#1  
Old 10-30-2016, 12:58 PM
drewder drewder is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 2,897
British titles

Why is it that prices and princesses don't seem to retain their titles after marriage? Case in point after marriage Prince William suddenly was downgraded to a duke. His wife became a duchesse which was a step up for her but not as big a step as you would expect for marrying a prince.

I know when you're royal you tend to get a bunch of titles attached for one reason or another but am I wrong in thinking a prince outranks a duke? Wouldn't you go by the most important title and let the rest of the titles follow after?
  #2  
Old 10-30-2016, 01:18 PM
Nawth Chucka Nawth Chucka is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Whites elevated; UT
Posts: 5,010
I can't explain all of the rigamarole around styles and titles among peers and such, but wanted to clear up that William is still Prince William. He's styled (at his preference or assent) as Prince William, Duke of Cambridge. The duchy of Cambridge went to him following a tradition upon his marriage and dependent on his status within the royal succession, I think. (As far as I know one must be married to have a duchy.)
  #3  
Old 10-30-2016, 01:48 PM
SCAdian SCAdian is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 6,458
Wiki:
Quote:
Titles and styles
21 June 1982 – 29 April 2011: His Royal Highness Prince William of Wales
29 April 2011 – present: His Royal Highness The Duke of Cambridge
in Scotland: 29 April 2011 – present: His Royal Highness The Earl of Strathearn
The Duke's style and title in full is His Royal Highness Prince William Arthur Philip Louis, Duke of Cambridge, Earl of Strathearn, Baron Carrickfergus, Royal Knight Companion of the Most Noble Order of the Garter, Knight of the Most Ancient and Most Noble Order of the Thistle, Member of Her Majesty's Most Honourable Privy Council, Personal Aide-de-Camp to Her Majesty The Queen.
  #4  
Old 10-31-2016, 05:01 PM
Melbourne Melbourne is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 3,178
Quote:
Originally Posted by SCAdian View Post
Quote:
Quote:
Titles and styles
21 June 1982 – 29 April 2011: His Royal Highness Prince William of Wales
29 April 2011 – present: His Royal Highness The Duke of Cambridge
in Scotland: 29 April 2011 – present: His Royal Highness The Earl of Strathearn
The Duke's style and title in full is His Royal Highness Prince William Arthur Philip Louis, Duke of Cambridge, Earl of Strathearn, Baron Carrickfergus, Royal Knight Companion of the Most Noble Order of the Garter, Knight of the Most Ancient and Most Noble Order of the Thistle, Member of Her Majesty's Most Honourable Privy Council, Personal Aide-de-Camp to Her Majesty The Queen.
The others I understand, but Privy Council? Does he actually sit as a member (or chair) of the Privy councel? (Do they even notify him?)
  #5  
Old 10-31-2016, 07:46 PM
slash2k slash2k is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 2,127
Quote:
Originally Posted by Melbourne View Post
The others I understand, but Privy Council? Does he actually sit as a member (or chair) of the Privy councel? (Do they even notify him?)
Well, the Privy Council has 600+ members, and a quorum is three; the meeting minutes indicate no more than four or five show up for regular meetings, so I doubt William attends very often. However, he, his father, and Camilla are all members and have attended at least on occasion. (William and Camilla were only appointed to the Council this past year; Charles joined decades ago.)

Part of the reason William was appointed is doubtless that the Privy Council serves as the Accession Council in the case of a demise of the Crown, and the present queen likely wants her heir's heir to be a part of that when the time comes.
  #6  
Old 10-31-2016, 07:54 PM
UDS UDS is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 7,677
Quote:
Originally Posted by Melbourne View Post
The others I understand, but Privy Council? Does he actually sit as a member (or chair) of the Privy councel? (Do they even notify him?)
There are more than 600 members of the Privy Council, which so far as I know never meets in full, except on the death or marriage of the sovereign. Members only attend the particular meetings to which they are summoned, and - to the extent that it functions at all - the Privy Council functions as a series of more-or-less independent committees. The most active committee is the one which formally advises the sovereign to make Orders-in-Council; it meets once or twice a month and the Privy Councillors in attendance will typically be the particular cabinet ministers to whose departmental responsibilities the Orders relate. The Cabinet, technically, is a standing committee of the Privy Council, and there's also the Judicial Committee, whose members are all senior judges, and which functions as a court of appeal for the courts in British colonial possessions (and in some former colonial possessions which have chosen not to abolish the right of appeal to the Privy Council) and from the ecclesiastical courts of England and Wales.
  #7  
Old 10-30-2016, 02:30 PM
Baron Greenback Baron Greenback is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Scotland
Posts: 10,565
Up until the day he was made Duke of Cambridge, William was technically a commoner (yes, I know how that sounds). He had no title in his own right - he was, and remains, Prince William only because of his dad. It's effectively a courtesy title.

