Prince William and Catherine Middleton Possible Titles

[HRHHermione]

...which refers to The Prince William.

http://www.royal.gov.uk/pdf/Coats%20of%20arms/ANNEX%20C%20-%20Royal%20Family.pdf

I'm actually excited to see Autumn referred to as Mrs. Autumn Phillips instead of Mrs. Peter Phillips as she's been called in the past.

 

[Zonk]

I wouldn't read too much into that document.

As previously stated, there are a couple of inconsistencies with "The" as both William and Harry aren't children of the Sovereign. In addition, it references Sarah, Duchess of York who hasn't been a part of the Royal Family for QUITE SOME TIME.

 

[ladongas]

True, but...

...as has been remarked earlier on this interesting thread, it is part of the royal.gov website. And, if Autumn Phillips is listed, this list must be fairly up to date, regardless of how long Sarah has been gone.

Whoever put this document together was not overly concerned with accuracy, regardless of the royal.gov!

 

[Zonk]

The royal.gov site has had some errors in the past. It is after all done by human beings.

And I am basing my comments about the "the" after some people here who are pretty informative and 95% right about British Titles as well as the Burke's Peerage and Gentry.

ETA: http://www.heraldica.org/faqs/britfaq.html#p2-1 refers to William (and Henry) as Prince William of Wales, Henry of Wales, The Prince of Wales, etc.

 

[roseroyal]

Prince William and Princess Catherine of Cambridge.... that is my vote!

 

[melissaadrian]

Prince William and Princess Catherine of Cambridge.... that is my vote!

But it wouldn't be. Kate will not be Princess Catherine of Camebridge, they are not creating a princedome.

It would either be Catherine, Duchess of Camebridge, like Sophie, Countess of Wessex, or Sarah, Duchess of York, Camilla, Duchess of Cornwall.

or

Princess William of Wales

 

[Queen Penelope]

How do you not understand? The press may call her Kate, but every single event, every press release, every invitation, she will be Princess William. How many non royal fans know what Princess Michael's name is? Very few. She has her own name, why should she be referred to as her husband's name. A name is part of your identity. Do people call you your husband's name? Do they say hi (insert your name) or do they say hi (insert your husband's name)? I feel sorry for you if it is the latter.

How do I not understand? Well I guess the notion that I lost my identity because I married and some might choose to call me by my husband's name seems kinda silly to me because I still feel like me...
And no, I'm not called by my husband name even though we've been introduced together by his name (and I was then asked my name). Kate is going into a life where formalities like that, and I agree they are antiquated, is the accepted norm. That's what they do. It's no biggie to me, you feel otherwise - let's agree to disagree!!

 

[Iluvbertie]

...It would either be Catherine, Duchess of Camebridge, like Sophie, Countess of Wessex, or Sarah, Duchess of York, Camilla, Duchess of Cornwall.

No it wouldn't be like that - it would be HRH The Duchess of Cambridge, like HRH The Countess of Wessex or HRH The Duchess of Cornwall.

Using their name and title like Sarah, Duchess of York or Diana, Princess of Wales is to have the lady as a divorced lady.

Married ladies don't have a name - just a title officially.

Kate will lose her name either way - she will officially be HRH Princess William or HRH The Duchess of xxxx but Kate/Catherine won't officially be part of her name unless the Queen changes the traditionally way things have been done.

By officially I am referring to the way she will be referrenced in the Court Circular, official documents etc - e.g. she visits the local school and they put out a programme then they should have her as HRH The Duchess of xxxx or HRH Princess William of Wales.

 

[Tsarevitch]

There is no obstacle for the Queen to repeat what has been done to Philip Mountbatten: create Catherine a Princess of the United Kingdom and Northern Ireland in her own right and henceforth having the style HRH (The) Princess Catherine.

Also in the Netherlands spouses of titled persons are 'by social custom' styled with their husband's title(s). Also Máxima could have been automatically styled with her husband's titles. But the Netherlands had three successive Queens, their consorts were all created a Prince of the Netherlands on their own. When Máxima came on the stage, the Queen did not want to make a difference with her three male 'predecessors' and wanted to create her equally.

This was not necessary at all, as Máxima would automatically enjoy the style of her husband. But in a debate in Parliament the Government stated that they wanted to mark the special position of Máxima as a spouse to the Heir, as future Consort and as possible mother to a future Sovereign.

This very same way of thinking can be followed as well to Catherine Middleton. And as there is a precedent in creating Philip a Prince in his own right, also Catherine can be created a Princess in her own right.

This made me think about a letter Queen Wilhelmina wrote to her son-in-law (Prince Bernhard) at the eve of her daughter's accession to the throne. She wrote that many people would refer to him as 'The Prince-Consort', undoubtedly with the best of meanings. But she disliked that: Bernhard is not at all 'Prince-Consort' but The Prince of the Netherlands, a Prince of the Realm, a Prince of her House. She expressed the hope that he would do justice to that proud title.

