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?
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.)
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.
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).
Member of the reigning family. Charles and William were born with that.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
In each of the cases you cite (except Edward V), the powers-that-be had decided the “legal” heir wasn’t really the heir, and another was expected to become (and did become) monarch at their predecessor’s death.
Edward V really was proclaimed king; the announcement that his father’s marriage was not valid came several months later, and he was dispossessed of the throne by proclamation of Parliament.
Anne Stanley was the legal heir by the terms of Henry VIII’s will, but she had been displaced as heir years before Elizabeth I’s death. Charles Somerset’s claim to be the rightful heir is dubious at best; he was an illegitimate son of the Duke of Somerset. Edgar Atheling belongs to an era when the succession was not so firmly regulated as it was after the Conquest; he was proclaimed king, but the Witenagemot elected Harold instead. Richard II, at least officially, abdicated in favor of Henry IV, bypassing Edmund de Mortimer, and Henry had been king for months when Richard actually died. As you note, Lady Jane Grey’s claim to the throne is less than airtight, since Mary was the heir according to the will of Henry VIII and the Third Succession Act, and the one whom Parliament supported.
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.