Another royal question

[babs23r]

I think their last name is Windsor.

 

[justginger]

Do they have a last name?

Yes and no.
It's easier just to link you to the article here: http://www.upi.com/blog/2013/07/23/Prince-Williams-surname-Wales-is-one-of-three-choices-for-royal-baby/2801374590028/

The royal baby will have the title of Prince of Cambridge, he does not need to have a surname.

If Catherine and William want to include a surname, they can choose between Mountbatten-Windsor, Wales and Cambridge.

George V adopted Windsor in 1917 after Windsor Castle, changing it from Saxe-Coburg and Gotha, because of anti-German sentiment in World War I. The Queen and Prince Phillip then combined their surnames to get Mountbatten-Windsor, which was passed on to Prince Charles.

Prince William uses the name of his royal house, Wales, for his military role. The couple could also use Cambridge, the name given them upon their marriage.

When the Queen and Phillip married, was she already Queen? (sorry, poor knowledge here). What I'm getting at is -- if she and Phillip can combine names, could William and Kate? Could the child be Middleton-Wales? Or is that an ability reserved for the monarch, and thus they are restricted to one of these three names?

 

[JulieN]

No, she wasn't Queen yet.

They have no last name and could call themselves whatever they want... including Middleton-Wales, I suppose.

 

[justginger]

No, she wasn't Queen yet.

They have no last name and could call themselves whatever they want... including Middleton-Wales, I suppose.

It would be seen as extremely progressive, would it not? It would be interesting to see happen, but I imagine they'll err on the side of tradition.

If the child doesn't have a surname at all, how do they fill out government applications (like for a driver's license)?
First name: William
Surname: Prince of Wales

 

[Smith1942]

Smith...

http://www.debretts.com/forms-of-address/titles/dame.aspx Per Debretts: "A peeress (including female peers in their own right, and the wives of holders of peerage titles by courtesy) ...." I guess it depends on your definition of courtesy title. When you marry title holder you are elevated to being a PEER. But you are not the title holder. Women are ineligible to succeed to the majority of hereditary peerages, so they cannot frequently hold a hereditary peerage title in their own right. When their spouses die, the title passes to the next heir of the body and when that heir marries they are given the designation "dowager" to add to their title. A courtesy title.

As for Lady Diana. She never held a peerage title before her marriage. http://www.thebiographychannel.co.uk/biographies/diana-spencer.html She had a brother who inherited her father's title. Women are ineligible to succeed to the majority of hereditary peerages, including her father's title. Lady Diana Spencer (first name, last name) is not a peerage title. It is a honorary prefix. I have no idea why she made that comment (or if she made it, for sure). But it wasn't in reference to an actual peerage title she held before her marriage to my knowledge. Unless one of her father's lesser titles (not the Earldom) was able to be passed to her. But I doubt that as she had older sisters as well. All "Lady" titles that are peerage are Lady Last Name or Lady Title. Not Lady First Name Last Name. The style of address of first name and last name tells you it is a not a peerage title. "The daughters of a duke, marquess or earl have the courtesy title of 'Lady' before their forename and surname." http://www.debretts.com/forms-of-address/titles/courtesy-titles.aspx


Mark Philips was "RUMORED" to have been offered a peerage... IF You believe Wikipedia. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Phillips So... we'll never know.

Those distinctions are very fine, and all but disappear in use. You'd probably have to be British to understand how it works in practice - which is not always how it is on paper. Lady Diana Spencer was considered a titled aristocrat by the whole country and the media when she first became well-known on her engagement to Charles, and the phrase "courtesy title" or "honorary prefix" is never heard in Britain. Since most people are not titled, of course, someone who is Lady First Name Last Name is widely considered to be titled. Everyone knows that the titles all derive from the peerage, of course, but you would never hear of a Lady Diana Spencer equivalent being discussed as "Oh, it's not a peerage title, just a courtesy one." Maybe Debrett's is technically correct, but in common usage the daughter of an earl is considered by everyone (except the editor of Debrett's!) to be a titled aristocrat, and referred to as such. Diana would have been referring to her "Lady" style when she said that - which of course does derive from her father's peerage. Like I said, it's a distinction that is so fine it's not taken any notice of in actual usage in Britain. Smith1942 is considered not titled, and Lady Diana Spencer is considered titled. Even the designation "The Honourable" is widely considered a title. Even with all the acres of coverage on Diana's background over the years, and all the questions over her title when she got divorced, this is the first time I have ever heard anyone say that Diana didn't have a title pre-marriage.

