Tartan honours Prince William and Kate Middleton

[McClef]

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.

They would still be correct, Fergie, despite her divorce, is still Duchess of York. she is simply no longer HRH the Duchess of York.

And William can indeed not, as Chas says, take any of his father's titles, at least unless and until his father ascends to the throne when he would, by virtue of becoming Prince of Wales, be given them.

That includes the Earldom of Chester though Chas, which has been only bestowed upon the holder of the position of Prince of Wales for centuries and the title is indeed already held by William's father.

[piperdbh]

I think the T in "Dutchess" was the funny part, making it look like the lady in question was from Holland.

[Alan H]

You know, while it's all well and good to have a new tartan, I mean....honestly, why?

"Look- the royal family has a new dog. Let's design a new tartan to honor their new household pet."


I don't know. There's nothing wrong with it...... Just kind of seems pointless, to me. Then again, I'm short on sleep this week, so....

[Chas]

That includes the Earldom of Chester though Chas, which has been only bestowed upon the holder of the position of Prince of Wales for centuries and the title is indeed already held by William's father.

I knew there was a reason why Chester wasn't available, but couldn't put my finger on it.

Regards

Chas

[Tartan Tess]

Fergie got divorced? Last I heard about her was weight watchers.
Boy, I am out of the royalty loop.
The new tartan is obviously for new money, and we will follow if we like it....
Best wishes for the bride and groom...it has to be extra tough

[Mike_Oettle]

Chas wrote: “There are no heirs to the Dukedoms of Cornwall and Rothesay. They are both the gift of the reigning monarch to their eldest son and revert to the Crown on the death of that monarch. It is possible that Prince Charles could die before Her Majesty, but the Dukedoms would die with him and revert to the Queen. I doubt very much, in that event, that she would create William, Duke of Cornwall as he is her grandson and not her son.”

Chas, you misread me. Nowhere did I suggest that the Queen might create William Duke of Cornwall.
The Duchy of Cornwall is an appanage, not merely a titular dignity. In this respect it is like the Duchy of Lancaster, which is held by the Sovereign.
The Queen would, however, not need to create a dukedom for William, because he may bear the title Duke of Cornwall as a courtesy title.
This has certainly been done in the past. King George V, when his grandmother, Queen Victoria, was alive, did just that. As the eldest son of Edward, Prince of Wales and Duke of Cornwall, he was known as Duke of Cornwall because it was his father’s second title.
When Prince Charles was a pupil at Cheam School, the Queen took legal advice about what titles he could and ought to bear. She learned that Charles had (as her son and eldest child) automatically become Duke of Cornwall upon her succession, but that it would be necessary for her to create him Prince of Wales.
She announced his creation as Prince of Wales on national television, and Charles was watching her on a TV set in the headmaster’s study when she did so.
I must confess that I am uncertain how the rules of succession apply in respect of Scottish titles, so the dukedom of Rothesay might be subject to different rules. (On the other hand, it might pass down in much the same way.)
One assumes that Her Majesty will die before Prince Charles. In this instance, William will then automatically become Duke of Cornwall (in other words, he will then control the duchy estates, as opposed to merely using the title as a courtesy), and the King will be required to create William Prince of Wales.
William’s wife will then also become Princess of Wales.
Should Charles predecease his mother, other rules may come into play. But unless and until that happens, we will have to wait and see.
Regards,
Mike

[McClef]

Mike,

If Charles should predecease his mother the Duchy of Cornwall would revert to the Crown. William would indeed then be created Prince of Wales but as grandson of the Monarch would not inherit the Duchy which is only awarded to the eldest son of the Sovereign, or should he have died without issue, the next eldest surviving son would then have inherited the title.

It happens rarely, but the case of George III demonstrates the point. He was the grandson of George II and his father, Frederick Prince of Wales, predeceased George II by dying in 1751. George was then created Prince of Wales but he was not Duke of Cornwall for the remaining 9 years of George II's reign.

Nor can the Duchy be held by a female heir - neither Victoria nor our present Queen ever held the Duchy even though they were first in line to the Throne. Due to our wonderful male preference primogeniture system they were Heirs Presumptive and not Heirs Apparent.

So the Duchy would then be held by the Crown in abeyance (the income of the Duchy would also go to the Crown) until William became King when the title would be conferred upon his eldest male child automatically (assuming there was one) or upon birth if this was to happen later.

Charles was automatically Duke of Cornwall upon his mother's accession. He was not created Prince of Wales until six years later. You can still find prayer books in some churches that list him in the prayers for the royal family as Duke of Cornwall.

