her own right has no share of either her title or her rank. Countess Mountbatten was married to Baron Brabourne. Her eldest son as her heir took her secondary title as Baroness Romsey and used it as a courtesy title till his father, the 7th Baron Brabourne died and he inherited the title of Baron Brabourne in his own right.

I meant JK Rowling's "title" of being the richest woman in England!