 

[JulieN]

I think you are looking at it last names through the lens of gender. A last name is to let people know what family you belong to, where you are from, and so on.

Prince George of Cambridge doesn't need a last name to let people know who his parents are... Probably he will use Cambridge informally as a last name, like William has used Wales.

 

[AGBF]

George V adopted Windsor in 1917 after Windsor Castle, changing it from Saxe-Coburg and Gotha, because of anti-German sentiment in World War I. The Queen and Prince Phillip then combined their surnames to get Mountbatten-Windsor, which was passed on to Prince Charles.

Actually, I believe that they changed "Battenberg" ("berg" meaning mountain in German) into "Mountbatten".

AGBF

 

[Gypsy]

They would have to get the Queen's okay on anything like that.

She has to consent to any of the names of any of the royal family. That extends to last name.

Also, it should be noted that Princess Elizabeth and Prince Philips's marriage was one of relative equals for the most part. She was the heir to the throne of England. He is a Prince of the oldest royal line in Europe. So a 'merger' of last names was probably a political necessity.

She was to be the monarch. But he was the man. So the question was: should the monarch's names name trump or the mans. The result was the merger of "Mountbatten-Windsor."

Prince William's wedding to Kate Middleton was not one of equals. Nor is there any reason for her to keep her maiden name, she is neither a potential head of state in her own right or a man. William as the potential head of state AND the man's last name is what trumps, therefore. (Same as Charles marriage to Diana. There was no "Spencer" to be found and her last name is arguably older).

William was the child of the Prince of Wales. So his last name is either Mountbatten-Windsor Wales. With both there. And either is acceptable on its own. Both are Royal. Wales being a name ONLY the heir to the throne name carry, or their children.

The were given the titles Duke and Duchess of Cambridge on their marriage. So that is their 'married' and joint title.

So, no. They cannot and would not just 'chose' to add Middleton to anything.

Those are the three options they have.

 

[justginger]

I think you are looking at it last names through the lens of gender. A last name is to let people know what family you belong to, where you are from, and so on.

Prince George of Cambridge doesn't need a last name to let people know who his parents are... Probably he will use Cambridge informally as a last name, like William has used Wales.

To keep going with these royal questions, here's another. Can a royal hold two different titles, and use them interchangeably? Such as, William was Prince of Wales - then he got married and was bestowed with "Duke of Cambridge." What if he fancies Wales? Can he still call himself that, or will he now forever be the Duke of Cambridge (until he is 'promoted' to king)? Can one be a Prince AND a Duke, and pick and choose which to go by? Because, to those who are unknowing, the title of Prince sounds a heck of a lot better than Duke.

 

[AGBF]

Gypsy-

You are confusing titles with surnames. Royals do not need to use surnames, but if they do, there is no choice. They must use: Mountbatten-Windsor. Otherwise there may be an uproar.

Deb

 

[Smith1942]

Okay. Found the source of Diana's alleged comment to Prince Philip. "Almost a year before, according to Tina Brown, the Duke of Edinburgh had warned the Princess of Wales: "If you don't behave, my girl, we'll take your title away." The Princess of Wales is said to have replied: "My title (The Lady Diana Frances Spencer) is a lot older than yours, Philip."'

She wasn't speaking accurately. She meant "My father's title is older than that of the House of Windsor/ Saxe Gotha." And she did have a courtesy title of Lady Diana Francis Spencer before her marriage. She was not referring to any title she was the actual holder of, however.

In a sense she was right about the Spencer line. And in a sense she was wrong, since she was speaking to Prince Philips (allegedly) specifically: Prince Philip was born a Prince of Greece and Denmark, and Denmark has Europe's oldest monarchy.

Again, a matter of fine distinction. Denmark's monarchy was founded in 936 whereas the English monarchy was founded in 924. Of course, it became the British monarchy in 1707, but Britain includes England, naturally, so the common thread of the British monarchy stretches back to just before the Danish one. I say that as an Englishwoman with a Danish surname!

 

[JulieN]

Yes, you can be a prince and a duke. Prince William, Duke of Cambridge. But he is not yet Prince of Wales, that is Prince Charles. He was Prince William of Wales.

No, he can't use them interchangeably. There is a protocol for these things.

