Questions about British Styles and Titles 1: Ending 2022

[Skippyboo]

If baby Cambridge is a boy, he would inherit the title if his dad and brother died before William became King. It would merge with the crown when baby Cambridge became King.

Every scenario ends with the title merging with the crown with the holder becoming King or it becomes extinct and goes back to the crown.


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community

 

[Iluvbertie]

An additional note.


Kate would continue to be HRH The Duchess of Cambridge, unless she remarried as the title only came with her marriage and so would go if she were to remarry.


I found it interesting that at the same time as the laws regarding the first born child of the monarch inheriting the throne, The Queen still issued the LPs for the Cambridge title for male heirs only.


If George had been a girl and the next baby a boy, and then had William died before becoming King, the daughter would have become Queen but the Cambridge title would have followed the boy and in two generations would no longer be held by an HRH - similar to the Gloucester and Kent titles whose next holders won't be HRH.


Of course that is now mute due to George being a boy.

 

[Ish]

If baby Cambridge is a boy, he would inherit the title if his dad and brother died before William became King. It would merge with the crown when baby Cambridge became King.

Every scenario ends with the title merging with the crown with the holder becoming King or it becomes extinct and goes back to the crown.


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community

Not every scenario ends those ways.

The title can only go extinct if William's male-line dies out. The title can only merge with the crown if the person holding the title becomes king. There are scenarios in which neither of these happen.

If, for instance, William has 3 children - George, a daughter, and a son - and he and George die without becoming monarch, then the title will pass to the younger son, but the daughter will become monarch.

Or, if William dies without becoming monarch and George converts to Catholicism then he'll become Duke of Cambridge, but not be monarch.

Of, if Baby Cambridge 2 is a boy, George only has daughters, and he and William die without becoming monarch - George's daughter will become Queen, but Baby Cambridge 2 will become Duke of Cambridge.

 

[Skippyboo]

I was assuming the scenario that where George and William die before the Queen and Charles, which was what the question was, happens in the near future. Baby Cambridge 2 would inherit the throne eventually and if a boy the Cambridge dukedom even if William and George die before its born assuming Kate has survived this royal bloodbath.

Theoretically, if there are no boys down the line in your scenarios, the title will become extinct and go back to the crown.

Hopefully none of this morbid scenarios will happen and the title merges with the crown upon William's ascension to the throne.


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community

 

[padams2359]

Questions about British Styles and Titles

I think these scenarios were Charles' concerns if George were a girl and then there would be a boy. If the changes had taken place, the girl would be heir to the thrown, but the boy would rightfully be the Duke of Cornwall. That's where the money is for the heir and his family until he or she if crowned. Two generations later, and the dukedom would be out of the line of succession completely. This would not take place until William is king.

 

[Cris M]

If the changes had taken place, the girl would be heir to the thrown, but the boy would rightfully be the Duke of Cornwall.

No, he wouldn't. Only the oldest living son and heir of the Sovereign can be the Duke of Cornwall.

 

[Ish]

I think these scenarios were Charles' concerns if George were a girl and then there would be a boy. If the changes had taken place, the girl would be heir to the thrown, but the boy would rightfully be the Duke of Cornwall. That's where the money is for the heir and his family until he or she if crowned. Two generations later, and the dukedom would be out of the line of succession completely. This would not take place until William is king.

That's not how the Duchy of Cornwall works. It isn't an inheritable title; it's one that has to be recreated for each of its holders, but is created automatically when the circumstances surrounding it's inheritance are correct - namely that the eldest son of the monarch is the heir apparent. If Charles were to die today then there would be no Duke of Cornwall - William would be the heir, but Andrew would be the eldest son of the monarch. If William's eldest was a girl and his second child a boy then during his reign there wouldn't be a Duke of Cornwall either - his daughter would be his heir, but his son would be the eldest son.

 

[Rudolph]

The Dukedom Of Cornwall and of Rothesay, and the Earldom of Carrick, are special cases, when not in use. Different from other titles

Strictly speaking because the Dukedom of Cornwall lapses in the crown rather than merges in the crown it is considered as existing, but held by no one.

 

[Rudolph]

The Archbishop of Canterbury is the first peer of England next to the Royal Family, preceding not only all non-Royal Dukes, but all the great officers of the Crown. - "It belongs to him to crown the King."

The Sovereign and his or her consort are speciales domestici parochiani Arch Cant (parishioners of the Lord Archbishop of Canterbury). The Archbishop of Canterbury is Primate of all England, is entitled to the prefix of "Your Grace," and is formally styled "By Divine Providence, Lord Archbishop of Canterbury."

The Archbishop of York is the third peer in the United Kingdom, and precedes all secular peers, except the Lord High Chancellor. He is entitled the prefix of "Your Grace," and is formally styled "By Divine Providence, Lord Archbishop of York."