Isn't it fascinating that there are so many thoughts behind something simple as a title?

 

[Kataryn]

I wouldn't read too much into that document.

As previously stated, there are a couple of inconsistencies with "The" as both William and Harry aren't children of the Sovereign. In addition, it references Sarah, Duchess of York who hasn't been a part of the Royal Family for QUITE SOME TIME.

That's the page about the Coat of Arms. Sarah still has her Royal Coat of Arms, even though she is divorced and thus her Coat of Arms is legally protected from illegal usage. That's why she is still listed on this page - not because she is part of the family anymore but because she still has a Coat of Arms which features Royal insignia.

 

[Kataryn]

Isn't it fascinating that there are so many thoughts behind something simple as a title?

Wars were fought and forgeries done for titles and styles, probably because people need to have a name for a thing in order to notice/accept and honour something. That's how human nature works, always naming things in order to see differences...

 

[Lumutqueen]

And as there is a precedent in creating Philip a Prince in his own right, also Catherine can be created a Princess in her own right.

Why should Catherine, be allowed to be a Princess in her own right, simply because Philip is? What about Camilla and Sophie or Harry's future wife? Diana was never created a Princess in her own right. Philip was already a Prince before marriage was he not? He's the husband to the sovereign, Catherine is atm the wife of a Prince second in line to the throne.

 

[KittyAtlanta]

It is survival. The common people, especially in the commonwealth are starting to see the royal family as antiquated, as old fashioned and no longer needed. The pomp and ceremony is seen as frivelous, and the family too stuck in the past. The monarchies on the continent have changed and adapted, have made changes to reflect their country and how it is changing and growing. The introduction of equal primogeniture for instance. A monarchy is meant to reflect the people it serves, to be a shinning example of what the country is and stands for. When it clings to out dated sexist standards of women belonging to their husbands, and daughters not being good enough to be heirs, what does that say to the people? Times have changed, and if the monarchy hopes to survive, it needs to as well.

Soooo, if Kate doesn't become Princess Catherine, all that is the British Monarchy will fail? How silly.

I'm all for equal primo, papers can be drawn up now, but it needs to be postponed until William is King. It is a sensitive timing matter, as you know.

 

[HRHHermione]

No it's not... It wouldn't affect the direct line of succession at all, and it would be a nice tribute to how fantastic a monarch HM has been- however, that's a topic for another thread. Sexism in titles won't sink the monarchy, but being totally out of sync with the people eventually will. I think William and Kate have wonderful potential as modernizers, but modernizers who will retain the dignity of the monarchy. I'd just like to see her given a title that reflects that purpose, and allowing her a style that includes her first name would be a good move.

 

[Zonk]

While everyone is certianly entitled to their opinion, I am amazed by the thought that if Catherine is not made a Princess in her own right, or at least if the Queen (and the BRF) does not allow her to be formally called Princess Catherine...it will be seen as antiquated, old fashioned and not needed.

There a lot of issues that face the concept of monarchy and I am afraid that modernism vs. traditional as it relates to women being called by their first name is probably not a priority. Especially when you consider the issues of equal succession, the baring of Roman Catholics, the concept of the cost of the monarcy, etc. I am sorry, but this issue doesn't seem that important as an issue to face. I am sure the British government and the people of Britian are thinking about other things.

I mean when you come down to it...Charles and William (with assistance from their wives) are the future of the monarchy.

 

[KittyAtlanta]

No it's not... It wouldn't affect the direct line of succession at all, and it would be a nice tribute to how fantastic a monarch HM has been- however, that's a topic for another thread. Sexism in titles won't sink the monarchy, but being totally out of sync with the people eventually will. I think William and Kate have wonderful potential as modernizers, but modernizers who will retain the dignity of the monarchy. I'd just like to see her given a title that reflects that purpose, and allowing her a style that includes her first name would be a good move.

There are currently no females with their foot on the footstool to the throne, so the equal primo comments are moot.

Are they really " ...totally out of sync..."

OK, I'm finished with this topic.

 

[Lumutqueen]

Although this is not a thread for the equal primo, IMO it should happen but not right now. Our government has better things to worry about than a law that can easily wait until William has had at least one child.
I'm British and I do not see Catherine being names Princess William as a bad thing, it is how our monarchy works, always has done except in special circumstances.

 

[Tsarevitch]

Why should Catherine, be allowed to be a Princess in her own right, simply because Philip is? What about Camilla and Sophie or Harry's future wife? Diana was never created a Princess in her own right. Philip was already a Prince before marriage was he not? He's the husband to the sovereign, Catherine is atm the wife of a Prince second in line to the throne.

Philip renounced his titles (Prince of Greece and Denmark) before his marriage. So The Princess Elizabeth did actually marry a 'commoner': Lieutenant Philip Mountbatten.



