Prince William to marry next year

[cathmom]

I thought she was divorced and therefore he could not marry her...used goods and all.

 

I can't say I know more than dank and squat, however.

 

At any rate, Charles & Diana DNA didn't go wrong in the tall and cute department. :)

 

 

Charles and Camilla dated before either was married. He wasn't sure if he wanted to marry her, so she went off and married Parker-Bowles in a huff. It seems that they continued their relationship throughout the years, and when Charles was being pressed to marry, he cast about for a suitable girl and chose Diana. Lucky her. I believe the marriage never had a chance.

[Mejane]

I love how William said he asked Kate first so that when he asked her father for her hand he wouldn't really be able to say no. As if! :D

[Tammyla]

I'm sure it will be beautiful, but it just doesn't have the fairy-tale magic of Diana's wedding.

[JumpedIntoTheDeepEndFirst]

It's more like the Queen changed her mind and thus the Bishop's was changed for him. She is the head of the English church after-all; that change coming so that Henry could mary who he wanted all those years ago.

 

Camilla was still married when C & D married. I think that the queen finally gave into Camilla because 1. Diana was dead so it was a less dramatic thing and 2. no way would their union produce children at this point to complicate things or take the attention from Will and Harry 3. I think she extracted a promise that Camilla would never be "Queen". 4. He was carrying on with her anyway and it was making the monarchy look bad.

 

When Charles and Camilla were married they had a civil ceremony at the registry office. Then they went to church and had the wedding blessed. In the CofE blessings are permitted for all civil weddings (prior divorce is not an issue). Technically they aren't married by the church so the above issues about head of the church don't apply.

 

"TheNature of the Service

The service is one in which the couple - already married - wish to dedicate to God their life together. Because it is not a marriage service, banns may not be called nor any entry made in the Register of Marriages."

[LibraryLover]

Currently, the only possibilities for Queen would be one of Andrew's daughters --or other female in the bio line-up (Margaret, is it?)-- if the males were somehow unable to ascend.

 

Or, if William has a daughter, then that child could be Queen (QE III? :)), and Margaret and Andrew's dds go to the back of the line there, and even further back if Harry has children.

 

There is no Queen (or King) of England through marraige. If Elizabeth steps down or dies, Prince/Duke Philip would not become King, that would go to Charles as it currently stands. Only bio heirs can reign, and the spouses are not King or Queen, 'just' Prince or Princess. Yes? Exceptions?

Edited November 17, 2010 by LibraryLover

[Mejane]

There is no Queen (or King) of England through marraige. If Elizabeth steps down or dies, Prince/Duke Phillip would not become King, that would go to Charles. Only bio heirs can reign, and the spouses are not King or Queen, 'just' Prince or Princess. Yes? Exceptions?

 

I thought the spouse of a King was Queen, but couldn't reign? I'm thinking of Henry Tudor and all his queens. :D They couldn't rule, but they were called Queen so-and-so. No one can be called King unless he IS King. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

[Melinda in VT]

I thought the spouse of a King was Queen, but couldn't reign? I'm thinking of Henry Tudor and all his queens. :D They couldn't rule, but they were called Queen so-and-so. No one can be called King unless he IS King. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

 

According to wikipedia, the wife of a king has the title "queen consort."

[Mejane]

Just an fyi... Dateline is doing a special on the couple tonight at 8ET.

[Sparkle]

I'm very happy for them. I think they have a pretty good chance at a successful marriage since they both seem mature and they've been together a long time.

 

I love the ring William gave her. It's stunning. I hope she doesn't mind that she didn't get to pick it. I read that NY jewelers are already getting tons of requests for duplicates of it.

 

I vote they get married in St. Paul's Cathedral. I like it better than Westminster Abbey (you hear that, you guys? St. Paul's! hee hee)

 

I can't wait to see what kind of dress she picks. I hope it's form-fitting and not some huge floofy thing.

[Mom in High Heels]

I thought the spouse of a King was Queen, but couldn't reign? I'm thinking of Henry Tudor and all his queens. :D They couldn't rule, but they were called Queen so-and-so. No one can be called King unless he IS King. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

 

 

I think Mary I and Phillip of Spain were the only exception to this. It was part of their marriage contract that Phillip was styled King of England, though he could not reign after Mary died.

When a king rules, his wife is technically queen consort, but styled just "Queen." When a ruling queen marries, her husband is usually styles prince consort though they are usually princes in their own right. As far as I know, there have been no royal female marriages (meaning a female heir) to a man who was not already a prince in his own right (Mary I to Prince Phillip of Spain, Victoria to Prince Albert of Saxe-Coberg-Gotha and Elizabeth I to Prince Phillip of Greece), except Matilda and Jeffrey, Count of Anjou. Matilda and Jeffery are a special case though as she was technically never crowned ( Stephen was accepted as king and crowned) and Lady Jane Grey, who was technically never really queen.

William and Mary ruled jointly as they inherited the throne together after being offered it by Parliament. William was a Prince of Orange (in his own right) as well as nephew and SIL to James II of England (he was also James VII of Scotland). He and Mary were already married when they were offered the throne. After Mary died, William continued to rule until his death. As they had no children, Mary's sister, Anne, inherited the throne.

 

Wow, I know way too much about this. :D

[Jennifer]

I knew you guys wouldn't let me down...we will have to have a wedding watching online party.

Jennifer

[JumpedIntoTheDeepEndFirst]

I see, I didn't pay enough attention at the time to realize how all of that went down. As the Heir apparent though, he still had to have the permission of the Queen to marry.

 

Actually-those in line of succession have to have the Queen's permission to marry. I'm not sure how far down the line this stops. Both Charles and William required permission.

 

What is this with the Queen of England stuff? Elizabeth II dh is Prince, spouse of the rightful Queen/ heir to the throne; he's not King.

