At the time of her wedding, she already had the right to use “Princess of Wales.” The pedants of the time did avoid calling her “Princess Diana,” but that was the most common form in the popular press.
Princess Michael of Kent is the only person I can think of who uses that particular formula. She doesn’t get to officially use Princess Marie-Christine (yes, I had to look that up) because she wasn’t born a princess. To my knowledge, she’s never been referred to as such.
The same, officially, applied to Diana and applies to Kate, but will generally be ignored by the media. I imagine it will be ignored by the royals in private as well, I can’t really see William calling his wife “Princess William” whilst sitting watching Eastenders…
Yes, their Mother rejected titles for them, altho Zara has rcvd a MBE.
It’s hard to define what they are, they are not really commoners either. More like non-titled royalty. They are both officially in the line for the throne, 11th & 13th, afaik.
Note, I am being somewhat pedantic, but here’s what one could be:
Royalty
Nobility
Equestrians/Knights.
Gentility (a victorian “squire”), aka gentry
Commoner.
Also falling in there are Peers. In the UK, anyone who is not a Royal or a Peer is a Commoner, as in can be a member of the House of Commons, but that’s a special definition.
Catherine Middleton was indeed a commoner, or perhaps gentry. Her fathers family could well be considered gentility.
Actually there’s never been a statutory bar on royals (other than the sovereign himself) from standing for the Commons unless they were also a peer. Supposedly one of the reasons for making the former King Edward VIII a duke was so that he’d never be able to return to the UK and run for the Commons (or course it did mean he’d have a seat in the Lords for life :smack:).
And ever since 1999 hereditary peers are eligable to stand for election to the Commons as long they aren’t one of the 90-odd hereditary peers left with seats in the Lords. Life peers (who aren’t considered a "real aristocrats) cannot of course stand for the Commons since they’re all members of the House of Lords (& unlike hereditary peers they cannot disclaim their titles under any circumstances).
Did the Duke of Windsor ever take his seat in the Lords?
I don’t think so. I doubt anyone would have been pleased to see him take his seat.
After the abdication the Duke’s visits to the UK were infrequent and short. It’s unlikely he’d even have had the time.
Leaving aside the royals, and the post-1999 situation (as summarised by alphaboi867), there are a few more points that make the position a little more complex than that.
Peers and the wives of peers theoretically form a distinct legal class. I’m not sure that there are any meaningful privileges left relating to this status, but originally the most notable right was probably that of trial in the House of Lords for any alleged criminal offence. There were originally other rights, etc. that distinguished them in the eyes of the law from commoners.
Also, not all peers were members of the House of Lords. A peeress in her own right couldn’t take a seat in the Lords. A peer couldn’t take his seat before the age of 21* nor (before 1829) if he was a Roman Catholic. Of course these peers/peeresses also couldn’t vote for, or be members of, the House of Commons either. But Irish peers could vote for, or become members of, the House of Commons in certain circumstances.
The peerage is/was quite distinct from an ancien régime nobility. The difference in law between a peer (or his wife) and a commoner was generally procedural; being a peer didn’t give an exemption from taxation, for example.
Peerage law is notoriously complex and obscure. The nineteenth-century report by the House of Lords into the “Dignity of a Peer of the Realm” ran into five volumes!
- I think actually before the age of 21 and 1 day?!
I don’t know, but I once read something that while Prince Charles didn’t take his seat on the House of Lords until he was 21 as the eldest son of monarch he could’ve theoratically taken his seat as soon as his mother became Queen, at three & a half years old! :eek:
A slight hijack, but I think the posters in this thread can answer:
Is Prince William an heir apparent? Like his father, and unlike anyone else, his place in the line to the throne cannot be pushed down due to the birth of anyone else.
No, there can be only one heir apparent. Charles is the heir apparent to Elizabeth because when the monarch dies, Charles will automatically become the monarch.
There is no scenario in which the monarch’s death, by itself, will make William the monarch, so he is not the heir apparent.
If Charles predeceases both Elizabeth and William, then William will become heir apparent.
However, he is the heir apparent to the heir apparent! 