When Charles becomes King, then William will become Prince of Wales in his own right.
  #8  
Old 10-30-2016, 03:05 PM
mbh mbh is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 3,756
The word "prince" has two meanings.
1. Member of the reigning family. Charles and William were born with that.
2. Ruler of a feudal territory designated as a Principality. This is conferred by the monarch.

Charles was born "HRH the Prince Charles". When he was ten, his mother gave him the "Prince of Wales" title. (The investiture ceremony took place when he was nineteen.) Then he became "HRH the Prince Charles, Prince of Wales".

Likewise, William was born with the royal title, but was not given the territorial title until he was an adult.

In the medieval era, the feudal titles indicated actual authority over the territory. In more recent centuries, they gave a vote in the House of Lords. Today, local and national governments do the actual governing, and the royals don't vote in Parliament.

One nitpick: When Charles becomes king, the Principality of Wales will become unified with the Crown. William will not become Prince of Wales until Charles formally grants him the title.
  #9  
Old 10-30-2016, 03:24 PM
aldiboronti aldiboronti is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Troynovant
Posts: 7,806
One related question. When Elizabeth II dies does Charles become King at that instant (on the principle of 'the King is dead, long live the King') or does he only actually become the King at the coronation when the crown is placed on his head and he takes the oath? If he died before his coronation would he ever have been King?
  #10  
Old 10-30-2016, 03:36 PM
Nawth Chucka Nawth Chucka is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Whites elevated; UT
Posts: 5,010
Quote:
Originally Posted by aldiboronti View Post
One related question. When Elizabeth II dies does Charles become King at that instant (on the principle of 'the King is dead, long live the King') or does he only actually become the King at the coronation when the crown is placed on his head and he takes the oath? If he died before his coronation would he ever have been King?
His reign begins immediately on his mother's death. The coronation is for everyone else to see that he's King and for any other heads of state that care to show their recognition of his accession. It doesn't make him King, divine right/tradition does that.
  #11  
Old 10-30-2016, 04:09 PM
DrDeth DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 33,541
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nawth Chucka View Post
His reign begins immediately on his mother's death. The coronation is for everyone else to see that he's King and for any other heads of state that care to show their recognition of his accession. It doesn't make him King, divine right/tradition does that.
Maybe, in theory. But only if he is the Rightful Monarch. After all, in several cases the rightful heir never became King and isnt included in the List of Kings & Queens. In other cases they never became Monarchs but were included*- it's all politics.

Edward V of England: Never reigned, never ruled, never was crowned, and according to many was ineligible- but is still considered a "King". (Tudor propaganda)

Lady Jane Grey: was crowned, did reign and rule, was the legit heir (sorta)- but still is "Lady".

Edgar the Aethling was elected, still not considered King.

Edmund de Mortimer was Richard II rightful heir.

Charles Somerset, 1st Earl of Worcester was Richard III rightful heir.

The legitimate and legal heir of Elizabeth I was Anne Stanley, Countess of Castlehaven.

So, no, the reign doesnt begin immediately on the Ruler's death, if it did, then those five would have been King/Queen.
  #12  
Old 10-31-2016, 04:24 AM
PatrickLondon PatrickLondon is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Location: London
Posts: 2,096
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nawth Chucka View Post
His reign begins immediately on his mother's death. The coronation is for everyone else to see that he's King and for any other heads of state that care to show their recognition of his accession. It doesn't make him King, divine right/tradition does that.
Tradition made effective by the "powers that be" - at that point, first the Privy Council (i.e., senior politicians) and then Members of Parliament making a new oath of allegiance, with the official proclamation in between. But as noted above, there have been cases where one or other of those processes was interrupted or ignored by substantive acts of power. Hard to imagine that happening with a now mostly ornamental monarchy, but not theoretically impossible.