 

Elizbeth is Elizabeth Regina. The Queen and ruler, the queen regnant. Kate will be Queen Katherine, the Queen Consort-if her husband grants her the title, I'm not sure it is automatic but I doubt he'd refuse. We'll have to wait and see what they announce her interim title as and if they make her an HRH. That hasn't been automatic with the last few marriages. William currently has no title other than prince so unless he is made a duke upon marriage his wife would simply be princess. There is some debate if her title would correctly be The Princess William or Princess Katherine as technically she is only a princess through marriage she may not technically have the right to use her own first name with the title. This is typically solved by giving her some other title such as Duchess of XXX as with Sarah Ferguson. Not that the press will pay any attention to such matters of protocol.

 

Currently, the only possibilities for Queen would be one of Andrew's daughters --or other female in the bio line-up (Margaret, is it?)-- if the males were somehow unable to ascend.

 

Or, if William has a daughter, then that child could be Queen (QE III? :)), and Margaret and Andrew's dds go to the back of the line there, and even further back if Harry has children.

 

The current leading possibility would be for Andrew's eldest daughter to inherit the throne through the death or disqualification of Charles, William, Harry, and Andrew.

 

William's daughter would inherit the throne only if she were the only child or if she were the eldest of all girls. Any son, even a younger son, would inherit the throne first.

 

Charles comes first them William. Any children that William has will be ahead of his brother Harry and any children Harry may have. Then comes Charles' siblings Andrew, his daughters, Edward, his son then daughter, Anne, her son then daughter, then Princess Margaret's children and grandchildren. Each person adds in their kids before the next person.

 

See here: http://www.britroyals.com/succession.htm

 

There is no Queen (or King) of England through marraige. If Elizabeth steps down or dies, Prince/Duke Phillip would not become King, that would go to Charles as it currently stands. Only bio heirs can reign, and the spouses are not King or Queen, 'just' Prince or Princess. Yes? Exceptions?

 

I'll cover this below. But yes, inheriting the throne is based on biology. Title is a different matter.

 

I thought the spouse of a King was Queen, but couldn't reign? I'm thinking of Henry Tudor and all his queens. :D They couldn't rule, but they were called Queen so-and-so. No one can be called King unless he IS King. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

 

Yes, the spouse of a King is Queen (techinically Queen Consort-meaning married to the king as opposed to ruling in her own right as queen regnant-as someone pointed out earlier). Typically the only way a Queen Consort (or titular equivalent) rules is by acting as regent for a child King or Queen. The other alternative is a combination of regency and revolution such as that which brought Catherine the Great to the throne in Russia.

 

I am unaware of any European title of King Consort. Typically the title of King supersedes that of Queen.

 

This is correct. If a daughter inherits her dh can not be called "King". If a son inherits he is "king" and his wife is "queen" although she has no power.

 

ie. The Queen Mother was the queen of England but her dh ruled, and when he died Elizabeth was crowned as the ruling Queen and her mum became Queen Mother.

 

Please see below.

 

I think Mary I and Phillip of Spain were the only exception to this. It was part of their marriage contract that Phillip was styled King of England, though he could not reign after Mary died.

When a king rules, his wife is technically queen consort, but styled just "Queen." When a ruling queen marries, her husband is usually styles prince consort though they are usually princes in their own right. As far as I know, there have been no royal female marriages (meaning a female heir) to a man who was not already a prince in his own right (Mary I to Prince Phillip of Spain, Victoria to Prince Albert of Saxe-Coberg-Gotha and Elizabeth I to Prince Phillip of Greece), except Matilda and Jeffrey, Count of Anjou. Matilda and Jeffery are a special case though as she was technically never crowned ( Stephen was accepted as king and crowned) and Lady Jane Grey, who was technically never really queen.

William and Mary ruled jointly as they inherited the throne together after being offered it by Parliament. William was a Prince of Orange (in his own right) as well as nephew and SIL to James II of England (he was also James VII of Scotland). He and Mary were already married when they were offered the throne. After Mary died, William continued to rule until his death. As they had no children, Mary's sister, Anne, inherited the throne.

 

Wow, I know way too much about this. :D

 

Technically yes-a daughter who inherits the throne can make her husband king. But then she is either a joint ruler or becomes the consort depending on what the marriage negotiations produce (ie what does the pre-nup say). This was a huge issue for both Elizabeth I and Victoria as the came to the throne unmarried. Victoria is said to have thought about making Albert King as a co-ruler but was ultimately dissuaded by either the government, the church or her own determination. I believe there is also some debate over how much the church and government can influence the decision of a queen regnant in making her husband king. So far I think that only Mary, Elizabeth I, and Victoria have come to the throne unwed. Typically spouses don't inherit the throne but they can serve as Regent for an underage monarch. Spouses have been know to try and take the throne though. That was part of Philips claim when he sent the Armada to England I believe. Catherine the Great took the throne of Russia through a coup.

 

The title typically given a Queen Consort if her reigning spouse predeceases her is either Queen Mother (meaning mother of the current ruler not mother of the Queen) or the Dowager Queen/Queen Dowager.

 

ETA: Despite going by the nickname Kate (with a K), it appears that William's fiancee is actually Catherine with a C. Please consider any above statements amended to reflect proper spelling.

Edited November 17, 2010 by JumpedIntoTheDeepEndFirst

[JumpedIntoTheDeepEndFirst]

C:

 

There was an episode, so I heard, when C & C were preparing for their register office ceremony in the Windsor town hall and some photojournalists took some photos and the photos showed a room full of junk, and they added the caption that this was where C & C would be having the ceremony. Shortly after this it was announced that the Queen wouldn't be attending. And admittedly the surroundings didn't look very regal...

