Tartan honours Prince William and Kate Middleton

[Azrobert]

I am not an anglophile, so forgive me if this is a dumb question. Isn't Charles, William's father, the Prince of Wales? So, how would William also be the Prince of Wales?

[Chas]

I am not an anglophile, so forgive me if this is a dumb question. Isn't Charles, William's father, the Prince of Wales? So, how would William also be the Prince of Wales?

Not a dumb question at all.

Charles is Prince of Wales whereas William is, like his brother Harry, of Wales. That is to say Prince William of Wales as opposed to Charles, Prince of Wales.

Confused - most people are. The press is the main culprit and prints rubbish at times and just mixes it all up. A very good (possibly the best) example:

Diana, Williams mother.

Titles and styles

1 July 1961 – 9 June 1975: The Honourable Diana Frances Spencer
9 June 1975 – 29 July 1981: The Lady Diana Frances Spencer
29 July 1981 – 28 August 1996: Her Royal Highness The Princess of Wales
28 August 1996 – 31 August 1997: Diana, Princess of Wales

Posthumously, as in life, she is most popularly referred to as "Princess Diana", a title she never held. Still, she is sometimes referred to (according to the tradition of using maiden names after death) in the media as "Lady Diana Spencer", or simply as "Lady Di". After Tony Blair's famous speech she was also often referred to as the People's Princess.

Diana's full title, while married, was Her Royal Highness The Princess Charles Philip Arthur George, Princess of Wales & Countess of Chester, Duchess of Cornwall, Duchess of Rothesay, Countess of Carrick, Baroness of Renfrew, Lady of the Isles, Princess of Scotland.

But she was never Princess Diana.

Regards

Chas

[McClef]

I am not an anglophile, so forgive me if this is a dumb question. Isn't Charles, William's father, the Prince of Wales? So, how would William also be the Prince of Wales?

There is a subtle difference here.

Yes, Charles his father is the Prince of Wales. That title requires no other name to be attached to it.

However, his children are part of the "House of Wales". It is not "William, Prince of Wales" but "Prince William of Wales."

William even uses Wales as a surname - he graduated from St Andrews as "William Wales."

So he is a Prince not the Prince of Wales.

Hope this clarifies.

[YoungMan]

Aren't the grandchildren of the Queen entitled to the last name Mountbatten-Windsor? I feel as if there were certain situations in which that name was used in place of Windsor. And, as with William and Harry Wales, don't many of the grandchildren use their father's title as a practical surname. e.g. Beatrice York?

[McClef]

It gets kind of complicated and its use is more often unofficial than official.

When Queen Victoria married Prince Albert her children were deemed part of his and not her house as she, being a female Hanoverian, could could not pass the name of Hanover on to her children and her Son, Edward VII became King as a Monarch of the House of Saxe-Coburg & Gotha.

This was changed to Windsor by his son George V due to the anti-German feelings created by the war with Germany in 1917.

Mountbatten had been similarly changed from Battenberg for the same reason and Prince Phillip had adopted the Mountbatten surname as his mother has been one - it was somewhat easier to use than Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Glücksburg - the House of his father!

However, when she ascended the throne in 1952, the Queen announced that both she and her descendants would still be known as members of the House of Windsor. Prince Phillip was reportedly far from happy about this at the time.

In 1960 the Queen decreed that certain of her descendants, specifically those who did not hold royal styles and titles could use the Mountbatten-Windsor surname. This has not prevented, however, some of those who have such styles and titles from using it in some circumstances. Princess Anne signed herself "Mountbatten-Windsor" in the marriage register for example.

All grandchildren of the Monarch through the male line are Princes and Princesses automatically (thus, strictly speaking, they do not qualify for using Mountbatten-Windsor) and take their titles from their father. Hence Beatrice is "of York" for example because of her father's title.

Male great grandchildren through the male line do not qualify for royal rank and title and could therefore use the name. Currently there are none so descended from the Queen.

It's less fair on the female descendants, however, as Princesses are limited to daughters of the Monarch and granddaughters of the Monarch through the male line. When they marry, whilst they retain royal rank themselves, they cannot pass that on to their children who can only take the surname and rank of their father. Hence the children of Princess Margaret are not royal (although still counted as part of the royal family and in the line of succession) although they do have non-royal titles due to their father's rank as he was created Earl of Snowdon, But the children of the Princess Royal have no title at all as Mark Phillips took no title (but they still are in the line of succession). So they are simply Peter and Zara Phillips.

Any clearer or clear as mud?

[piperdbh]

Lord a-mercy! How do you remember all that?

[starbkjrus]

I actually follow Trefor's explanation with one exception....the Earl and Countess of Wessex's children as grandchildren of the sovereign SHOULD (to my interpretation) be styled as Prince and Princess rather than just Viscount and Lady. I understand that in the peerage you can 'renounce your title for life' but I thought you had to be of age before that occurred.

Sorry, that should have read as grandchildren of the sovereign in the male line.

[starbkjrus]

Oh, and as I've been reading in the British papers (speculation) William and Catherine while could be styled as Prince and Princess William of Wales (as in the younger Kents) most likely as he is second in line to the throne they will upon their wedding day (or shortly thereafter) will become a Royal Duke and Duchess. I won't speculate on which one. That is the sovereign's prerogative.

[McClef]

Dee,

Legally speaking, the children of the Earl and Countess of Wessex are indeed entitled to be called Prince and Princess as grandchildren of the Monarch in the male line as per the letters patent by George V in 1917.

However, it was announced when they married that these titles would not be used and that the rank of any children would derive purely from their father's rank as an Earl. This was at the wishes of Edward and Sophie themselves and does not set a precedent for any other future grandchildren of the Queen by her other male children, though of course such are now highly unlikely!

It was a break from tradition, just as it was when Edward was made an Earl rather than a Duke, albeit that the Dukedom of Edinburgh has been reserved for him.

Theoretically Viscount Severn and Lady Louise Windsor could claim their legal rights upon gaining the age of majority but again this is highly unlikely.

They are currently eighth an ninth in the line of succession and will be knocked down the list when any of those above them produce future issue.

[OC Richard]

The press is the main culprit and prints rubbish at times and just mixes it all up.

In this regard, I think the American press is far worse than the British press, due to sometimes-astounding ignorance.

My wife and I chuckled on numerous occasions when Fergie was styled, on printed subtitles on American TV news reports and in American newpapers and magazines, The Dutchess Of York.