[Chas]

Chas wrote: “There are no heirs to the Dukedoms of Cornwall and Rothesay. They are both the gift of the reigning monarch to their eldest son and revert to the Crown on the death of that monarch. It is possible that Prince Charles could die before Her Majesty, but the Dukedoms would die with him and revert to the Queen. I doubt very much, in that event, that she would create William, Duke of Cornwall as he is her grandson and not her son.”

Chas, you misread me. Nowhere did I suggest that the Queen might create William Duke of Cornwall.
The Duchy of Cornwall is an appanage, not merely a titular dignity. In this respect it is like the Duchy of Lancaster, which is held by the Sovereign.
The Queen would, however, not need to create a dukedom for William, because he may bear the title Duke of Cornwall as a courtesy title.
This has certainly been done in the past. King George V, when his grandmother, Queen Victoria, was alive, did just that. As the eldest son of Edward, Prince of Wales and Duke of Cornwall, he was known as Duke of Cornwall because it was his father’s second title.
When Prince Charles was a pupil at Cheam School, the Queen took legal advice about what titles he could and ought to bear. She learned that Charles had (as her son and eldest child) automatically become Duke of Cornwall upon her succession, but that it would be necessary for her to create him Prince of Wales.
She announced his creation as Prince of Wales on national television, and Charles was watching her on a TV set in the headmaster’s study when she did so.
I must confess that I am uncertain how the rules of succession apply in respect of Scottish titles, so the dukedom of Rothesay might be subject to different rules. (On the other hand, it might pass down in much the same way.)
One assumes that Her Majesty will die before Prince Charles. In this instance, William will then automatically become Duke of Cornwall (in other words, he will then control the duchy estates, as opposed to merely using the title as a courtesy), and the King will be required to create William Prince of Wales.
William’s wife will then also become Princess of Wales.
Should Charles predecease his mother, other rules may come into play. But unless and until that happens, we will have to wait and see.
Regards,
Mike

I am sorry Mike, this is not correct. Under the charter of 1421 the dukedom passes to the Sovereign's eldest son and heir. Underlying these rules is the principle that only a son of the Sovereign - never a grandson, even if he is the heir apparent - may be Duke of Cornwall.

George V, as The Prince George, Duke of York, only became Duke of Cornwall and used that title upon the death of Queen Victoria in 1901, when his father (The Prince Albert Edward, Prince of Wales) ascended the throne as King Edward the VII.

Courtesy titles are just that, a courtesy by the holder, they are not by way of right. A marquess could also hold an earldom, a viscountcy and a barony. It is his choice and right, which title he allows his eldest son to bear - as a courtesy. There could be very good reasons why a father would wish his son to bear a lesser (but maybe more ancient) dignity.

Considering the amount of legislation, history and precedent, I cannot believe that Queen Victoria would have thrown it all out the window and allow a grandson to be called the Duke of Cornwall. Her son, the Prince Albert Edward, was not her favourite child and had caused her and her late husband many hours of grief. She actually blamed him for Prince Albert's death. She would not have allowed him to give that courtesy title to her grandson, seeing as he already had the title Duke of York, which he received in 1892.

Regards

Chas

[Morris at Heathfield]

You know, while it's all well and good to have a new tartan, I mean....honestly, why?

"Look- the royal family has a new dog. Let's design a new tartan to honor their new household pet."


I don't know. There's nothing wrong with it...... Just kind of seems pointless, to me. Then again, I'm short on sleep this week, so....

One may question the propriety of McCalls' designing a new tartan to commemorate (and potentially profit from) the occasion, but this is certainly not a new thing. Several new tartans were designed on the occasion of the marriage of Princess Louise to the Marquess of Lorne (i.e., the Duke of Argyll's eldest son) in 1871.

[McClef]

Any major Royal occasion will generate all kinds of memorabilia produced by manufacturers though tartans may be a rarer one.

According to one website:

"There is such a wide range of items, mainly conservative in nature such as China Plates, teacups, mugs, dresser boxes, figurines, spoons, pins, medallions, crystal goblets & paperweights, even jigsaw puzzles, calendars, handkerchiefs, tea towels and dolls just to name a few."

Their value will vary according to age and rarity.

However there is a risk involved if the event the items commemorate then fail to come off. Many such items were produced to commemorate the Coronation of Edward VIII for example and remained unsold because he was never crowned. Prices are therefore often very reasonable!

http://collectables.shop.ebay.co.uk/...-/69753/i.html

However a kilt worn by Edward VIII was recently auctioned with an estimate of £500 and went for £1550.

This new tartan would require a real personal connection for it to have value such as it being worn in some form by one or both of the new royal couple which is fairly unlikely.