When George VI became king after Edward VIII’s abdication, his daughters . . . well nothing changed for them. If they had been boys they would have gotten titles automatically. So why didn’t Elizabeth become Duchess of Cornwall and Duchess of Rothsay (Phillip would be Duke consort?) and later Princess of Wales (with Prince consort Phillip). Ditto for Margaret and being Duchess of York.
So why weren’t these women given titles? Elizabeth became a duchess upon her marriage and it sounds like the Lord Snowdon creation was contrived so why not contrive something for the offspring of the monarch?
She couldn’t be Duke or Duchess of Cornwall, since if she had a younger brother, that boy would get the title at birth, or when his father became king, whichever happened second.
As to why she couldn’t have become Duchess of somewhere before she married, I guess that’s because it’s very rare for women, even a princess who is the heir presumptive, to be given titles of nobility. Just being “the Princess Elizabeth” (as she was from birth) seems enough.
As Giles mentions, Princess Elizabeth was the heir presumptive, not the heir apparent. In the laws of the UK, an older sister follows her younger brother(s) in the line of succession. At the time of George VI’s accession, Elizabeth and Margaret had no younger brothers, and obviously no younger brothers later appeared on the scene. Between George VI’s accession and death, it was presumed that Elizabeth was next in line but at any point in that time George could potentially have fathered a son. Such a son would immediately at birth displace Elizabeth and become the heir apparent.
As it stands now, therefore, daughters are never the heir apparent, and so never the Duchess of Cornwall/Duchess of Rothesay/Princess of Wales/etc. in their own right.
Practically speaking yes, but bear in mind that technically Prince William is a commoner - he has no title in his own right, well, up until Friday I imagine.
There’s only one way a woman can become heiress apparent under current law; if the heir apparent were to die leaving only daughters. For example if Prince Charles had two daughters instead of two sons and then died Princess Wilma (yeah, he probally wouldn’t name his daughter than) would then become the heiress apparent because there’s no legal way her father could sire more offspring.
Only the eldest son of the monarch (who is always the heir apparent) becomes Duke of Cornwall, Duke of Rothesay, etc. If he dies the titles do not pass onto his son even though his son is the heir apparent and can be created Prince of Wales. This has happened. George II’s eldest son (Frederick, Prince of Wales) died leaving behind sons (& daughters). His eldest son was created Prince of Wales by his grandfather and went on to become George III.
And technically George VI’s daughters did get a title change when their father became King. They went from being “HRH Princess Elizabeth/Margaret of York” to “HRH the Princess Elizabeth/Margaret (of the United Kingdom)”.
I’ve heard that said elsewhere, and I’m not convinced. He’s a member of the Royal Family. He’s second in line to the throne. He has the style “His Royal Highness.” Why do you believe he’s a commoner?
Under the absolute strictest defination anyone who is neither the sovereign or a peer is a commoner; Prince William is not he sovereign or a peer (yet). This is not how the word is normally used.
He holds no title in his own right. That’s it. Obviously this has no impact on his position in society, but if the term “commoner” means anything, it is the state of not-having-a-title.
He’s a commoner in the sense that he is neither presently the monarch nor the incumbent of a title of nobility, and hence (also not being insane,a felon, or an ordained minister of the Church of England) legally entitled to stand for and be elected to the House of Commons. (Numerous good reasons why he would not in actuality do so.) He is as noted a member of the Royal Family, but that does not in and of itself make him something special in the legal sense.)
Peers can stand for the Commons nowadays, I’m pretty sure, since most of the hereditary ones got kicked out of the House of Lords in 1999. I didn’t know that ordained ministers of the CofE were at some point restricted though!
So, while George VI was on the throne, who was Duke of Cornwall, Duke of Rothesay, etc.? Did those dukedoms not exist during that time, or were they held by the monarch himself?
A title heretofore held by him-or-her-who-is-now-monarch, or one for whom there is legitimately no heir whatsoever, nobody in blood descent from the first ennobled individual, subsumes back into the crown as fount of honors. The last two Dukes of York before Prince Andrew were the second sons of Edward VII and George V, who themselves respectively became George V and VI, folding the title back into the Crown at that point in each case.
The exception is the Duchy of Cornwall, the sole surviving example of an estate held during the lifetime of another. If I’m not mistaken, the revenues of the Duchy always go to the upkeep of the heir (first in line) to the throne. However, he becomes Duke of Cornwall only when he is the monarch’s eldest son (or eldest son of a deceased eldest son – Wills would become Duke of Cornwall if Charles died during Elizabeth’s lifetime). The sonless monarch’s eldest daughter or the childless king’s eldest younger brother (or sister, in the absence of brothers) gets the revenues but not the title, since the title (and revenues) would pass to the monarch’s son at his birth.
Except that the Duke of Normandy, though since 1066 always a Brit, is technically a French Duke. As to why this is not merely a pretendership, most but not all Dopers will be aware that the Bailiwicks of Jersey and Guernsey are (a) appanages of the British Crown (b) held in right of the Duchy of Normandy.
Apparently, when it became clear that George VI was not going to have any more children, there was some discussion of making Elizabeth the Princess of Wales, even though she could still technically get kicked out of her spot. According to the Wikipedia (but I read about it somewhere else first, somewhere that I can’t find any more), the reason that they didn’t go through with it was that Elizabeth wasn’t thrilled with the idea for some reason.