 

[Smith1942]

Gypsy-

You are confusing titles with surnames. Royals do not need to use surnames, but if they do, there is no choice. They must use: Mountbatten-Windsor. Otherwise there may be an uproar.

Deb

Thanks, Deb, you've saved me from looking up a website! You're right. On the Royals' own website, the question about the surname is commonly asked. It says that the royals don't need surnames but if they did, it would be Mountbatten-Windsor. It also says that William and Harry just chose to use Wales as their surname but didn't give a reason - they just wanted to, and could, since their father is Prince of Wales.

 

[Gypsy]

Smith...

http://www.debretts.com/forms-of-address/titles/dame.aspx Per Debretts: "A peeress (including female peers in their own right, and the wives of holders of peerage titles by courtesy) ...." I guess it depends on your definition of courtesy title. When you marry title holder you are elevated to being a PEER. But you are not the title holder. Women are ineligible to succeed to the majority of hereditary peerages, so they cannot frequently hold a hereditary peerage title in their own right. When their spouses die, the title passes to the next heir of the body and when that heir marries they are given the designation "dowager" to add to their title. A courtesy title.

As for Lady Diana. She never held a peerage title before her marriage. http://www.thebiographychannel.co.uk/biographies/diana-spencer.html She had a brother who inherited her father's title. Women are ineligible to succeed to the majority of hereditary peerages, including her father's title. Lady Diana Spencer (first name, last name) is not a peerage title. It is a honorary prefix. I have no idea why she made that comment (or if she made it, for sure). But it wasn't in reference to an actual peerage title she held before her marriage to my knowledge. Unless one of her father's lesser titles (not the Earldom) was able to be passed to her. But I doubt that as she had older sisters as well. All "Lady" titles that are peerage are Lady Last Name or Lady Title. Not Lady First Name Last Name. The style of address of first name and last name tells you it is a not a peerage title. "The daughters of a duke, marquess or earl have the courtesy title of 'Lady' before their forename and surname." http://www.debretts.com/forms-of-address/titles/courtesy-titles.aspx


Mark Philips was "RUMORED" to have been offered a peerage... IF You believe Wikipedia. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Phillips So... we'll never know.

Those distinctions are very fine, and all but disappear in use. You'd probably have to be British to understand how it works in practice - which is not always how it is on paper. Lady Diana Spencer was considered a titled aristocrat by the whole country and the media when she first became well-known on her engagement to Charles, and the phrase "courtesy title" or "honorary prefix" is never heard in Britain. Since most people are not titled, of course, someone who is Lady First Name Last Name is widely considered to be titled. Everyone knows that the titles all derive from the peerage, of course, but you would never hear of a Lady Diana Spencer equivalent being discussed as "Oh, it's not a peerage title, just a courtesy one." Maybe Debrett's is technically correct, but in common usage the daughter of an earl is considered by everyone (except the editor of Debrett's!) to be a titled aristocrat, and referred to as such. Diana would have been referring to her "Lady" style when she said that - which of course does derive from her father's peerage. Like I said, it's a distinction that is so fine it's not taken any notice of in actual usage in Britain. Smith1942 is considered not titled, and Lady Diana Spencer is considered titled. Even the designation "The Honourable" is widely considered a title.

I'm sorry Smith. I disagree.

You are using 'title' and 'peerage' interchangeably. They are not the same thing. I'm sorry if I made it sound earlier like they are.

They are distinct. And the distinction is notable. And is there for a reason.

Common usage doesn't change that. And doesn't confer a peerage where there is none.

There is a reason that the distinction between a "courtesy" title and a substantive title that indicates peerage is there and has been for centuries. Because, regardless of what the public commonly believes one confers legal right and responsibilities and the other does not. A peer has rights and responsibilities that a titled non-peer does not.

Legal rights and responsibilities do not "disappear" in common usage. To be a peer means you have certain rights. And if you are not one; regardless of courtesy title or common belief, you are not one.

Diana was NOT a peer. She did have a title. Her title was "Lady Diana Spencer". But that title is a "courtesy title". And that's the fact. Common belief or usage does not change that.

But perhaps we are saying the same thing, but in different ways.

I am saying that Diana was not a peer. And that her title was a courtesy title. Not a hereditary peerage one.

You are not disagreeing with that. You are simply saying that no matter what the source of the title, there is one.