Coronation adds a religious sanction to the new reign: and being a big public ceremony, takes a lot of preparation and organisation (imagine the complications of planning a wedding to satisfy the most distant cousins of both families and most of the population of the town, and multiply that by 100). I suppose technically, one could see the period between accession and coronation as probationary - which was one reason why the question of Edward VIII's marriage had to be settled quickly.
  #13  
Old 11-03-2016, 09:21 AM
Really Not All That Bright Really Not All That Bright is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Florida
Posts: 66,958
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nawth Chucka View Post
His reign begins immediately on his mother's death. The coronation is for everyone else to see that he's King and for any other heads of state that care to show their recognition of his accession. It doesn't make him King, divine right/tradition does that.
Actually, the Act of Settlement of 1701 does that. And prior to 2011, Charles would not have become king (either immediately or by coronation) had he disqualified himself or converted to Catholicism.
  #14  
Old 10-30-2016, 03:28 PM
Baron Greenback Baron Greenback is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Scotland
Posts: 10,565
Quote:
Originally Posted by mbh View Post
One nitpick: When Charles becomes king, the Principality of Wales will become unified with the Crown. William will not become Prince of Wales until Charles formally grants him the title.
Yeah, it's not automatic. I wonder what the timing will be? I guess it will be after Charles's Coronation, and that will likely be a fair while after he actually becomes King. Or i suppose the granting might happen quite quickly, but the Investiture is delayed.

Last edited by Baron Greenback; 10-30-2016 at 03:29 PM.
  #15  
Old 10-30-2016, 03:48 PM
DrDeth DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 33,541
Quote:
Originally Posted by Baron Greenback View Post
Up until the day he was made Duke of Cambridge, William was technically a commoner (yes, I know how that sounds). He had no title in his own right - he was, and remains, Prince William only because of his dad. It's effectively a courtesy title.

When Charles becomes King, then William will become Prince of Wales in his own right.
Well, no. When Willian was born he was His Royal Highness Prince William of Wales He was never a commoner.

The English "Royals/Peers/Commoner thing is weird and due only to that "Peer" thing. Not every Noble is a peer. Only in the UK would then be considered a "commoner" and generally they are not. Elsewheres they have Royalty, nobles, knights, gentles and then Commoners. In the UK the definition of a "peer" is changing so much that the delineation may no longer be valid.

But even in the UK, a Non-Peer Noble is still a Noble and not a commoner, altho he may sit in the House of Commons.

Baronets and Knights are still "Gentry" and not commoners- altho they may sit in the House of Commons.
https://books.google.com/books?id=LH...y%20uk&f=false
  #16  
Old 10-30-2016, 03:05 PM
PatrickLondon PatrickLondon is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Location: London
Posts: 2,096
Quote:
Originally Posted by drewder View Post
Why is it that prices and princesses don't seem to retain their titles after marriage?
They do. Conversationally or in news reports they may, for shorthand, be referred to by the newest title, even if it's technically lower in status than Prince or Princess, but it would just be too much of a mouthful to keep repeating the full raft of titles.

Or they might strictly speaking, have acquired an even lower status title through marriage, as when a Princess marries someone without a title at all;but they still retain the royal title. They might commonly still be referred to for shorthand as Princess this or that, but technically, the full form might be (as for the Queen's cousin on her marriage) - Her Royal Highness Princess Alexandra, The Honourable Mrs Angus Ogilvy (because her husband had no title of his own, apart from being "honourable" as the younger son of a peer).
  #17  
Old 10-31-2016, 05:06 AM
Nava Nava is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Hey! I'm located! WOOOOW!
Posts: 36,378
Quote:
Originally Posted by PatrickLondon View Post
They do. Conversationally or in news reports they may, for shorthand, be referred to by the newest title, even if it's technically lower in status than Prince or Princess, but it would just be too much of a mouthful to keep repeating the full raft of titles.
It will also depend on who is doing the reporting, and on the specific situation being reported. While the press may refer to her as the Princess of Hanover, I'd bet you a lot more people would have instant recognition for Caroline of Monaco than for Caroline of Hanover.
  #18  
Old 10-30-2016, 03:17 PM
slash2k slash2k is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 2,127
Quote:
Originally Posted by drewder View Post
I know when you're royal you tend to get a bunch of titles attached for one reason or another but am I wrong in thinking a prince outranks a duke? Wouldn't you go by the most important title and let the rest of the titles follow after?
Being a royal duke IS the most important title William holds in his own right. (He holds a dukedom, earldom, and barony, as noted above.) The "prince" title is his by courtesy, as a son of the Prince of Wales, but the dukedom belongs to him alone. It was a step up for him.

