6 questions about the future of the British Monarchy – Royal Central Different countries, different customs. robert I was surprised by the assertion that no monarch in history has reigned 70 years. Surely an institution that has existed throughout the world for over ten thousand years has had at least ONE to pass that milestone. If they meant British history, that is true. Louis E. The most recent 70-year monarch in Europe was Prince Johann of Liechtenstein (reigned 1858-1929). Orchard 10 AFAIK Platinum hadn’t been discovered in Louis XIV reign. bobby If and when Prince Harry becomes Duke of York (given that Prince Andrew dies before Prince Harry gets married), would Princesses Beatrice and Eugenie remain as Princess Beatrice of York and Princess Eugenie or York? Given that these two remained unmarried? Royal Central In that circumstance, yes Princess Beatrice and Eugenie would remain as ‘of York’ as titles are held for life and aren’t necessarily affected by the death of a parent. Dominic If perhaps the Duke of York were to have a son would the title still pass to the son ?

Or would the son have to take a lesser title like earl since he is so far from the crown now ? It doesn’t make sense to me how titles like Dukedom of York can typically be for 2nd sons when the 2nd son is so likely to have his own son who inherits a title. Royal Central No, the title would pass to Andrew’s son, who’d also be an HRH. Usually, the title holder has died heirless so the title reverts to the crown and can be issued to a new generation. Only convention says Dukedom of York is for second sons, nothing in law. Louis E. Queen Victoria made her second son Duke of Edinburgh despite York having been vacant.If the new infant expected in April is a boy he might get dibs on York.If Prince Edward could be Earl of Wessex,maybe Prince Henry will be Marquess of Mercia…but Sussex,Clarence,Kendal,and Windsor are all traditionally Royal and currently vacant dukedoms,while Albany and Cumberland are suspended since 1917 but have heirs who could ask to be restored.

Ricky There’s no chance of any new royal babies getting the title Duke of York as long as Prince Andrew is alive; there can only be one living holder of any title. It’s my understanding that The Queen had originally intended to give Prince Edward the title Duke of Cambridge when he married. He received the title Earl of Wessex instead because he requested it, after seeing a film that had a character with that title. It’s doubtful Prince Harry would receive anything less than a dukedom when he marries, since this has been the tradition for a long time. However, if he asked Her Majesty for something different, she would probably accommodate him. I think the title Duke of Sussex would be a good choice, and the most likely title. I think It’s especially appropriate to give Harry a title that has “sex” in it! Louis E. I’m well aware that there wouldn’t be two Dukes of York at once…a second son of William has a better chance of reaching adulthood after Andrew’s death than does his Uncle Harry. It’s only in the current reign that sons of the Sovereign have had to wait until marriage for their ducal creations.

Ricky , royalpain1966 yes I agree, I don’t think the title will be given to Harry. Harry will probably get a special title like Princess Anne, the Princess Royal and a Dukedom. The Duke of York, really should be the 2nd son of the reigning Monarch, which will be William. Andrew will most likely live a long life like his mother and his father, respectfully the Queen and Duke of E, 90 and 95 as of today. Ricky Prince William is not Prince Charles’ second son; that would be Prince Harry. Bruce Alan Wilson I read that part of the idea is that after Phillip’s death he can become Duke of Edenborough. Ricky The intention is that Prince Edward will take the title Duke of Edinburgh after Prince Philip’s death. I’ve also read from multiple sources about another event supposedly on hold until after Philip’s demise. People close to the Duke and Duchess of York say they would like to remarry, but this is impossible while Philip is alive. The Duke of Edinburgh despises his former daughter-in-law, and is baffled by the way Andrew has always stood by his ex-wife after the scandals of the 1990’s.

Her Majesty has invited Sarah for a few recent visits to Balmoral, but they’re always scheduled to happen when Philip’s away. Any remarriage will have to wait until the Duke of Edinburgh goes to that “palace in the sky.” lallala Yes, same with Charles and Camilla. They had to wait until the old Queen Mother has passed too to get married. She was anti-divorced. As both Charles and Camilla were both divorced from their first marriages. royalpain1966 Of course, you are right. They waited. The Queen mother was very afraid of the possibility of abdication like her brother-in-law King Edward VII, forcing her reluctant husband, the at the time Duke of York to become King George. royalpain1966 Yes, that is right. I think they will re-marry. But I suppose their titles will remain York.. Ricky Prince Andrew and Sarah Ferguson will be who they already are if they remarry; His Royal Highness the Duke of York and Her Grace, the Duchess of York. If they eventually remarry, it will be interesting to see if the Duchess regains her former style of Royal Highness.