 

I'm pretty sure that it had less to do with the venue and more to do with the Queen being the head of the church and the churches stance on marriage and divorce.

[katemary63]

The ring was his beloved mother's. That is all I need to know. That is an amazing romantic.

 

I must be wierd. I would NEVER want an engagement ring from such a horrible farce of a marriage. Yes, the ring was Diana's, but it represented her marriage to Charles, which was a sham. Every time I looked at it, I would remember how much she was betrayed and disrespected. I'm sure Kate knew he was giving it to her and she doesn't mind, but me? I would never have wanted it. My mom and dad's marriage was also horrendous. If my mom gave me her rings, I would sell them. Yuck.

[JumpedIntoTheDeepEndFirst]

JITDEF:

 

I'm sure this is true, too. Anglican bishops, though, can be pretty elastic when it comes to working out convenient arrangements, but I'd maybe better not get into this.

 

We all wish William and Kate all the very best, I'm sure.:)

 

 

I'm pretty sure it is about the Queen's flexibility not just the Bishops'.

 

There hasn't been much since the Wallis Simpson episode.

[unsinkable]

Best of luck to Will & Kate, yadda, yadda, yadda (but boy, does he look old)

 

But what I really want to know is why is the poster known as person banned?

 

The poster's name caught my eye and I felt like her posts were written in "different" way...almost too short, KWIM?

Edited November 17, 2010 by unsinkable

[JumpedIntoTheDeepEndFirst]

Best of luck to Will & Kate, yadda, yadda, yadda (but boy, does he look old)

 

But what I really want to know is why is the post known as person banned?

 

The poster's name caught my eye and I felt like her posts were written in "different" way...almost too short, KWIM?

 

 

You may find the info you seek in the thread in inking/piercing.

[unsinkable]

You may find the info you seek in the thread in inking/piercing.

 

Thank you.

 

So person is just some kind of Anglophile, tat & piercing-loving whack job?

 

The heck....

[Rosie_0801]

Currently, the only possibilities for Queen would be one of Andrew's daughters --or other female in the bio line-up (Margaret, is it?)-- if the males were somehow unable to ascend. Or, if William has a daughter, then that child could be Queen (QE III? :)), and Margaret and Andrew's dds go to the back of the line there, and even further back if Harry has children.

 

Yup, if William and Harry were both killed in action or something, Beatrice would be next in line after Charles and Andrew. If William has a daughter, she would only inherit if she was without brothers, I think. That's why Princess Anne is right out of the runnings. She in order of inheritance, she comes after her brothers and all their kids. Of course, if William has a daughter first, the inheritance laws may be changed so she can inherit.

 

There is no Queen (or King) of England through marraige. If Elizabeth steps down or dies, Prince/Duke Phillip would not become King, that would go to Charles as it currently stands. Only bio heirs can reign, and the spouses are not King or Queen, 'just' Prince or Princess. Yes? Exceptions?

 

Prince Philip couldn't be called King because King is a higher ranking than Queen and no one should rank higher than the reigning monarch. The reason Camilla won't be queen is for political reasons. The populace don't want her to be because they're still a bit touchy about Princess Di. There are no such political problems with the up and coming couple, so there's no reason Kate shouldn't be entitled with "queen." I think he could have her crowned queen rather than queen consort. I think that has been done in the past, but now isn't the past so perhaps it's no longer an option.

 

FWIW, the official title of the Queen mother is Dowager Queen, but of course that sounds ugly so Queen Mum is used :tongue_smilie:

 

As far as I know, there have been no royal female marriages (meaning a female heir) to a man who was not already a prince in his own right (Mary I to Prince Phillip of Spain, Victoria to Prince Albert of Saxe-Coberg-Gotha and Elizabeth I to Prince Phillip of Greece),

 

Except he was no longer a prince of Greece, as Greece had overthrown their monarchy. He may still have been entitled to a royal ranking in the Danish royal family, though?

 

 

Rosie

[eternalknot]

I really have zero interest at all in Prince William, his betrothed, or either of his parents but I found this thread completely fascinating in terms of all I just learned regarding the inner workings of the English monarchy. You truly are a wealth of information here!

 

I had never given it much thought before now. This thread was definitely click-worthy LOL.

[Mona100]

I think Mary I and Phillip of Spain were the only exception to this. It was part of their marriage contract that Phillip was styled King of England, though he could not reign after Mary died.

When a king rules, his wife is technically queen consort, but styled just "Queen." When a ruling queen marries, her husband is usually styles prince consort though they are usually princes in their own right. As far as I know, there have been no royal female marriages (meaning a female heir) to a man who was not already a prince in his own right (Mary I to Prince Phillip of Spain, Victoria to Prince Albert of Saxe-Coberg-Gotha and Elizabeth I to Prince Phillip of Greece), except Matilda and Jeffrey, Count of Anjou. Matilda and Jeffery are a special case though as she was technically never crowned ( Stephen was accepted as king and crowned) and Lady Jane Grey, who was technically never really queen.

William and Mary ruled jointly as they inherited the throne together after being offered it by Parliament. William was a Prince of Orange (in his own right) as well as nephew and SIL to James II of England (he was also James VII of Scotland). He and Mary were already married when they were offered the throne. After Mary died, William continued to rule until his death. As they had no children, Mary's sister, Anne, inherited the throne.

 

Wow, I know way too much about this. :D

 

 

 

So, so glad I am not the only one that knew this. :001_smile: You don't know too much about it IMO, you know enough to be educated. My home library has so many biographies about the British Royal Family it is not even funny.

[JumpedIntoTheDeepEndFirst]

 

Except he was no longer a prince of Greece, as Greece had overthrown their monarchy. He may still have been entitled to a royal ranking in the Danish royal family, though?