There are four decisions involving Lieutenant Philip Mountbatten (formerly H.R.H. Prince Philip of Greece and Denmark):

1st
November 20th 1947
Lieutenant Sir Philip Mountbatten is entitled to hold and enjoy the title, style and attribute of Royal Highness

2nd
November 20th 1947
Unto Lieutenant His Royal Highness Sir Philip Mountbatten and the heirs male of his body is lawfully begotten the dignities of Baron Greenwich in the County of London, Earl of Merioneth and Duke of Edinburgh.

3rd
September 30th 1952
Declaration that His Royal Highness The Duke of Edinburgh has, helds and enjoys Place, Pre-eminence and Precedence next to Her Majesty The Queen.

4th
February 22nd 1957
To give and grant unto His Royal Highness The Duke of Edinburgh the style and titular dignity of a Prince of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

 

[Zonk]

We are SO OFF TOPIC.

This thread is about William, Catherine and titles for their families. Not the styling of the Title...but the actual title.

 

[Lumutqueen]

Philip renounced his titles (Prince of Greece and Denmark) before his marriage.

That doesn't change the fact, that prior to his marriage. He was a Prince.

HRH The Duchess of Cambridge has a lovely ring to it IMO, Windsor could still be an option to bring back some 'grace' to the title. I'm pretty Windsor would be appreciative if it had William as its Duke.

Which other titles are up for serious contention do we think?

 

[Kataryn]

Why should Catherine, be allowed to be a Princess in her own right, simply because Philip is? What about Camilla and Sophie or Harry's future wife? Diana was never created a Princess in her own right. Philip was already a Prince before marriage was he not? He's the husband to the sovereign, Catherine is atm the wife of a Prince second in line to the throne.

Why should Miss Catherine Middleton, who now has the traditional style of Miss Middleton (as the eldest unmarried daughter of the family...), be styled with her first name anyway? We're not personal friends or just introduced to her, so for us when having contact with her she should be Miss Middleton anyway, not Catherine or Kate at all. And after her wedding of course she will be "Your Royal Highness" at first and then "Madam". Even if she became "Princess Catherine", noone should address her as such when talking to her as her style will be HRH.

Her official title will be used by official references to her and then it doesn't matter if she is "Princess William" or "The Duchess of X" IMHO. And the media will call her Princess Kate anyway... even if that is extremely unpolite.

As for us: this is a private forum to talk about Royals and here it is common usage to name the Royals by their first name and sometimes their official title, so it doesn't matter if Catherine is "Princess Catherine" or The Duchess of X.

So what, anyway....

 

[Lumutqueen]

I'm confused by what your post says? Is it that names don't really matter anyway?

 

[Madame Royale]

Repeat yourselves as much as you like good folk, she won't be made a princess in her own right. Accept it or not, it wont change a thing.

Next...

 

[Kataryn]

I'm confused by what your post says? Is it that names don't really matter anyway?

When it comes to Royalty, the first name is a very private affair, I think. Apart from the kings and queens, of course.

 

[Lumutqueen]

Repeat yourselves as much as you like good folk, she won't be made a princess in her own right. Accept it or not, it wont change a thing.

Next...

We cannot be sure of that, we cannot even be sure that William will be granted a dukedom upon marriage.

When it comes to Royalty, the first name is a very private affair, I think. Apart from the kings and queens, of course.

Really? The Royal family of any country must realise that they will be reffered to by their first names constantly. In magazines, in the street on public forums like this one. Nothing about them is private anymore, even down to the toilet seat.

 

[Skippy]

Repeat yourselves as much as you like good folk, she won't be made a princess in her own right. Accept it or not, it wont change a thing.

Next...

Do you have a glass bowl?

We cannot be sure of that, we cannot even be sure that William will be granted a dukedom upon marriage.

Indeed.

 

[Madame Royale]

We cannot be sure of that

I'll more than happily send you 50 quid (as an expression of one's misguided judgement) in the mail if I'm wrong!

Which I won't be

Do you have a glass bowl?

I'm a realist, with many glass bowls

Dillusions of ideological change, where established tradition is, at the current time, evidently resolute, is bound to leave people dissapointed I'm affraid.

May it change at some point, it's possible, though it won't happen during the Queen's tenure. Not after 59 years.

She has no reason to make her grandsons bride a princess in her own right. None at all.

 

[KittyAtlanta]

With the history of the most recent royal unions, I don't think there is a snowball's chance in H-E-Double Hockey Sticks that Kate will be made a Princess of the Realm in her own right.

 

[Lady Ann]

I'll more than happily send you 50 quid (as an expression of one's misguided judgement) in the mail if I'm wrong!

Which I won't be



I'm a realist, with many glass bowls

Dillusions of ideological change, where established tradition is, at the current time, evidently resolute, is bound to leave people dissapointed I'm affraid.

May it change at some point, it's possible, though it won't happen during the Queen's tenure. Not after 59 years.

She has no reason to make her grandsons bride a princess in her own right. None at all.

I agree 100%

 

[scooter]

We should have a pool/poll re: the title and the tiara. It will be fun to see next month who was dead right and who was dead wrong!