Having lost the HRH upon her divorce, she became socially inferior to her own children. At present, Princesses Beatrice and Eugenie outrank her, so on formal occasions, she must curtsey to them. whatever Prince Edward was created Earl of Wessex with the understanding that upon the death of his father, he would receive the title Duke of Edinburgh. Prince Charles and The Duke of Cambridge are also in agreement. At the rate the Duke of Edinburg his going the title might never pass. lallala him and the queen are on a roll ! lol Maryl My understanding is that when the Duke of Edinburgh dies, the title will pass to his heir–in other words, to Charles. It is unlikely that Charles would use the title since he is already Prince of Wales. When the Queen dies, let’s say several years after the DoE, and Charles becomes King, the title of Duke of Edinburgh will revert to the Crown, and then Charles can bestow the title on Edward, as their parents wished. Ricky The title will revert to the Crown when Philip dies, but it won’t be inherited by Prince Charles personally.

Then after the present Duke of Edinburgh and The Queen are both deceased, the title will be recreated for Prince Edward by King Charles III. When he becomes the next Duke of Edinburgh, he will still be the Earl of Wessex, but it will become one of his subsidiary titles. He’ll most likely give it to his son, the present Viscount Severn. Maryl Why wouldn’t Charles inherit the DoE title? Was the 1947 creation unusual in that respect? Of course, the end result will be the same–one way or another, Edward will eventually become DoE and I agree that at that point James is likely to become Earl of Wessex. royalpain1966 I hope his son get the title of Duke of Edinburgh….. royalpain1966 Do you think the Duke of Edinburgh will ever die?? It seems that Her Majesty and the Duke will live forever. Her mother, the Queen Mother, Elizabeth, lived to 101, that is 11 years more from this date for the Queen. Charles will be 77, what a tragedy for Charles.

If he is as healthy as his mother, maybe he will be King for 10 years ~~~ or so…can he live to be 87? lallala Dirty Harry lol royalpain1966 Can’t have Duke of York, because the title isn’t vacant. It is held by HRH Andrew, The Duke of York. newvillefan Andrew doesn’t have a son. lallala in tradition i don’t think the current duke of york to pass on the title. only monarch can give their second son the duke of york title. i could be mistaken though… Royal Central The Dukedom of York was granted like any other peerage (by letters patent). It stipulates that the title was granted to Prince Andrew and “the heirs male of his body lawfully begotten” so if the Duke has a son, his title would be inherited by him. royalpain1966 Yes, such as the Duke of Kent has his title since his ancestors of Queen Victoria. It remains unavailable because all heirs of the title have had sons, who have had sons. Bruce Alan Wilson Not now. But if he were to re-marry and father one. . . .

Ricky I wouldn’t try to correct or argue with Royal Central if I was you. Their information is the best there is. lallala what would happen when Charles becomes King and Andrew is still alive? Wouldn’t Harry take the tittle Duke of York (if he’s married by then) since that title is traditionally given to the second son of the monarch? Ricky Your take is correct. Only one thing will change for the other men you wrote about when the Prince of Wales becomes King Charles III. HRH Prince Harry, in addition to his dukedom, will be entitled to the word “the” in front of his name. Only a child of a monarch is entitled to this designation. He’ll be “HRH The Prince Henry, Duke of Sussex” (hypothetical dukedom). robert Yes. The Duchies of Kent and Gloucester, granted to sons of George V, are continuing, and will as long as they have sons. Susie Que Harry will not be given the title Duke of York, that stays with Andrew’s family Amanda Prince Andrew doesn’t have any sons, though. If he passes away, the title becomes free because he doesn’t have a male heir to carry it on.

It’s a bit archaic for today’s world, but titles can’t be passed through girls. Bruce Alan Wilson SOME titles can; it depends on the wording of the grant. Louis E. I’m a bit disappointed that Andrew’s and Edward’s patents did not allow for female successors. Bruce Alan Wilson Did they? Some allow for a female successor in default of a (surviving) son. I don’t know either way; that’s why I am asking. Louis E. Both of them have the heirs-male remainder standard for UK peerages…the London Gazette announces this as creations are made. Ricky The title “Duke of York” will revert to the Crown when Andrew dies, and then it may be recreated for whomever the monarch chooses. royalpain1966 Yes, Only until Andrew passes. The royal titles revert back to the Crown it there are no male heirs. It will likely pass over Harry, since Andrew seems to be in good health, having parents at age 90 and 95. robert Considering Andrew’s age, it would be rather odd to make Harry wait for his death to receive a dukedom. Considering the recent efforts to modernize the monarchy, perhaps a new dukedom will be created.