You have to be 21 to take a seat in the Lords.
Then is there a term for a person in the succession line who cannot be displaced? Charles’ and William’s positions (and that of William’s eldest son, if born) are qualitatively different than everyone elses.
That’s similar to what happened to Prince George of Wales (later King George III) in 1751. His father, Frederick, Prince of Wales, died before his grandfather, King George II. Prince George immediately inherited his father’s title of Duke of Edinburgh, and was made Prince of Wales three weeks later.
Not quite true, though your essential point is correct. There can be only (at most) one heir apparent to the throne, the monarch’s e;dest surviving son, or (as was the case in 1376-77 and 1751-60) the eldest surviving son of the monarch’s deceased eldest son (or at least the now-dead eldest son to leave offspring).
But you can have a heir apparent to anything which is indivisible and inheritable. (By “indivisible” in this context, I mean “passes as a unit to one person”, like the Crown, not divided equally among the heirs, like the typical deceased’s estate.) The oldest son of a hereditary Viscount is heir apparent tp that title (and probably to little else these days!) because it passes to one person by inheritance.
William is the heir apparent to the Duchy of Cornwall and the Dukedom of Rothesay, because those titles (and Cornwall’s usufructs) pass automatically to the monarch’s eldest son. So when Charles takes the throne, they will pass automatically to William, and hence he is now heir apparent to them. (And to answer a likely question ahead of time, based on past precedent he keeps Cambridge and becomes Duke of Cornwall and Cambridge in the peerage of the U.K. (Rothesay being in the Scottish peerage). The future George V was already created Duke of York when he became Duke of Cornwall, and was then proclaimed Duke of Cornwall and York.)
The term is heir presumptive. This is what Elizabeth was while her father still reigned. It was possible, though remotely so, that he could have fathered a legitimate son who’d then have become the heir apparent, displacing Elizabeth.
I don’t think you’re correct.
The Duchy of Cornwall and the Dukedom of Rothesay are not hereditary, so cannot have an heir apparent. If Charles died tomorrow, there would be no Duke of Cornwall, and I’m not sure there would be a Duke of Rothesay.
Also, I suspect that the title of “Duke of Cornwall” exists within the Peerage of England, and not of the United Kingdom (in contrast with the Dukedom of Cambridge).
I think you’re in error on your first point, while conceding that I don’t have cites to back my position up. With your better access to matters rpyal, may I impose on you to determine who is right on this.
My understanding is that the Cornwall title (along possibly with Rothesay from the Scots peerage) is the sole surviving example of an ancient form of ownership, an estate held during the lifetime of another. Just as the Crown automatically escheats to the heir apparent or presumptive at the moment of the monarch’s death, the Duchy of Cornwall automatically escheats to the new heir apparent (presuming there is one, remaining in abeyanced, in pectore Coronis, if not). One need not be created Duke of Cornwall; it comes with being the king or queen’s eldest son, first in line for the Crown.
Now it’s possible I’ve been misled by what I’ve read, but that’s how I’ve understood it. On the realm-of-peerage question, I concede your point, though I am certain that the future George V was known during 1901-10 as “Duke of Cornwall and York”, both enumerated in the short form, while Rothesay was mentioned only in the full style along with Lord of the Islands and Great Steward of Scotland.
TIA for what you can find out on the Cornwall issue.
Oops, I misread Pleonast’s post and said exactly the wrong thing. An heir who cannot be displaced while still living, is an heir apparent. An heir presumptive, as I did correctly denote Princess Elizabeth before she became Queen, is one who may be displaced by a younger heir with higher qualification.
Am I correct in assuming that the oldest son of the oldest son cannot be displaced? So if Charles were to die before Elizabeth, then William would become the heir apparent rather than Andrew? This would be barring constitutional changes of course, of which there are examples in other kingdoms. The eldest son of the current King of Sweden (I believe) was considered the heir apparent at the time of his birth, but the law was changed shortly thereafter to disregard gender, so he was demoted and now his older sister will be the next monarch of the country.
Whoever made that chart obviously didn’t know any gay men. If we can be Queens, we can be Princesses.