 

Rosie

 

I thought that they expelled the family so they still kept their titles (technically). But I also thought upon joining the Royal Navy he had to give up his titles in order to become a British Subject. He was given back some titles just before or on the wedding day. I thought he was untitled but of royal blood and that the Queen granted him the title of prince. I think technically there is a difference between being a titled person married to the Queen and being a consort. (I'm not sure if the same holds true for Kings and their wives.) Something about Victoria granting Albert the designation consort...

[JumpedIntoTheDeepEndFirst]

It is my understanding that he had titles (still retained even though his family no longer ruled Greece and he was the son of a younger brother anyway so it's not as if he would have been King). He gave up his Greek titles shortly before marriage and then was given the title of prince (I assume by Elizabeth's father since she didn't have the power to give titles at the time.) She made him Prince consort when she ascended the throne.

 

Actually according to his official website he was made Prince in Feb 1957. Nearly 4 years after she came to the throne. There is no mention in his official bio that he has been granted the title of Prince Consort. He was styled Lieutenant Mountbatten in the engagement announcements and just before the wedding was made Duke of Edinburgh (etc.) and granted the HRH by George VI.

 

A greater point being that men do not automatically receive the title of Consort-even if they are Princes in their own right. Prince Albert was married to Victoria for 17 years before he was granted the title of Prince Consort. I'm not as sure about what happens to women.

 

In February 1957 it was announced that The Queen had granted to The Duke of Edinburgh the style and dignity of a Prince of the United Kingdom, and that in future he would be known as 'The Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh'.

from http://www.royal.gov.uk/ThecurrentRoyalFamily/TheDukeofEdinburgh/Honours.aspx

 

It is tradition for princes to be given some kind of title when they marry so it is likely that Kate will actually end up the Duchess of something or other for a while.

 

Yup-that is what I said. So far that is what the Queen has done with her younger sons so perhaps William will be the same. Although not all the brides (or grooms I think) have been immediately granted the status of HRH.

[tex-mex]

 

 

Except he was no longer a prince of Greece, as Greece had overthrown their monarchy. He may still have been entitled to a royal ranking in the Danish royal family, though?

 

 

Rosie

Phillip was both Greek and Danish (originially German and married into the Danish Royal line in the 1800's) Royalty. The story is quite sad and tragic from the Battenburg/Mountbatten side. Phillip's mother, Princess Alice of Battenburg was born deaf and dealt with schizophrenia. She married the Prince of Greece. The Greek Royal family had to abdicate the Greek throne and run in hiding when Phillip was an infant. (Prince Charles' favorite uncle was Lord Mountbatten and he was assassinated by the IRA in the 70's.) His maternal grandfather, Prince Louis of Battenburg (German Royalty) had a long service of being in the British Royal Navy (as a naturalized citizen) since he renounced his titles, surname, and loyalties to the German Throne. WWI changed many minds against the Germans at that time. He changed his name to Mountbatten.

 

Philiip was educated in Germany and Scotland at schools run by a German Jewish educator. At the age of 18, he joined the British Royal Navy, in which he served during World War II, even though two of his German brothers-in-law fought on the opposing side.

 

After the war, in March 1947, he renounced his royal (Greek/German/Dutch) titles, adopted the surname Mountbatten from his British maternal grandparents, and used "Lieutenant Philip Mountbatten". It is suggested Phillip did this to win the hand of Elizabeth. (Elizabeth met him when a young pre-teen and fell in love with him at first sight.) Later that year, he married Princess Elizabeth, the eldest daughter and heir-presumptive of King George VI. On his marriage, he was granted the style of His Royal Highness and the title of Duke of Edinburgh by his father-in-law. When Elizabeth became Queen in 1952, Philip left his naval career to act as her consort. His wife made him a Prince of the United Kingdom in 1957. He is Britain's longest-serving consort and the oldest serving spouse of a reigning monarch.

 

ETA: As a commoner once married to the Royal Prince, Kate will have the automatic style of "HRH" (Catherine) and whatever title the Queen decides to bestow upon her.

Edited November 17, 2010 by tex-mex

[Mom in High Heels]

It is my understanding that he had titles (still retained even though his family no longer ruled Greece and he was the son of a younger brother anyway so it's not as if he would have been King). He gave up his Greek titles shortly before marriage and then was given the title of prince (I assume by Elizabeth's father since she didn't have the power to give titles at the time.) She made him Prince consort when she ascended the throne.

 

Yes, but he was still born a prince in his own right. His father was a Greek Prince (a younger brother of King Constantine I), though he was also styled a prince of Denmark from his mother's side. Philips mother was a princess of Battenburg (an area of Germany, not far from where I currently live) and great granddaughter of Queen Victoria. He did have to renounce his titles to Greece and Denmark before his marriage, but was made Duke of Edinburgh and given the HRH. When Elizabeth became queen, she issued royal patents granting him the title of Prince once again. FTR though, he is NOT the Prince Consort. He his her consort, but the title "Prince Consort" is not his by right. The Queen would have to confer this title on him and she did not.

 

There was some media speculation in early 2007 that the title of Prince Consort might be conferred to mark the royal couple's 60th wedding anniversary in November that year; however, this did not occur.

 

It is tradition for princes to be given some kind of title when they marry so it is likely that Kate will actually end up the Duchess of something or other for a while.

 

Yes, I read that he will become Duke of...drat, I can't remember (Clarence or Cambridge, maybe?), so then she will be a Duchess until Charles ascends to the throne and confers the Prince of Wales title on William. At some point she will likely become the Princess of Wales, but this is not an automatic thing. It is traditional for the heir to the throne to be the Prince of Wales, but it is not a hereditary title. Charles wasn't created PoW until 1958 and wasn't formally invested until 1969. Charles will likely make William PoW right away, but he (William) won't become iPoW immediately on Charles becoming King, the way Charles will automatically become King when QE dies.