Duke of Milton Keynes? Ricky I hope the Duke of York’s death is a long ways off, since he’s the same age as me! JBK Will Princesses Beatrice and Eugenie keep their titles in marriage? Since it is a male title, their spouses will not assume their titles, therefore the titles will not go to their children? I don’t think Harry will be Duke of York, this time it will probably skip him and be reserved for Princess Charlotte, go to the second child (as of recently, male or female) Since the change and the female heirs are in the same line as male heirs to the thrown, the same might go for titles such as Dukedoms. I think a precedence will be made and Dukedoms will go to female heirs. HRH Charlotte, The Duchess of York. Something like that. Ricky Dukedoms are never conferred on women in their own right, at least not since the case of Louise, Duchess of Fife in the 19th century. Duchess is a title only given to the wife of a Duke, and cannot be inherited by daughters. The only exception is The Duke of Lancaster; a title held by the monarch (HM The Queen).

Kenneth Hammer As things stand now, that’s correct. However, if the Letters Patent creating the new “Duchess of York” specify it, it can simply be “Heirs of Her Body” instead of Heirs Male of the male Duke. I don’t think there’s any law against it, just current custom. If I remember correctly, Henry VIII created a Title, I think a Dukedom, for Anne Boylyn, that would be inheritable by her heirs as well. While it’s the only time in English History, a Dukedom(?) was created explicitly for a women, with the title inheritable by her heirs, it also sets some precedence for the practice, even if it was for a, at the time, King’s Mistress. Ricky I can’t imagine any kind of situation where The Queen would suddenly issue a Letters Patent giving anyone the title Duchess of York. But if Prince Andrew remarried, his wife would automatically take her title from his, and no Letters Patent would be necessary for this. In such a situation, there would be two living Duchesses of York, but only Andrew’s current wife would have the style of Royal Highness.

Please re-read my earlier comment about Louise, Duchess of Fife, which is the only occasion a Dukedom was created specifically for a woman since medieval times. Kenneth Hammer I agree about the Queen issuing a Letters Patent creating a Duchess of York, or any other Duchess, Royal or otherwise. I was specifically referring to the possibility/likelihood of King Charles III/King William the ? creating his Charlotte, Duchess of York with Letters Patent and the whole “Heirs of the Body” hereditary aspect. I don’t think they would make her a Duchess, but then restrict the heirs to “Heirs male”. I don’t know off hand the correct way to write out “Charlotte, Duchess of York”, so I wrote it like that. Ricky As long as a Duke of York is still living, it would not be possible for the monarch to give any kind of York title to anyone. After his death, it’s extremely unlikely any dukedoms will be created for any woman.

Prince William’s daughter already has an impressive title; “HRH Princess Charlotte of Cambridge.” When/if William is created Prince of Wales when Charles becomes King, she’ll be “HRH Princess Charlotte of Wales.” This will change again when her father becomes King, at which time she will be “HRH the Princess Charlotte.” Only a child of the monarch is entitle to the word “the” in front of her name. This could change if she marries someone with a noble title, like a duke, a marquess, an earl, a viscount, or a baron. She would keep her HRH for life, but the rest of her title would reflect that of her husband. Kenneth Hammer Firstly, the Duke of Cornwall and Prince of Wales Titles are essentially equal. They are just generally referred to as the Duke of Cornwall inside the Duchy of Cornwall, the Duke of Rothesey in Scotland, and the Prince of Wales in the rest of the country/world. Secondly, I realize that the Title of Duke of York is “tied up” until Prince Andrew dies, whenever that happens, I was just using it as it’s the normal title given to the younger sibling, currently brother.

As for whether Princess Charlotte would be given a Dukedom upon marriage, I was basing it on a few things. First, with the alteration to the Line of Succession to Absolute Primogeniture, there has been talk and editorials about the rest of the Nobility still being primarily male heir only. Secondly, it would be 20-30 years from now, going by when her parents and grandparents married. Thirdly, while I freely acknowledge that the Queen wouldn’t create a female Duke in her own right, Prince Charles and Prince William seem much more modern, and maybe open to the idea in the relatively near future, if circumstances warrant it like a HRH granddaughter/daughter of the King getting married. Finally, with the precedence there for there being a female Duke in her own right, limited though it may be, I could easily see it happening, eventually. I don’t think it will happen in the near term, and when it does happen, it would likely be limited to the daughters/granddaughters of the King who are already called HRH, not the daughters of HRH daughters, like Princess Anne’s daughter, Zara.

Ricky While it’s true that the titles Prince of Wales and Duke of Cornwall are usually held by the same person, there are important differences. The Cornish title always goes to the eldest son of the sovereign, and is automatic. The Welsh title goes to the male heir to the sovereign, but it must be formally granted by a Letters Patent. As for female dukedoms, there is very little precedent for this, and the few that were granted happened a long time ago. Prince Charles is well known as a traditionalist, and is unlikely to take any radical steps like that. Prince William might do such a thing someday when he is King, but only time will tell. Ricky While it’s true that the titles Prince of Wales and Duke of Cornwall are usually held by the same person, there are important differences. The Cornish title always goes to the eldest living son of the sovereign, and is automatic. The Welsh title goes to the male heir to the sovereign, but it must be formally granted by a Letters Patent. As for female dukedoms, there is very little precedent for this, and the few that were granted happened a long time ago. Prince Charles is well known as a traditionalist, and is unlikely to take any radical steps like that.