 

[AGBF]

To keep going with these royal questions, here's another. Can a royal hold two different titles, and use them interchangeably? Such as, William was Prince of Wales - then he got married and was bestowed with "Duke of Cambridge." What if he fancies Wales? Can he still call himself that, or will he now forever be the Duke of Cambridge (until he is 'promoted' to king)? Can one be a Prince AND a Duke, and pick and choose which to go by? Because, to those who are unknowing, the title of Prince sounds a heck of a lot better than Duke.

First of all, he wasn't Prince of Wales.

Second, rumor has it that William and Kate did not want to be called Duke and Duchess because it seemed stuffy. But a royal duke is a very high title. It is an honor to have it. Of course he will always be known as, "Prince William", but not formally. He must use this title until he becomes the Prince of Wales.

AGBF

 

[Gypsy]

Gypsy-

You are confusing titles with surnames. Royals do not need to use surnames, but if they do, there is no choice. They must use: Mountbatten-Windsor. Otherwise there may be an uproar.

Deb

I am not.

William is listed at William Wales on his enrollment in the military. That's the surname he is listed as. No uproar forthcoming.

He is not listed as Mountbatten-Windsor.

A title can be used in place of a surname. And clearly, has been.

I do think that Mountbatten-Windsor is probably the easiest for us as Americans to understand. But then... they aren't Americans. Our logic doesn't seem to apply.

 

[justginger]

To keep going with these royal questions, here's another. Can a royal hold two different titles, and use them interchangeably? Such as, William was Prince of Wales - then he got married and was bestowed with "Duke of Cambridge." What if he fancies Wales? Can he still call himself that, or will he now forever be the Duke of Cambridge (until he is 'promoted' to king)? Can one be a Prince AND a Duke, and pick and choose which to go by? Because, to those who are unknowing, the title of Prince sounds a heck of a lot better than Duke.

First of all, he wasn't Prince of Wales.

Second, rumor has it that William and Kate did not want to be called Duke and Duchess because it seemed stuffy. But a royal duke is a very high title. It is an honor to have it. Of course he will always be known as, "Prince William", but not formally. He must use this title until he becomes the Prince of Wales.

AGBF

How embarrassing. I thought Charles, William, and Harry all held the title of "Prince of Wales." I didn't realize it was an exclusive position. So Charles is Charles, Prince of Wales; his sons are Prince X of Wales. Will Harry remain "Prince Henry of Wales" forever, or is it normal for him to eventually be given another title? Perhaps when he is married as well, or is that an honor reserved for the future heir?

 

[AGBF]

Gypsy-

You are confusing titles with surnames. Royals do not need to use surnames, but if they do, there is no choice. They must use: Mountbatten-Windsor. Otherwise there may be an uproar.

Deb

I am not.

William is listed at William Wales on his enrollment in the military. That's the surname he is listed as. No uproar forthcoming.

He is not listed as Mountbatten-Windsor.

A title can be used in place of a surname. And clearly, has been.

I do think that Mountbatten-Windsor is probably the easiest for us as Americans to understand. But then... they aren't Americans. Our logic doesn't seem to apply.

Fine. Historically, however, there has been an uproar when they messed with their surname. "Battenberg" caused a hell of a ruckus. That's why they have so CAREFULLY spelled out that their surname is: MOUNTBATTEN-WINDSOR everywhere.

Deb

 

[Smith1942]

Smith...

http://www.debretts.com/forms-of-address/titles/dame.aspx Per Debretts: "A peeress (including female peers in their own right, and the wives of holders of peerage titles by courtesy) ...." I guess it depends on your definition of courtesy title. When you marry title holder you are elevated to being a PEER. But you are not the title holder. Women are ineligible to succeed to the majority of hereditary peerages, so they cannot frequently hold a hereditary peerage title in their own right. When their spouses die, the title passes to the next heir of the body and when that heir marries they are given the designation "dowager" to add to their title. A courtesy title.