 

BTW, if William were not awarded a dukedom, she would technically be called HRH Princess William Wales, which I think sounds terrible. I've never understood calling the wives Princess <husband's name>.

 

Sometimes untitled men who marry princesses are given titles as well. Queen Victoria did that a number of times since some of her younger daughters married men without any particular title.

 

Yes, she handed out Dukedom's like candy to her daughter's spouses. I found it interesting that QE didn't confer a title on Anne's husband or even give a lesser title to Anne's children. you'd think the grandchildren of the reigning queen would be called something other than Mr. and Miss. They don't even have the Right Honorable titles. Strange. Perhaps Anne and her husband turned down titles for themselves and their children though. I know when Prince Edward married and was given the title Earl of Wessex, he and his wife requested that their children not be known as princes and princesses, but rather lords and ladies (his son is Viscount Severn), as the children of an Earl would. However, when Philip dies, it has been put out that Edward will (with Charles's permission as it should technically go to him) become the Duke of Edinburgh. The son would become Earl of Wessex, and I wonder if they will change the styles of their daughter.

[TeacherZee]

As far as I know, there have been no royal female marriages (meaning a female heir) to a man who was not already a prince in his own right (Mary I to Prince Phillip of Spain, Victoria to Prince Albert of Saxe-Coberg-Gotha and Elizabeth I to Prince Phillip of Greece), except Matilda and Jeffrey, Count of Anjou. Matilda and Jeffery are a special case though as she was technically never crowned ( Stephen was accepted as king and crowned) and Lady Jane Grey, who was technically never really queen.

 

Not the British Royal family but the Swedish Crown Princes just married a commoner. When she becomes queen he will be (as he is now) His Royal Highness Prince Daniel.

 

Also the Danish Queen married a man who was titled but not a prince. He was a French Count.

 

Also here is the wikipedia reason for the civil wedding location and absence of Queen Elizabeth and Prince Philip

The marriage was to have been on 8 April of that year, and was to take place in a civil ceremony at Windsor Castle, with a subsequent religious blessing at St George's Chapel. But, because the conduct of a civil marriage at Windsor Castle would oblige the venue thereafter to be available to anyone wishing to be married there, the location was changed to the Windsor Guildhall. On 4 April it was announced that the marriage would be delayed by one day to allow for the Prince of Wales and some of the invited dignitaries to attend the funeral of Pope John Paul II. Charles' parents did not attend the marriage ceremony; the Queen's reluctance to attend arising from her position as Supreme Governor of the Church of England.[30] The Queen and Duke of Edinburgh did, however, attend the service of blessing, and held a reception for the newlyweds at Windsor Castle, afterwards.[31]

 

And yes I will be watching the wedding :D I didn't watch Charles and Diana's wedding on account of being 9 weeks old at the time.

[JumpedIntoTheDeepEndFirst]

Yes, but he was still born a prince in his own right. His father was a Greek Prince (a younger brother of King Constantine I), though he was also styled a prince of Denmark from his mother's side. Philips mother was a princess of Battenburg (an area of Germany, not far from where I currently live) and great granddaughter of Queen Victoria. He did have to renounce his titles to Greece and Denmark before his marriage, but was made Duke of Edinburgh and given the HRH. When Elizabeth became queen, she issued royal patents granting him the title of Prince once again. FTR though, he is NOT the Prince Consort. He his her consort, but the title "Prince Consort" is not his by right. The Queen would have to confer this title on him and she did not.

 

There was some media speculation in early 2007 that the title of Prince Consort might be conferred to mark the royal couple's 60th wedding anniversary in November that year; however, this did not occur.

 

 

 

Yes, I read that he will become Duke of...drat, I can't remember (Clarence or Cambridge, maybe?), so then she will be a Duchess until Charles ascends to the throne and confers the Prince of Wales title on William. At some point she will likely become the Princess of Wales, but this is not an automatic thing. It is traditional for the heir to the throne to be the Prince of Wales, but it is not a hereditary title. Charles wasn't created PoW until 1958 and wasn't formally invested until 1969. Charles will likely make William PoW right away, but he (William) won't become iPoW immediately on Charles becoming King, the way Charles will automatically become King when QE dies.

 

BTW, if William were not awarded a dukedom, she would technically be called HRH Princess William Wales, which I think sounds terrible. I've never understood calling the wives Princess <husband's name>.

 

 

 

Yes, she handed out Dukedom's like candy to her daughter's spouses. I found it interesting that QE didn't confer a title on Anne's husband or even give a lesser title to Anne's children. you'd think the grandchildren of the reigning queen would be called something other than Mr. and Miss. They don't even have the Right Honorable titles. Strange. Perhaps Anne and her husband turned down titles for themselves and their children though. I know when Prince Edward married and was given the title Earl of Wessex, he and his wife requested that their children not be known as princes and princesses, but rather lords and ladies (his son is Viscount Severn), as the children of an Earl would. However, when Philip dies, it has been put out that Edward will (with Charles's permission as it should technically go to him) become the Duke of Edinburgh. The son would become Earl of Wessex, and I wonder if they will change the styles of their daughter.

 

Actually, she will only be HRH if the Queen or Charles upon becoming King grant her that right. It is not automatic. I also think that it would be Princess William of Wales. As I said before the reason for using the husband's name is because to use her own first name implies that she holds the title in her own right-as in by birth. However, as she would be addressed verbally as either Your Royal Highness or Your Grace depending on the title granted, this title would only ever be written down. The delay in creating and investing Charles Prince of Wales was undoubtedly due to the fact that he was a child when Elizabeth became Queen.

 

It is my understanding that Anne and her husband requested that their children not be given titles as her husband didn't accept one himself.

 

If Edward were to become a Duke his daughter would still be a Lady. The only way she would have gained another title would be to have not had a brother.