 

[btsnyder]

Future Titles of the Duke of Cambridge

I'm wondering about the Duke and Duchess' future titles when the Prince of Wales accedes to the throne. I know that the Duke of Cornwall title automatically goes to the heir, so will the Duke become the "Duke of Corwall and Cambridge"? I believe when Edward VIII came to the throne, Prince George (later George V) became known as the Duke of Cornwall and York. I believe the heir automatically becomes Duke of Rothesay in Scotland, as well, correct?

 

[Rudolph]

Precedence show W will be Duke of Cornwall and Cambridge

 

[Ish]

William will remain the Duke of Cambridge until he dies or becomes monarch (whichever happens first).

When he is the heir apparent he will automatically become the Duke of Rothesay, which will be the title used while he is in Scotland.

If he is the eldest son of the monarch while heir apparent (meaning Charles is King) then he will also be the Duke of Cornwall. In this case, outside of Scotland he'll be the Duke of Cornwall and Cambridge (the elder title going first), but this will likely be shortened by the press and public (although not the court).

When he is the heir apparent he may be created Prince of Wales, which will be his primary title until he his King.

There are also a number of secondary titles that come with both the Duke of Rothesay and Prince of Wales titles, which he will hold.

At that time, unless either of them have been granted their own titles, George and Baby Cambridge 2 will be "of Wales".

 

[padams2359]

I'm wondering about the Duke and Duchess' future titles when the Prince of Wales accedes to the throne. I know that the Duke of Cornwall title automatically goes to the heir, so will the Duke become the "Duke of Corwall and Cambridge"? I believe when Edward VIII came to the throne, Prince George (later George V) became known as the Duke of Cornwall and York. I believe the heir automatically becomes Duke of Rothesay in Scotland, as well, correct?

I have not seen where George, Duke of York also named Duke of Cornwall. Edward was certainly young enough to have had children. George may have received monies basted on being heir presumptive, similar to the way Princess Elizabeth was even though she was not Prince/Princess of Wales. I don't see where G6 would have been granted a title that he could easily be stripped of in the event of a natural child.

 

[JessRulz]

George VI never could have been Duke of Cornwall as he was never the oldest living son of the reigning monarch who was also the heir apparent.

George V on the other hand was the Duke of Cornwall and York for several months in 1901 until he was created Prince of Wales, because he met the two criteria for the title.

 

[Iluvbertie]

George V was officially referred to as HRH The Duke of Cornwall and York on the various documents etc to do with his tour to Australia that year to open the first Australian parliament.


He most certainly became Duke of Cornwall the instant Queen Victoria died as the eldest living son of the new King and the heir apparent.


He was created Prince of Wales in November 1901.


Elizabeth was given money as she wasn't entitled to the income of the Duchy of Cornwall as she was only ever the heiress presumptive.


George VI wasn't given anything extra as the heir presumptive, and was never Duke of Cornwall.


I think btsynder is confusing George V and George VI with a reference to George V as the son of Edward VIII when George V was the father of Edward VIII and the son of Edward VII. Both men were Duke of York but George V was also Duke of Cornwall from January 1901 while George VI was never Duke of Cornwall.


Just to clarify:


George V - created Duke of York, became Duke of Cornwall, January 1901 and known as Duke of Cornwall and York from January until November, Prince of Wales from November 1901 until May 1910. Son of Edward VII


Edward VIII - automatically Duke of Cornwall from May 1910 and created Prince of Wales shortly afterwards and continued with those titles until January 1936 when he became the King


George VI - created Duke of York and held that title until his ascended the throne in December 1936 - never held the Cornwall title as he never meet the criteria - eldest living son AND heir apparent of the monarch - he was neither of those things at any stage of his life.

 

[btsnyder]

Thanks, all. I think padams was confusing George V and George VI. I know that George VI was never Duke of Cornwall.

I meant Edward VII, not VIII....sorry!

 

[royal-blue]

The York Girls: Future Titles and Roles in the Royal Family

I think the royal family needs to reaffirm what it means to be a member of the firm and an HRH. If the York girls and Michaels of Kent are not working royals, do they really require an HRH title? Regardless of birthright, they are no different from the rest of us.

 

[Osipi]

Beatrice and Eugenie Titles

I think the royal family needs to reaffirm what it means to be a member of the firm and an HRH. If the York girls and Michaels of Kent are not working royals, do they really require an HRH title? Regardless of birthright, they are no different from the rest of us.

Like everyone else, when a member of the royal family gives birth, there are statutes that denote what their titles are such as letters patent and restrictions of how titles are passed along in the family (male bloodline etc) so that's pretty clear and concise. Edward and Sophie's children could be HRHs as they're descendants from the male line of the Queen's children but per Edward and Sophie's wishes and with the consent of the Queen, they're styled as children of an Earl. Not much to reaffirm there.

Who works for the Firm? Easiest way to keep track of that is to read the Court Circular and follow who does what. Like many families, sometimes the relatives go into the family business and some of them don't. Its up to the Big Boss and her top advisers as to who does what. Not much there to reaffirm either.