As for Lady Diana. She never held a peerage title before her marriage. http://www.thebiographychannel.co.uk/biographies/diana-spencer.html She had a brother who inherited her father's title. Women are ineligible to succeed to the majority of hereditary peerages, including her father's title. Lady Diana Spencer (first name, last name) is not a peerage title. It is a honorary prefix. I have no idea why she made that comment (or if she made it, for sure). But it wasn't in reference to an actual peerage title she held before her marriage to my knowledge. Unless one of her father's lesser titles (not the Earldom) was able to be passed to her. But I doubt that as she had older sisters as well. All "Lady" titles that are peerage are Lady Last Name or Lady Title. Not Lady First Name Last Name. The style of address of first name and last name tells you it is a not a peerage title. "The daughters of a duke, marquess or earl have the courtesy title of 'Lady' before their forename and surname." http://www.debretts.com/forms-of-address/titles/courtesy-titles.aspx


Mark Philips was "RUMORED" to have been offered a peerage... IF You believe Wikipedia. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Phillips So... we'll never know.

Those distinctions are very fine, and all but disappear in use. You'd probably have to be British to understand how it works in practice - which is not always how it is on paper. Lady Diana Spencer was considered a titled aristocrat by the whole country and the media when she first became well-known on her engagement to Charles, and the phrase "courtesy title" or "honorary prefix" is never heard in Britain. Since most people are not titled, of course, someone who is Lady First Name Last Name is widely considered to be titled. Everyone knows that the titles all derive from the peerage, of course, but you would never hear of a Lady Diana Spencer equivalent being discussed as "Oh, it's not a peerage title, just a courtesy one." Maybe Debrett's is technically correct, but in common usage the daughter of an earl is considered by everyone (except the editor of Debrett's!) to be a titled aristocrat, and referred to as such. Diana would have been referring to her "Lady" style when she said that - which of course does derive from her father's peerage. Like I said, it's a distinction that is so fine it's not taken any notice of in actual usage in Britain. Smith1942 is considered not titled, and Lady Diana Spencer is considered titled. Even the designation "The Honourable" is widely considered a title.

I'm sorry Smith. I disagree.

You are using 'title' and 'peerage' interchangeably. They are not the same thing. I'm sorry if I made it sound earlier like they are.

They are distinct. And the distinction is notable. And is there for a reason.

Common usage doesn't change that. And doesn't confer a peerage where there is none.

There is a reason that the distinction between a "courtesy" title and a substantive title that indicates peerage is there and has been for centuries. Because, regardless of what the public commonly believes one confers legal right and responsibilities and the other does not. A peer has rights and responsibilities that a titled non-peer does not.

Legal rights and responsibilities do not "disappear" in common usage. To be a peer means you have certain rights. And if you are not one; regardless of courtesy title or common belief, you are not one.

Diana was NOT a peer. She did have a title. Her title was "Lady Diana Spencer". But that title is a "courtesy title". And that's the fact. Common belief or usage does not change that.

But perhaps we are saying the same thing, but in different ways.

I am saying that Diana was not a peer. And that her title was a courtesy title. Not a hereditary peerage one.

You are not disagreeing with that. You are simply saying that no matter what the source of the title, there is one.

Correct - that's what I'm saying. Yes, the peerage is the main title from which the relatives' titles derive, and I suppose you could call the other titles courtesy titles because of that, as Debrett's did. But in Britain they are never referred to as such - to the average person, you're either titled or you're not. I suppose the way Debrett's put it is a useful way of distinguishing between the actual title holder and the holders of the titles which emanate from that peerage. But this is all very technical, and I can tell you that in Britain Lady Di was considered a titled aristo in Britain and that distinction "courtesy title" wouldn't mean anything to most.

 

[Smith1942]

Gypsy-

You are confusing titles with surnames. Royals do not need to use surnames, but if they do, there is no choice. They must use: Mountbatten-Windsor. Otherwise there may be an uproar.

Deb

I am not.

William is listed at William Wales on his enrollment in the military. That's the surname he is listed as. No uproar forthcoming.

He is not listed as Mountbatten-Windsor.

A title can be used in place of a surname. And clearly, has been.

I do think that Mountbatten-Windsor is probably the easiest for us as Americans to understand. But then... they aren't Americans. Our logic doesn't seem to apply.

Fine. Historically, however, there has been an uproar when they messed with their surname. "Battenberg" caused a hell of a ruckus. That's why they have so CAREFULLY spelled out that their surname is: MOUNTBATTEN-WINDSOR everywhere.

Deb

Deb and Gypsy - I wrote this above:

"On the Royals' own website, the question about the surname is commonly asked. It says that the royals don't need surnames but if they did, it would be Mountbatten-Windsor. It also says that William and Harry just chose to use Wales as their surname but didn't give a reason - they just wanted to, and could, since their father is Prince of Wales."