[JumpedIntoTheDeepEndFirst]

I find it so interesting that these titles and the HRH stuff is a bit random. You don't automatically get anything, unless you become the ruler. Even the whole "prince of Wales" thing (which has been done for a really long time now) has to be officially given by the ruler.

 

And the whole "consort" thing. It's just a word, a kind of honor, but why would Liz not give that to Philip? Lord knows he is a good guy and it doesn't really change anything, just offers him respect and acknowledgment of his place in her life.

 

Am I missing something about all of this?

 

One or two points--maybe he doesn't want the title. Or maybe there is some taboo in the family after the way Albert's death was handled. Or maybe there is a reason the government is against it. The details may never come out or won't until all this is history.

[Mom in High Heels]

Actually, she will only be HRH if the Queen or Charles upon becoming King grant her that right. It is not automatic. I also think that it would be Princess William of Wales. As I said before the reason for using the husband's name is because to use her own first name implies that she holds the title in her own right-as in by birth. However, as she would be addressed verbally as either Your Royal Highness or Your Grace depending on the title granted, this title would only ever be written down. The delay in creating and investing Charles Prince of Wales was undoubtedly due to the fact that he was a child when Elizabeth became Queen.

 

It is my understanding that Anne and her husband requested that their children not be given titles as her husband didn't accept one himself.

 

If Edward were to become a Duke his daughter would still be a Lady. The only way she would have gained another title would be to have not had a brother.

 

Actually, she would be Princess William Wales because that's how he is styled. He's not William of Wales because he's not from Wales. He uses Wales as his last name. I think because she's marrying the heir to the throne the HRH thing is automatic (due to patents granted by George V in 1917 granting the HRH automatically to certain members of the royal family including direct heirs to the throne and their spouses). I know they took away Diana's HRH after the divorce (which was a big deal), but it was automatic when she married Charles. She didn't have to be granted the HRH.

 

I thought maybe Anne and her husband didn't want a title, but still, it seems odd that they wouldn't at least allow their children to be styled lords and lady, being that they are the grandchildren of the queen.

 

I know that daughter's of duke's are generally styled "lady" but daughters of royal dukes (which Edward would be, being born a prince) are normally styles "princess." That's why I'm curious about whether or not her title will be changed.

 

Going back to Phillip being a prince and a British citizen, I found this, which I thought I'd toss out there since we were talking about it:

 

The interesting thing about Philip was that it was later discovered that as a descendant of the Electress Sophia, under the Sophia Naturalization Act (1705) he was automatically a British citizen, similar to the House of Hanover, under the Act of Settlement.

[Laura Corin]

Actually, she would be Princess William Wales because that's how he is styled. He's not William of Wales because he's not from Wales. He uses Wales as his last name. [/i]

 

He uses 'William Wales' as his name when he's not using a title - for example, in the military or when he was at university. I'm absolutely not an expert on this, but I've always assumed that this was used for convenience only, and was not connected to his official, titled name, which is still William 'of' Wales. FWIW Wikipedia agrees with me. I like the bit in the paragraph about there being some doubt about the family's surname.

 

ETA: in titles, the 'of Wales' form is used (Charles is simply Prince of Wales) as a symbol of the centralisation of British power from 1301 onwards - it doesn't refer to where the person was born or the ethnic origin.

 

Laura

Edited November 18, 2010 by Laura Corin

[LibraryLover]

I know I could look it up, but someone- or you-- :)-- might enjoy this question. What was the bio connection with Philip via Czar Nicholas? It was Philip's DNA they used to identify the bones of Nicholas found in the 1990's.

 

Phillip was both Greek and Danish (originially German and married into the Danish Royal line in the 1800's) Royalty. The story is quite sad and tragic from the Battenburg/Mountbatten side. Phillip's mother, Princess Alice of Battenburg was born deaf and dealt with schizophrenia. She married the Prince of Greece. The Greek Royal family had to abdicate the Greek throne and run in hiding when Phillip was an infant. (Prince Charles' favorite uncle was Lord Mountbatten and he was assassinated by the IRA in the 70's.) His maternal grandfather, Prince Louis of Battenburg (German Royalty) had a long service of being in the British Royal Navy (as a naturalized citizen) since he renounced his titles, surname, and loyalties to the German Throne. WWI changed many minds against the Germans at that time. He changed his name to Mountbatten.

 

Philiip was educated in Germany and Scotland at schools run by a German Jewish educator. At the age of 18, he joined the British Royal Navy, in which he served during World War II, even though two of his German brothers-in-law fought on the opposing side.

 

After the war, in March 1947, he renounced his royal (Greek/German/Dutch) titles, adopted the surname Mountbatten from his British maternal grandparents, and used "Lieutenant Philip Mountbatten". It is suggested Phillip did this to win the hand of Elizabeth. (Elizabeth met him when a young pre-teen and fell in love with him at first sight.) Later that year, he married Princess Elizabeth, the eldest daughter and heir-presumptive of King George VI. On his marriage, he was granted the style of His Royal Highness and the title of Duke of Edinburgh by his father-in-law. When Elizabeth became Queen in 1952, Philip left his naval career to act as her consort. His wife made him a Prince of the United Kingdom in 1957. He is Britain's longest-serving consort and the oldest serving spouse of a reigning monarch.

 

ETA: As a commoner once married to the Royal Prince, Kate will have the automatic style of "HRH" (Catherine) and whatever title the Queen decides to bestow upon her.

[JumpedIntoTheDeepEndFirst]

Actually, she would be Princess William Wales because that's how he is styled. He's not William of Wales because he's not from Wales. He uses Wales as his last name. I think because she's marrying the heir to the throne the HRH thing is automatic (due to patents granted by George V in 1917 granting the HRH automatically to certain members of the royal family including direct heirs to the throne and their spouses). I know they took away Diana's HRH after the divorce (which was a big deal), but it was automatic when she married Charles. She didn't have to be granted the HRH.