A prince in his own right (such as Charles as P of Wales) outranks a duke, but a prince by courtesy who is also a duke outranks somebody who is only a prince by courtesy with no other title. See, for example, the sons of the late Prince George, Duke of Kent. The elder, known as Prince Edward of Kent from birth, inherited his father's title and as the current Duke of Kent outranks his younger brother, Prince Michael of Kent, who was never given a title of his own.
  #19  
Old 10-30-2016, 03:29 PM
bob++ bob++ is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Worcestershire UK
Posts: 5,390
Yes - Charles does instantly become King Charles IV, or whatever other name he chooses.
  #20  
Old 10-30-2016, 03:33 PM
JRDelirious JRDelirious is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Displaced
Posts: 14,562
British titles

What, we misplaced a Charles somewhere?



And yes, in the Brit usage, "prince" has both the meaning of someone holding a principality, and of someone in the direct lineage of a monarch. Other places like Spain distinguish an Infante from a Príncipe, and others yet stick the title onto anyone remotely related to royalty.

Last edited by JRDelirious; 10-30-2016 at 03:36 PM.
  #21  
Old 10-30-2016, 03:41 PM
Acsenray Acsenray is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: U.S.A.
Posts: 32,810
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nawth Chucka View Post
The duchy of Cambridge went to him
Dukedom, not duchy, because there's no actual geographic jurisdiction that accompanies the title.

Quote:
(As far as I know one must be married to have a duchy.)

Not true. Members of the royal family are often granted such a title upon marriage, but there's no rule that says that they have to be married.
  #22  
Old 10-30-2016, 03:54 PM
Nawth Chucka Nawth Chucka is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Whites elevated; UT
Posts: 5,010
Quote:
Originally Posted by Acsenray View Post
Dukedom, not duchy, because there's no actual geographic jurisdiction that accompanies the title.




Not true. Members of the royal family are often granted such a title upon marriage, but there's no rule that says that they have to be married.
Yeah, I skimmed to see if there were any unmarried dukes in modern history and didn't see any but it was by no means an exhaustive search. Plenty of single earls, though.

By coincidence, minutes ago I caught a show on Dumfries Estate and all the Duke of Rothesay's efforts meant to its renovation and reorganization. His titles were used alternately and interchangeably by those interviewed, the majority of whom were Scots. It's rarely underscored in US media that Charles has real status in a country other than England.
  #23  
Old 10-30-2016, 04:52 PM
Giles Giles is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Newcastle NSW
Posts: 12,799
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nawth Chucka View Post
Yeah, I skimmed to see if there were any unmarried dukes in modern history and didn't see any but it was by no means an exhaustive search. Plenty of single earls, though.
It's a special case, but the current Prince of Wales became Duke of Cornwall at the age of three, when his grandfather died and his mother became Queen.

King Edward VII became Duke of Cornwall at birth, as the first-born son of the then reigning monarch, Queen Victoria.
  #24  
Old 10-30-2016, 04:11 PM
slash2k slash2k is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 2,127
Quote:
Originally Posted by Acsenray View Post
Not true. Members of the royal family are often granted such a title upon marriage, but there's no rule that says that they have to be married.
The younger sons of George V were granted dukedoms as young adults; Albert (later George VI) was created Duke of York at 24, Henry became Duke of Gloucester at 28, and George Duke of Kent at 32 (youngest son John died in childhood). Albert and Henry's titles came years before their marriages -- 3 years for Albert, 7 for Henry. George received his title just seven weeks before his marriage to Marina of Greece, which started the trend for marriage and title going together; Elizabeth II followed that trend for her younger sons.

Prior monarchs usually favored giving their younger sons titles soon after they attained adulthood; Queen Victoria's second son Alfred, for example, was created Duke of Edinburgh at 21, and George III's second son Frederick became Duke of York at the same age.
  #25  
Old 10-30-2016, 04:09 PM
Rick Kitchen Rick Kitchen is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: Citrus Heights, CA, USA
Posts: 13,375
Elizabeth's third son, Edward, is only an Earl, he didn't want a Dukedom when he got married and his kids are considered commoners. His eldest, Louise, is known as Lady Louise, and his son, James, is Viscount Severn.