Got to go to bed now - all this constitutional debate is bad for the constitution.

 

[Gypsy]

Again, a matter of fine distinction. Denmark's monarchy was founded in 936 whereas the English monarchy was founded in 924. Of course, it became the British monarchy in 1707, but Britain includes England, naturally, so the common thread of the British monarchy stretches back to just before the Danish one. I say that as an Englishwoman with a Danish surname!

It is a matter of distinction.
Denmark has never suspended its monarchy. I meant the the oldest continuous monarchy. England's Monarchy was interrupted by the Commonwealth.

 

[Gypsy]

Fine. Historically, however, there has been an uproar when they messed with their surname. "Battenberg" caused a hell of a ruckus. That's why they have so CAREFULLY spelled out that their surname is: MOUNTBATTEN-WINDSOR everywhere.

Deb

I agree. I was also referring to the naming of the new baby. He is George... of Cambridge. So presumably, same as Harry and William can use Wales, he can use Cambridge. Or possibly Wales. Or the most proper MOUNTBATTEN-WINDSOR.

Not disagreeing with you. I was just saying that I was not the one confusing the tiles and surnames. The royals themselves were doing it too since William and Harry both use Wales. Didn't mean to frustrate you.

 

[AGBF]

How embarrassing. I thought Charles, William, and Harry all held the title of "Prince of Wales." I didn't realize it was an exclusive position. So Charles is Charles, Prince of Wales; his sons are Prince X of Wales. Will Harry remain "Prince Henry of Wales" forever, or is it normal for him to eventually be given another title? Perhaps when he is married as well, or is that an honor reserved for the future heir?

In Great Britain The Prince of Wales is the heir to the throne. The heir to the throne (in this case it was Prince Charles) must be invested as Prince of Wales in a ceremony, where he is crowned by the monarch. Prince Charles was invested as Prince of Wales by his mother, Queen Elizabeth when he was an adolescent. I remember seeing the pictures in magazines. I know that he learned the Welsh language, trying to take an interest in the place over which he was the titular head. I would doubt that Prince Harry would get another title. Sons of the monarch have tended to get titles when they marry, but Prince Harry is not a son of the monarch. When and if Prince Charles ascends to the throne, it may depend on where Harry is in life when he marries. If Charles is king, Harry could be made a Royal Duke or, like Prince Edward, an Earl.

AGBF

 

[Gypsy]

Good work, Smith. Except, and I shall have to look this up, if one has a seat in the House of Lords I am not sure one is common.

Hah, well, in today's UK, anybody can be elected to the House of Lords - which is a good thing, since it only used to be hereditary peers and they were all aristocrats....

This was on another website and I believe it is correct. "Nobles in Britain are the holder of the title only - not their spouse or children.

They were aristocrats but not nobles. Lord Lorne who married Queen Victoria's daughter Louise was also a commoner as was almost the husband of Edward VII's daughter Louise. The reason I say almost was that Victoria created him Duke of Fife for the wedding thus raising him to noble status."

If one was noble, one was not common. But only the title holder, who could sit in The House of Lords, was noble, The family might be aristocracy, but was not noble. Thus the family of the peer was common. The website pointed out that Lady Diana Spencer was common. Princess Margaret's husband, on the other hand, was ennobled-made the Earl of Snowden-before they were married.

AGBF

Interesting.

So. I sounds like I was wrong before.

Commoner means: Not Peerage ( actual holder of a peerage or a married to one). And Not Royal (Letter of Patent).
Peer or Peeress means: NOT common. Not royal. Referred to as "Noble." Though children are common unless and until they inherit peerage or marry a peer.
Royal means: married or born royal to a male royal and legitimate (and to be styled His/Her Royal Highness you have the letters patent conferring that on you) or born to a female royal and have a special designation granted to your children by Letters of Patent (which Princess Anne refused) and legitimate.

 

[Smith1942]

How embarrassing. I thought Charles, William, and Harry all held the title of "Prince of Wales." I didn't realize it was an exclusive position. So Charles is Charles, Prince of Wales; his sons are Prince X of Wales. Will Harry remain "Prince Henry of Wales" forever, or is it normal for him to eventually be given another title? Perhaps when he is married as well, or is that an honor reserved for the future heir?