 

I thought maybe Anne and her husband didn't want a title, but still, it seems odd that they wouldn't at least allow their children to be styled lords and lady, being that they are the grandchildren of the queen.

 

I know that daughter's of duke's are generally styled "lady" but daughters of royal dukes (which Edward would be, being born a prince) are normally styles "princess." That's why I'm curious about whether or not her title will be changed.

 

Going back to Phillip being a prince and a British citizen, I found this, which I thought I'd toss out there since we were talking about it:

 

The interesting thing about Philip was that it was later discovered that as a descendant of the Electress Sophia, under the Sophia Naturalization Act (1705) he was automatically a British citizen, similar to the House of Hanover, under the Act of Settlement.

 

He uses 'William Wales' as his name when he's not using a title - for example, in the military or when he was at university. I'm absolutely not an expert on this, but I've always assumed that this was used for convenience only, and was not connected to his official, titled name, which is still William 'of' Wales. FWIW Wikipedia agrees with me. I like the bit in the paragraph about there being some doubt about the family's surname.

 

ETA: in titles, the 'of Wales' form is used (Charles is simply Prince of Wales) as a symbol of the centralisation of British power from 1301 onwards - it doesn't refer to where the person was born or the ethnic origin.

 

Laura

 

Laura has the answer-it is William of Wales. Even according to the Royal Family's own website. He uses just Wales (without the of) for situations that would normally require a last name such as with his military service. The Wales is because his father is Prince of Wales, it has nothing to do with being Welsh. (As Laura explains above.)

 

I was always under the impression that the HRH was granted by the monarch and that the spouse of a member of the royal family who had that designation was technically entitled to the same but that it wasn't automatic. For example, when Edward VIII abdicated he became HRH the Duke of Windsor. His wife (Wallis) would then have been the Duchess of Windsor but the King denied her the added HRH. That implies to me that it is a grant from the monarch and not automatic. So, as William's wife Kate would be positioned properly to have such a title but that it would still have to be formally granted by the Queen.

 

I suspect that Anne and her husbands thinking probably seems old fashioned to us but as her husband held no title her children hold no title.

 

If Edward and Sophie turned down the title Prince/Princess already I can't imagine that becoming a duke changes that. The kids already have the right to be prince and princess because Edward is a prince. I think that Sophie is probably technically HRH Princess Edward but prefers the title of HRH Countess of Wessex. I don't think that it is so much that children of royal dukes are entitled to be called prince/princess because of the royal dukedom but rather because the royal duke is already a prince his children have the same title.

 

I know I could look it up, but someone- or you-- :)-- might enjoy this question. What was the bio connection with Philip via Czar Nicholas? It was Philip's DNA they used to identify the bones of Nicholas found in the 1990's.

 

The DNA tests were with mitochondrial DNA-from the mothers line. Philip is related to the Tsarina Alexandra through Queen Victoria. Or more specifically Philip's grandmother and Alexandra were sisters. I think that there are living Romanov relatives who were used to identify Nicholas II and that Philip's DNA was used for Alexandra and some or all of the children.

Edited November 18, 2010 by JumpedIntoTheDeepEndFirst

[Mona100]

The DNA tests were with mitochondrial DNA-from the mothers line. Philip is related to the Tsarina Alexandra through Queen Victoria. Or more specifically Philip's grandmother and Alexandra were sisters. I think that there are living Romanov relatives who were used to identify Nicholas II and that Philip's DNA was used for Alexandra and some or all of the children.

 

 

When I read this, I remembered reading about how they identified Nicholas II. His remains were identified using a bloody shirt that was saved during an assasination attempt before he became a czar. But I was sitting here thinking if they needed mitochondrial DNA, they could have used Queen Elizabeth II's DNA due to her great grandmother and Nicholas's mother being sisters.

[Mona100]

The DNA tests were with mitochondrial DNA-from the mothers line. Philip is related to the Tsarina Alexandra through Queen Victoria. Or more specifically Philip's grandmother and Alexandra were sisters. I think that there are living Romanov relatives who were used to identify Nicholas II and that Philip's DNA was used for Alexandra and some or all of the children.

 

 

When I read this, I remembered reading about how they identified Nicholas II. His remains were identified using a bloody shirt that was saved during an assasination attempt before he became a czar. But I was sitting here thinking if they needed mitochondrial DNA, they could have used Queen Elizabeth II's DNA due to her great grandmother and Nicholas's mother being sisters.

 

 

Opps...I just realized I was wrong on the QEII thing. That's what I get for posting on here at work and not thinking something through.

[Mom in High Heels]

Laura has the answer-it is William of Wales. Even according to the Royal Family's own website. He uses just Wales (without the of) for situations that would normally require a last name such as with his military service. The Wales is because his father is Prince of Wales, it has nothing to do with being Welsh. (As Laura explains above.)

 

Interesting. I checked both the Royal website and William's Wikipedia (because I've clearly got nothing better to do :D) and they bothconfirm this, but on Kate's Wikipedia page, it states that she will be Princess William Wales (no "of"). Honestly, the "of" makes more since (like Princess Michael of Kent, but apparently there's much debate over this. Check out some royal message boards.

 

I was always under the impression that the HRH was granted by the monarch and that the spouse of a member of the royal family who had that designation was technically entitled to the same but that it wasn't automatic. For example, when Edward VIII abdicated he became HRH the Duke of Windsor. His wife (Wallis) would then have been the Duchess of Windsor but the King denied her the added HRH. That implies to me that it is a grant from the monarch and not automatic. So, as William's wife Kate would be positioned properly to have such a title but that it would still have to be formally granted by the Queen.

