Also, keep in mind that the Queen holds this title in like 16 areas, where as some (like the Duke of York) are heir apparent in only some territories.
I may have been wrong in my previous post. I think that grandsons of the His Majesty male offspring will get the His Highness title without the “Royal”. It depends on the monarch/current title holder in question.
Children of non Royal Dukes and Earls are “Ladies” and “Lords”, I believe.
He already is.
No, his father is. There can only be on Prince of Wales at a time.
You’ve got a bit jumbled here somehow. There is only ever one “heir apparent”. The line of succession is identical in each of the Commonwealth realms. Ergo, the heir apparent is the same person in each realm… and that person is not the Duke of York.
What’s your second guess? 
I meant that the Duke of York is not in line for every succession in the Commonwealth.
Am I wrong?
I could be. 
His Royal Highness Prince William of Wales
and
HRH The Prince of Wales.
I understand the difference with “THE”.
Um. I guess I was just thinking that they were both Princes of Wales. The question was, “Remind me: would William become Prince of Wales in this case?”
He is already styled HRH Prince William of Wales. He is not THE Prince of Wales. I thought the question was about who gets to be a prince and what he is a prince of (or from) and such.
Nope.
[QUOTE=Treason Act 1351]
When a Man doth compass or imagine the Death of our Lord the King, or of our Lady his Queen or of their eldest Son and Heir; or if a Man do violate the King’s Companion, or the King’s eldest Daughter unmarried, or the Wife [of] the King’s eldest Son and Heir; or if a Man do levy War against our Lord the King in his Realm, or be adherent to the King’s Enemies in his Realm, giving to them Aid and Comfort in the Realm, or elsewhere, and thereof be [proveably] attainted of open Deed by the People of their Condition: […] And it is to be understood, that in the Cases above rehearsed, that ought to be judged Treason which extends to our Lord the King, and his Royal Majesty […]
[/QUOTE]
That’s still the law in England and Wales, anyway.
I’m 99 per cent certain you’re wrong as a matter of law, though of course practical politics is going to work out differently. But there’s no reason to assume that Prince William et al. would lose their place in the line of succession unless (a) they were believed to be complicit in the murder, (b) weren’t complicit but failed to condemn our putative murderer, or (c) the monarchy as a whole was abolished.
Then they are assumed to have died in order of succession, that is the Queen would be deemed to have died a fraction of a second before Charles. So Charles III would then be the shortest reigning monarch of all time.
The only time this principle has been actually used (that I’m aware of) was during WWII when some British peer and his son flew a plane into a mountain; I’m trying to remember where I read that but haven’t been able to scare up anything from Google.
I did not say it was a law.
I said I did not know about his heirs - the OP was clearly having a drama rama fest in potential outcomes of the Royal Family’s soap opera.
Are you talking about Princess Eugenie? Why would she lose her HRH title? She had nothing to do with her parents’ divorce. :dubious:
No. I said she can’t handle a dukedom.
As far as divorce goes: Diana lost HRH and became Diana, Princess of Wales. I should have hit “enter” for that sentence…I was starting to ramble.
The line of succession is identical for each of the Commonwealth realms. Although the precise legal framework varies from realm to realm, the net effect is the same. Ergo, the Duke of York is in the line of succession for each of the Commonwealth realms, and his place in that line is also identical for each of those realms.
The parallel rules of succession would only be broken if one of the realms unilaterally altered the existing rules. This happened inadvertently following the 1936 abdication of Edward VIII: the last date of his reign and thus the first date of George VI’s reign ended up slightly different from the rest of the Commonwealth/Empire in both the Irish Free State and the Union of South Africa; this discrepancy was due to those two countries adopting their own form of legislation relating to the abdication, rather than joining in with British legislation that was applied to all the other territories.
I’m not sure what the technical terminology for this is, but Prince William is “of Wales” because his father’s title is “of Wales”. The best way to understand this is to look at his cousins. Thus, it’s “Princess Beatrice of York”, because her father’s title is “of York”; there’s no “Prince of York” (outside of Shakespeare).
Not sure if this is the case you were thinking of, but it’s exactly the same principle. In 1941 Lord Stamp was killed in the Blitz. His eldest son died in the same bombing. The son was deemed to have succeeded his father before his own death. (A younger brother then succeeded in turn.)
Actually, something very akin to it happened in Portugal. Carlos I, king since 1889, and his wife had two sons. On February 1, 1908, they were returning to the Royal Palace in Lisbon from a country estate when Manuel Buiça, a republican activist who was a former Army sharpshooter, fired five shots at them. The King was killed immediately; his elder son Prince Luis Felipe was mortally wounded, and the younger son Prince Manuel hit in the arm. Luis Felipe died 20 minutes later, after what is arguably the shortest reign on record. Manuel then became the King. [He was overthrown in a revoluition 2½ years later.]
The basic formulary for British royal inheritance (there’s a minor difference for noble titles, discussed in others’ posts) is
A. The order of succession is:
So the present order is Charles, William, Harry, Andrew, but if William fathers a child, that child slips into the line next after him, before Harry. If Harry marries and has kids, they in turn push Andrew down the list. And so on. When George VI took the throne in late 1936, the order of succession from then until 14 Nov 1948 was Elizabeth, Margaret, Henry of Gloucester (the king’s brother), but when Charles was born, he pushed his aunt and great-uncle down the list, as did Anne in 1950. But when Andrew was born in 1960, he pushed Anne down the list, by virtue of being a boy.
Isn’t Charles HIS ROYAL HIGHNESS THE Prince of Wales?
And William is HRH PRINCE WILLIAM of WALES?
I understand the of Wales is like a last name, but the question was if Prince William would become Prince of Wales. I said he already was. You said guess again.
Charles is THE prince of Wales
while William is A prince of Wales
but they are both princes, no?! :smack:
– That’s Charles
– that’s Wills
If Charles dies, he only becomes HRH THE Prince of Wales if the Queen says so.
but today
He is a Prince
of Wales (“of Charles”)
no?
interesting discussion about the POW. as to the princess royal, it seems simpler. anne replaced margaret, the queen’s sister, when she married mark philips.
i know american wallis simpson became duchess of windsor only after her two ex-husbands died (the brits must have checked and re-checked.)
No they’re not. I remember the wedding, their births, the toe sucking, the weight watchers advertisement and the reality show.
If those two are in their 20s that would mean I am old and you should get off my lawn and stop spouting untrue information!!
No, that’s not right. You wouldn’t look at his cousins to understand styling. “Last name”, maybe.
Prince Andrew is the His Royal Highness the Duke of York.
His daughter is Princess Beatrice of York.
But Charles is HRH The Prince OF Wales. Even though he’s also the Duke of such and such, his* title * is Prince of Wales. The OP asked about titles - and it was a very poorly worded question about “Prince of Wales”.
Anyway, ask a Welsh person what they think about the The Prince and his son the Prince and that’s much more fun. 
Eugene is younger than I am.
+1 on this - I seem to remember that HRH The Prince of Wales resides with the next in line to the throne or something and Charlie only received the title upon his marriage? (yes, get off my damn lawn - I can also remember watching that wedding on TV)