In Great Britain The Prince of Wales is the heir to the throne. The heir to the throne (in this case it was Prince Charles) must be invested as Prince of Wales in a ceremony, where he is crowned by the monarch. Prince Charles was invested as Prince of Wales by his mother, Queen Elizabeth when he was an adolescent. I remember seeing the pictures in magazines. I know that he learned the Welsh language, trying to take an interest in the place over which he was the titular head. I would doubt that Prince Harry would get another title. Sons of the monarch have tended to get titles when they marry, but Prince Harry is not a son of the monarch. When and if Prince Charles ascends to the throne, it may depend on where Harry is in life when he marries. If Charles is king, Harry could be made a Royal Duke or, like Prince Edward, an Earl.

AGBF

Or you can be the grandson of the monarch and get a new title when you marry, like William did when he received his dukedom. When Prince Andrew married, he too received his dukedom (York). When Harry marries, whether he is the son of a monarch or not at the time (he will be the son of a monarch at some point) it is traditional to bestow a dukedom, and it will probably be Sussex, since that one is vacant. If there were more sons, it would probably be an earldom since their constitutional importance declines with their number.

 

[Smith1942]

Good work, Smith. Except, and I shall have to look this up, if one has a seat in the House of Lords I am not sure one is common.

Hah, well, in today's UK, anybody can be elected to the House of Lords - which is a good thing, since it only used to be hereditary peers and they were all aristocrats....

This was on another website and I believe it is correct. "Nobles in Britain are the holder of the title only - not their spouse or children.

They were aristocrats but not nobles. Lord Lorne who married Queen Victoria's daughter Louise was also a commoner as was almost the husband of Edward VII's daughter Louise. The reason I say almost was that Victoria created him Duke of Fife for the wedding thus raising him to noble status."

If one was noble, one was not common. But only the title holder, who could sit in The House of Lords, was noble, The family might be aristocracy, but was not noble. Thus the family of the peer was common. The website pointed out that Lady Diana Spencer was common. Princess Margaret's husband, on the other hand, was ennobled-made the Earl of Snowden-before they were married.

AGBF

Interesting.

So. I sounds like I was wrong before.

Commoner means: Not Peerage ( actual holder of a peerage or a married to one). And Not Royal (Letter of Patent).
Peer or Peeress means: NOT common. Not royal. Referred to as "Noble." Though children are common unless and until they inherit peerage or marry a peer.
Royal means: married or born royal to a male royal and legitimate (and to be styled His/Her Royal Highness you have the letters patent conferring that on you) or born to a female royal and have a special designation granted to your children by Letters of Patent (which Princess Anne refused) and legitimate.

No, as I explained in reply to this post of Deb's, a noble is still a commoner. You are a commoner or you are royal and there is nothing in between. The only use of the term "commoner", constitutionally, is to denote someone who is not royal. A nobleman may be Duke of Rutland but he is not HRH Duke of Rutland. He is not royal and therefore he is a commoner. A noble is not something in-between. You are either a royal or not, or a commoner or not, and since the Duke of Rutland is not an HRH, he is a commoner.

 

[Smith1942]

I wanted to add that this designation of "commoner" is only used in constitutional terms, to demarcate royalty from the rest of us. So once you get below the royalty line, as it were, it's true that the nobility outranks non-nobles. There is a whole other hierarchy of titles within the nobility and non-peerage styles and titles. "Commoner" is a much-misunderstood term. It doesn't mean someone who is common in the modern British sense of "untitled".

I also wanted to say that letters patent are only issued when there's a change in the law, not for each person. You don't have to have your own letters patent issued to make you royal, if the letters are already in place for your particular position. So when George V issued a letters patent to make all grandchildren of the monarch royal, not just male grandchildren, it benefited Princess Anne, who would have been Lady Anne Mountbatten-Windsor otherwise. But that letters patent benefits all future female grandchildren of a monarch - they don't all need their own letters patent.

And, about the courtesy title debate, courtesy titles are real. You don't have to be a peer to have a title. The UK is filled with ladies, counts, baronets, lairds and viscounts who would be very surprised to hear that they are not titled because they are not peers. A good example is Viscount Linley, nephew of the Queen and Princess Margaret's son. Viscount Linley is a courtesy title but very much real. If it weren't real, his wife couldn't be Viscountess Linley. Don't be fooled by the phrase "courtesy title" into thinking they don't mean anything - they are enshrined in law and a person who is a baronet or a lady or viscount is titled but not a peer, and that doesn't lessen the fact of their title.