 

But Edward was a special case. He HAD been King and his brother felt it wrong that he would not hold the HRH, which he actually gave up with his abdication. There is a HUGE debate on Royal message boards about whether or not George should have granted Edward back the HRH. Again though, according to the to the patents issues in 1917, all direct heirs (and their children) and their spouses to the throne automatically get the HRH. Edward was no longer in the direct line of succession though after abdication. The Queen's children all had the HRH from the beginning, but only Diana got it automatically on her marriage. It had to be conferred on Sarah Ferguson and Sophie Rhys-Jones on their marriage.

 

I suppose all of our speculation will be answered though once we get closer to the wedding.

[Mejane]

Short article on royal titles:

 

http://news.yahoo.com/s/yblog_newsroom/20101117/wl_yblog_newsroom/what-to-call-kate

 

You all seem to know more about it, though. :001_smile:

[JumpedIntoTheDeepEndFirst]

When I read this, I remembered reading about how they identified Nicholas II. His remains were identified using a bloody shirt that was saved during an assasination attempt before he became a czar. But I was sitting here thinking if they needed mitochondrial DNA, they could have used Queen Elizabeth II's DNA due to her great grandmother and Nicholas's mother being sisters.

 

 

Opps...I just realized I was wrong on the QEII thing. That's what I get for posting on here at work and not thinking something through.

 

 

You're not wrong. Elizabeth II's great-grandmother is the sister of Nicholas II's mother. If you look at photos of George V and Nicholas II they could nearly be twins rather than cousins. I'm not sure on the complexities of mitochondrial DNA testing to know who is a good candidate but you are correct on the geneology. I would guess the Queen is a a poor candidate because it passes through her father and grandfather but...I just don't know enough about DNA tests.

[Laura Corin]

Interesting. I checked both the Royal website and William's Wikipedia (because I've clearly got nothing better to do :D) and they bothconfirm this, but on Kate's Wikipedia page, it states that she will be Princess William Wales (no "of"). Honestly, the "of" makes more since (like Princess Michael of Kent, but apparently there's much debate over this.

 

Mrs William Wales, or Mrs/Ms Catherine/Kate Wales, but Princess William of Wales. But, as I say, I'm not expert.

 

Laura

[JumpedIntoTheDeepEndFirst]

Interesting. I checked both the Royal website and William's Wikipedia (because I've clearly got nothing better to do :D) and they bothconfirm this, but on Kate's Wikipedia page, it states that she will be Princess William Wales (no "of"). Honestly, the "of" makes more since (like Princess Michael of Kent, but apparently there's much debate over this. Check out some royal message boards.

 

Personally-I'd go with what the Royal Family puts on their own web page over Wikipedia any day. The debate is mostly among folks who don't know what they are talking about. Just like they loved to call Diana "Princess Diana" which she never was or they kept calling her The Princess of Wales after the divorce, which she wasn't. It is all fine points and technicalities. Kate can never be Princess Catherine because she doesn't hold that title by birth, even if people or the press call her that-she isn't.

 

 

But Edward was a special case. He HAD been King and his brother felt it wrong that he would not hold the HRH, which he actually gave up with his abdication. There is a HUGE debate on Royal message boards about whether or not George should have granted Edward back the HRH. Again though, according to the to the patents issues in 1917, all direct heirs (and their children) and their spouses to the throne automatically get the HRH. Edward was no longer in the direct line of succession though after abdication. The Queen's children all had the HRH from the beginning, but only Diana got it automatically on her marriage. It had to be conferred on Sarah Ferguson and Sophie Rhys-Jones on their marriage.

 

I suppose all of our speculation will be answered though once we get closer to the wedding.

 

There are 2 differences in this case-one Diana was a member of the nobility not a commoner. Sarah, Sophie and Kate are all commoners. Second, Diana married the heir presumptive to the throne. Kate is, technically, just marrying one of the folks in the line of succession. I'm sure she will be given the HRH designation as what the letters patent say is that it is the convention to make the wife HRH not that it is automatic for wives. Convention rather than entitlement. Also-easier to make her an HRH since they have now established the rules for divorce.

 

I think the Queen decides all of these titles well in advance so that planning can be done by the various members of the family, staff etc. I'm not even sure where Kate will fall in the order of precedence. She may be outranked by folks who are further down the line of succession than her husband. Working all this out will be a full time job for her initially.

Edited November 18, 2010 by JumpedIntoTheDeepEndFirst

[Mona100]

You're not wrong. Elizabeth II's great-grandmother is the sister of Nicholas II's mother. If you look at photos of George V and Nicholas II they could nearly be twins rather than cousins. I'm not sure on the complexities of mitochondrial DNA testing to know who is a good candidate but you are correct on the geneology. I would guess the Queen is a a poor candidate because it passes through her father and grandfather but...I just don't know enough about DNA tests.

 

Oh, I got the testing part of it wrong. Mitochondrial DNA is inherited thru the mother only so QEII would not be eligible. I always liked looking at the pictures between Nicholas II and George V. I would have loved to have seen a grown up Alexis compared to Edward VIII and George VI. I always thought they would have looked alot alike too.

[JumpedIntoTheDeepEndFirst]

Oh, I got the testing part of it wrong. Mitochondrial DNA is inherited thru the mother only so QEII would not be eligible. I always liked looking at the pictures between Nicholas II and George V. I would have loved to have seen a grown up Alexis compared to Edward VIII and George VI. I always thought they would have looked alot alike too.

 

Add in Prince Michael of Kent...he's got the look too. Like George V and Nicholas II that is.

[LibraryLover]

That's right, it wasn't Nicholas they were trying to identify the time I am thinking, it was the last of the then newly- found female bones. That makes sense to me now. Thanks.