William's kids are Prince George and Princess Charlotte of Cambridge.
  #26  
Old 10-30-2016, 05:10 PM
Giles Giles is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Newcastle NSW
Posts: 12,799
Incidentally, there's at least one case of a person inheriting the title of Earl at birth: King Henry VII's father (the first Earl of Richmond) died before he was born, so Henry Tudor became the second Earl of Richmond at birth, in 1456.
  #27  
Old 10-30-2016, 05:21 PM
Isilder Isilder is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 4,194
Quote:
Originally Posted by drewder View Post
Case in point after marriage Prince William suddenly was downgraded to a duke.
A real title of Prince would be for owner of Principality.
In fake a Duke is the owner of the equivalent, of a Principality, a Duchy, which may not be perfectly equivalent but close enough.

Its confusing because some of the british royals do have a duchy. They don't really "rule" the province but its a collection of real estate in the general area. Although they don't really own it, in that they are forbidden from just selling it and buying stocks in Google and Facebook ... they just administer it and they get the small profits as a bonus for administering it properly.

So the Prince of Wales is automatically the Duke of Cornwall too, and there is a cornish Duchy that he/she gets.

But the Prince William Duke of Cambridge has no duchy, and so both titles are stating he is a land owner are both fake, just curtesy titles that the monarch says "Hey, everyone can call him Duke of Cambridge, because I SAY SO !" .. These things are done in Letters Patent..

In fact the title of Duke of Cambridge was just reinvented and not, never to be, passed on through inheritance, and he gets no duchy real estate from either title.

Short answer: You are mistaken about the levels of Prince vs Duke. In fact Only the monarch and the Prince of Wales - as Duke of Cornwall and the duchy in Cornwall automatically attaches to Prince of Wales - have the duchy... Anything else is just a title.
  #28  
Old 10-31-2016, 02:41 AM
Lord Feldon Lord Feldon is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Ohio
Posts: 5,087
Quote:
Originally Posted by aldiboronti View Post
One related question. When Elizabeth II dies does Charles become King at that instant (on the principle of 'the King is dead, long live the King') or does he only actually become the King at the coronation when the crown is placed on his head and he takes the oath? If he died before his coronation would he ever have been King?
It would be highly problematic if it was anything other than instant. It took about 17 months for the current queen to be crowned, and there were a bunch of things that needed doing in that time.

The last monarch to not be crowned was Edward VIII, who abdicated before his coronation (they kept the date and used it for his brother). But he was the king for those 11 months.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Isilder View Post
But the Prince William Duke of Cambridge has no duchy, and so both titles are stating he is a land owner are both fake, just curtesy titles that the monarch says "Hey, everyone can call him Duke of Cambridge, because I SAY SO !" .. These things are done in Letters Patent..
No, a hereditary dukedom is a legal status, not just a fake courtesy title. It's highly unlikely that the Duke of Cambridge would do this, but he could be elected to the House of Lords, whereas a commoner simply cannot be.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Isilder View Post
In fact the title of Duke of Cambridge was just reinvented and not, never to be, passed on through inheritance, and he gets no duchy real estate from either title.
The dukedom is actually a hereditary title. It's not likely that it will ever be passed on that way, but if the Duke dies before becoming king, his son George will instantly become the Duke of Cambridge.

Last edited by Lord Feldon; 10-31-2016 at 02:44 AM.
  #29  
Old 10-31-2016, 07:46 PM
alphaboi867 alphaboi867 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: the Keystone State
Posts: 13,537
Quote:
Originally Posted by drewder View Post
...His wife became a duchesse which was a step up for her but not as big a step as you would expect for marrying a prince...
Kate Middleton did become a princess when she married Prince William; she became Princess William. It's not Princess Catherine since she's only a princess by marriage, not in her own right. She's called the HRH Duchess of Cambridge because her husband is called the HRH the Duke of Cambridge.
__________________
No Gods, No Masters
  #30  
Old 10-31-2016, 08:05 PM
SCAdian SCAdian is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 6,458
Quote:
Originally Posted by Melbourne View Post
The others I understand, but Privy Council? Does he actually sit as a member (or chair) of the Privy councel? (Do they even notify him?)
Wiki:

Quote:
Senior members of the Royal Family may also be appointed, but this is confined to the current consort and heir apparent and consort
That's Philip, Charles, and Camilla. On the other hand:

Quote:
The sovereign attends the meeting, though his or her place may be taken by two or more Counsellors of State. Under the Regency Acts 1937 to 1953, Counsellors of State may be chosen from among the sovereign's spouse and the four individuals next in the line of succession who are over 21 years of age (18 for the heir to the throne).
That's Philip, Charles, William, Harry, and Andrew.

Has he actually done anything? No idea.

Last edited by SCAdian; 10-31-2016 at 08:07 PM.
  #31  
Old 11-01-2016, 04:15 AM
septimus septimus is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: The Land of Smiles
Posts: 14,408
Quote:
Titles and styles
21 June 1982 – 29 April 2011: His Royal Highness Prince William of Wales
...
The answers have illuminated far more than OP's original question, but the above excerpt already points to the solution to OP's dilemma. "Prince William of Wales" is the son of "Charles, Prince of Wales." The reversal of the name and title has a big effect: William is just a Prince associated with Wales, while Charles is its nominal ruler! To change "Prince William" to "Duke William" might have been a demotion (if such a style existed in U.K.) but he became "William Duke."

"Prince" is particularly ambiguous. Just for starters, note that German has two words translated as "Prince." A Fürst (prince) is outranked by a Herzog (duke), while Prinz (prince) is a style applied to children and some grandchildren of a Fürst (or higher).

In the excerpted style for William, it's the "Royal" which reveals his high rank.
  #32  
Old 11-01-2016, 08:16 PM
UDS UDS is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 7,677
Quote:
Originally Posted by septimus View Post
The answers have illuminated far more than OP's original question, but the above excerpt already points to the solution to OP's dilemma. "Prince William of Wales" is the son of "Charles, Prince of Wales." The reversal of the name and title has a big effect: William is just a Prince associated with Wales, while Charles is its nominal ruler! . . .
It's a nitpick but, no, he isn't. The title "Prince of Wales" is a personal honour or dignity granted to the eldest son of the reigning monarch of England (later Great Britain, later the UK), but the holders of this title don't have any role at all, nominal or otherwise, in the government of Wales.

The Prince of Wales is no more the nominal ruler of Wales than his brother the Duke of York is the nominal ruler of York.
  #33  
Old 11-01-2016, 11:32 AM
Malden Capell Malden Capell is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: London
Posts: 1,900
The other thing that should be noted about membership of the Privy Council is that it grants the member access to State papers and confidential information 'on Privy Council terms'. It means the Prince, as future King, is privy (heh) to many aspects of issues he may deal with when King.
  #34  
Old 11-02-2016, 09:59 AM
PatrickLondon PatrickLondon is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Location: London
Posts: 2,096
Quote:
Originally Posted by Malden Capell View Post
It means the Prince, as future King, is privy (heh) to many aspects of issues he may deal with when King.
It means he's entitled to be. It doesn't mean he gets every secret paper winging its way around Whitehall (any more than opposition politicians or retired senior people on the PC do - Privy Councillor status gives the government an option for consulting or briefing them on something top secret, usually military or to do with foreign policy, not an obligation to do so).
  #35  
Old 11-02-2016, 12:25 PM
APB APB is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Posts: 1,993
Quote:
Originally Posted by PatrickLondon View Post
It means he's entitled to be. It doesn't mean he gets every secret paper winging its way around Whitehall (any more than opposition politicians or retired senior people on the PC do - Privy Councillor status gives the government an option for consulting or briefing them on something top secret, usually military or to do with foreign policy, not an obligation to do so).
True, but in Prince Charles's case, we know that he is one of the select few who are routinely sent any papers circulated to the Cabinet. (One of the odd aspects of that story is the belief that he wasn't getting access to such stuff had sometimes been used by his critics to insinuate that his mother didn't really trust him, yet it turns out that he had been getting access all along!)
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:15 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@chicagoreader.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Publishers - interested in subscribing to the Straight Dope?
Write to: sdsubscriptions@chicagoreader.com.

Copyright © 2017 Sun-Times Media, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017