Should Buckingham Palace, Clarence House and Kensington Palace keep giving the public updates on who is what in the royal order of things? I don't think they really have to. The way the public is informed on activities is through the Court Circular and although from what I've read, its been under par as far as reporting, that's what its for. Other than paying for security through the Metropolitan Police I believe, the tax payer or the public has no bearing how things are done.

 

[VictoriaB]

I think the royal family needs to reaffirm what it means to be a member of the firm and an HRH. If the York girls and Michaels of Kent are not working royals, do they really require an HRH title? Regardless of birthright, they are no different from the rest of us.

Sorry but none of them are any different from the rest of us whether they have an HRH or not.

 

[Roslyn]

Sorry but none of them are any different from the rest of us whether they have an HRH or not.

Bingo!

 

[Sweden]

Scotland and the Monarchy

When Elizabeth went with her name to reign with and was called Elizabeth II Scotland was tense because they never had a Elizabeth I. What do you think?

 

[royal-blue]

Sorry but none of them are any different from the rest of us whether they have an HRH or not.

A very good point. This is precisely why it is unfair on those with little or no chance of becoming head of state to be burdened with the HRH title, whether or not they work full time for the firm. Even those who don't, such as Bea and Eug are still constantly judged and scrutinised by the public.

IMO, the York princess should be allowed to ditch the titles upon marriage, and Harry should do the same as the Wessexes in the future, and not have HRH children.

 

[Osipi]

A very good point. This is precisely why it is unfair on those with little or no chance of becoming head of state to be burdened with the HRH title, whether or not they work full time for the firm. Even those who don't, such as Bea and Eug are still constantly judged and scrutinised by the public.

IMO, the York princess should be allowed to ditch the titles upon marriage, and Harry should do the same as the Wessexes in the future, and not have HRH children.

I kind of see it as a family thing. Mr. and Mrs. Smith have a child, that child is a Smith. Titles are familial things for the most part with royal families and has absolutely no bearing whatsoever on any relationship they would have if they worked for the Firm or didn't. We have to remember that the House of Windsor itself is actually a separate entity than what the Royal Family calls the "Firm".

I don't think either Beatrice or Eugenie would ever ditch their titles but I do believe that they have the option of choosing. Working in NYC or anywhere else, they very well could deem that Bea would use Beatrice Mountbatten-Windsor and its very possible that her (legal) paychecks would be made out to her in that name. Example would be The Duchess of Kent. IIRC, in her private life (I believe she was/is a teacher), she uses the name of Katherine Kent.

From Wikipedia: "She prefers to be known in her private life as "Katharine Kent", and has also expressed a preference for being known as "Katharine, Duchess of Kent". However, her formal title remains "Her Royal Highness The Duchess of Kent"."

Hope this clears things up a bit. I'm sure if I made errors, there are many here that know far more than I do.

 

[sliver_bic]

I don't think either Beatrice or Eugenie would ever ditch their titles but I do believe that they have the option of choosing. Working in NYC or anywhere else, they very well could deem that Bea would use Beatrice Mountbatten-Windsor and its very possible that her (legal) paychecks would be made out to her in that name. Example would be The Duchess of Kent. IIRC, in her private life (I believe she was/is a teacher), she uses the name of Katherine Kent.

I would think she'd use York, like her sister does.

 

[Osipi]

I would think she'd use York, like her sister does.

Now that you mention it, that most likely would be her choice and so much streamlined than Mountbatten-Windsor. Point is, she has choices. Thanks!

 

[Lord_Royal]

If Beatrice doesn't use her royal title she would very likely go by 'Beatrice York' as her sister goes by Eugenie York, professionally, and Prince Andrew chose to go by 'Andrew York' on the land title documents for the Swiss chalet he and Sarah purchased earlier this year. It would be the same way Princes William and Harry went by 'Wales' during their military years.

 

[royal-blue]

I think the lives of the York girls would become so much easier if they stopped being princesses. Zara still is involved with charities and appears at royal events. They could have a similar situation.

 

[Mirabel]

I think the lives of the York girls would become so much easier if they stopped being princesses. Zara still is involved with charities and appears at royal events. They could have a similar situation.

But Andrew has never wanted that; I read he insisted his daughters have the HRH and full status, and has always tried to keep them close to the Queen.
I can't imagine he'd ever want them to give that up.

 

[Skippyboo]

Andrew didn't have to insist on the HRH. It was theirs as children of son of the monarch as per the LPs of 1917 from George V. Peter and Zara were never going to be HRHs at the most they could have been styled as children of an Earl but Mark Philips turned it down.


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community

 

[Mermaid1962]

The most they could do is not use their titles in everyday life. They can't stop being princesses, because they're the daughters of a prince. They could move to the 'back of beyond', where no-one knew where they were, never tell anyone who they were, and they'd still be princesses.

I think the lives of the York girls would become so much easier if they stopped being princesses. Zara still is involved with charities and appears at royal events. They could have a similar situation.