 

[justginger]

How embarrassing. I thought Charles, William, and Harry all held the title of "Prince of Wales." I didn't realize it was an exclusive position. So Charles is Charles, Prince of Wales; his sons are Prince X of Wales. Will Harry remain "Prince Henry of Wales" forever, or is it normal for him to eventually be given another title? Perhaps when he is married as well, or is that an honor reserved for the future heir?

In Great Britain The Prince of Wales is the heir to the throne. The heir to the throne (in this case it was Prince Charles) must be invested as Prince of Wales in a ceremony, where he is crowned by the monarch. Prince Charles was invested as Prince of Wales by his mother, Queen Elizabeth when he was an adolescent. I remember seeing the pictures in magazines. I know that he learned the Welsh language, trying to take an interest in the place over which he was the titular head. I would doubt that Prince Harry would get another title. Sons of the monarch have tended to get titles when they marry, but Prince Harry is not a son of the monarch. When and if Prince Charles ascends to the throne, it may depend on where Harry is in life when he marries. If Charles is king, Harry could be made a Royal Duke or, like Prince Edward, an Earl.

AGBF

Or you can be the grandson of the monarch and get a new title when you marry, like William did when he received his dukedom. When Prince Andrew married, he too received his dukedom (York). When Harry marries, whether he is the son of a monarch or not at the time (he will be the son of a monarch at some point) it is traditional to bestow a dukedom, and it will probably be Sussex, since that one is vacant. If there were more sons, it would probably be an earldom since their constitutional importance declines with their number.

I like the idea of Harry getting a dukedom; I've always had a soft spot for the younger prince.

 

[Smith1942]

To keep going with these royal questions, here's another. Can a royal hold two different titles, and use them interchangeably? Such as, William was Prince of Wales - then he got married and was bestowed with "Duke of Cambridge." What if he fancies Wales? Can he still call himself that, or will he now forever be the Duke of Cambridge (until he is 'promoted' to king)? Can one be a Prince AND a Duke, and pick and choose which to go by? Because, to those who are unknowing, the title of Prince sounds a heck of a lot better than Duke.

First of all, he wasn't Prince of Wales.

Second, rumor has it that William and Kate did not want to be called Duke and Duchess because it seemed stuffy. But a royal duke is a very high title. It is an honor to have it. Of course he will always be known as, "Prince William", but not formally. He must use this title until he becomes the Prince of Wales.

AGBF

I have never, ever understood the royal tradition of bestowing dukedoms on the monarch's sons or future heirs upon marriage. I can't see any reason for it, seeing as it's a demotion. Prince William was formally known (and formerly known) as Prince William until he married and received the wretched dukedom. A prince outranks a duke, you see. Of course he's still Prince William, but he'll never be a prince in his own right again, because now he must go by the Duke of Cambridge, then he will be Prince of Wales, then King. A duke and duchess are lower in rank than a prince and princess. Personally, I don't blame them for being a bit miffed. Technically, Prince Michael and his wife, Princess Michael, fairly minor members of the family, now outrank William and Kate. In order to counteract this effect and others like it, the Queen had to create and then update, when William married, the Order of Precedence of the Royal Household, establishing William and Kate's position and others in the Royal Household. Why they couldn't just be Prince and Princess William, I'll never know. Or, why the law can't be changed that says a woman marrying a senior royal can't become a princess in her own right. I feel that if you marry a prince, you should be a princess. I think William and Kate should be Prince William and Princess Catherine.

The Order of Precedence is hilarious. It states that Kate must curtsey to princesses Beatrice and Eugenie if William isn't present. But if William is in the room, Kate outranks them. I haven't checked back, but i have a feeling that if Kate, William and Camilla are in the room, Kate outranks Camilla as William's wife because William outranks Camilla when his father is not present. But if Prince Charles is present, he and Camilla outrank Kate and William, and Kate must curtsey to Camilla. I'm not 100% sure about that last part. But rumour has it that the royals take all this curtseying in private very seriously.

I guess the monarchy is interesting as a historical institution, but I still feel it has no place in today's world. It's an overcomplicated product of a country that's just so old that it's overburdened with nobles and peers and royals and hierarchies. The British class system will never unravel while we have a monarchy, in my opinion. British snobbery and class divides all trickle down from the top.

 

[kenny]

Oye Vey!
Sorry I asked...