Prince William might do such a thing someday when he is King, but only time will tell. Kenneth Hammer While in many things Prince Charles may be a traditionalist, he has also been known to look at modernizing various aspects of the Monarchy. For example, there were apparently reports that he was interested in including more religions during the Coronation, I think, reflecting the modern multi-denominational make up of the modern UK. He also reportedly expressed admiration or interest in the, I think either Danish or Dutch, practice of have the Sovereign abdicating when they get old. As for the Duchy of Cornwall, while you’re correct about the current setup, from what I found, it was set up by a Royal Charter since that was the only way to do so back then, and, while I don’t know the exact procedure to amend it, I’m pretty sure it can be altered by either the Privy Council, the Sovereign, or maybe, and more likely to actually do so, Parliament.

Edit: Honestly, I think that, with the switch to Absolute Primogeniture, there will likely be a change to the Duchy of Cornwall, even if it’s to just be set for the eldest child of the Sovereign, instead of simply eldest son. royalpain1966 Harry will not be Duke of York. When William is King, he will want the titles for his own children, not his brother. My opinion. When Charles is King, if is tradition that the Monarch’s 2nd son is the Duke of York, if the title is not currently used. When Andrew passes, sad day, his daughters will remain Princesses of York but cannot give the title to their children because titles do not pass through female lines. The Dukedom of York will become available and will likely be saved for Williams children……not Harry, who is not destined to be King. Ricky It’s not intentional that the title Duke of York is given to the monarch’s second son. It’s just worked out that way since the title was given to the then-future King George V. When Prince Andrew dies, the title will revert to the Crown. Only then can King William V re-create this dukedom if he chooses to do so.

Susie Que This article is wrong, the Queen decreed that upon the marriage of Charles and Camilla, if and when he becomes King Camilla will NOT be given the title of Queen, she will get the title Princess Consort. Period. Royal Central Firstly, The Queen did not ‘decree’ this, it was the Prince of Wales’s office that said this was ‘the intention’. Automatically, she WILL become Queen – it would require an act of Parliament to legally change her title – no such act exists. Ricky Even if someone introduced this kind of legislation after Charles’ accession, it would still require Royal Assent if it was passed by Parliament. Although this is mostly a formality, who would dare ask Charles to sign such a document? Louis E. Practically,it would be passed only if he asked for it,so there would be no question of his reluctance. Bruce Alan Wilson And it would have to be agreed upon by the other 15 Realms. David Pollock It will also require and Act of Parliament for a divorcee with a living ex-spouce to ascend. Camilla’s ex is still living. This is likely why she will only get the title Princess Consort.

I am prepared to be corrected on this, but this is what I understand to be fact based on talk when they got married. Royal Central Camilla won’t ascend to the throne, Prince Charles will – Camilla will be the consort and there’s no need for legislation to effect this as her position reflects that of her husband. To my certain knowledge, the talk of ‘Princess Consort’ was based solely on trying to quell negative public opinion, not due to any legal issues. MV The royal website states that she will have the title “Princess Consort”, not “Queen”. Royal Central By virtue of Prince Charles’s accession to the throne, Camilla will immediately become Her Majesty The Queen – it would require an act of Parliament to change her title to Princess Consort; no such act has been passed. jamiroquoi My understanding is that she will be the Queen, but may style herself differently. So unless Parliament acts she will be “Queen” regardless of whatever she is called in practice, be it Princess, Princess Consort, the Cheshire Cat, or a ham sandwich. Bruce Alan Wilson That’s for a Queen Consort to be crowned, anointed, and take the Coronation Oath along with her husband. Not all Queens Consort have done such.

(Queen Caroline, for example, didn’t.) robert There is only ONE throne, irrespective of the status of the Sovereign’s consort. The ONLY member of the royal family mentioned in Law is the Sovereign. The only exception in history is when Mary II insisted on her husband (William III) being proclaimed King. By tradition, the wife of the King is deemed Queen Consort. The British Succession does not acknowledge such a thing as morganatic marriages. And rightly so. Arsalan Zaman Khan Little old Bill is just in his early 30s. He is not likely to wait more than 2 decades to have his crown. But the question is that will Britain accept a monarch in 2035. It just might if the Royal family work well in the media to keep their image pristine. Another royal wedding will certainly help. lallala Harry! JBK two years later. Isn’t Prince Charles planning on staying in Clarence House when he becomes King.

I read somewhere that he plans on “giving Buckingham Palace back to the people” as maybe a museum, or gardens, you know something live the Louve…… Ricky It is expected that King Charles III and Queen Camilla will move the royal court from Buckingham Palace to Windsor Castle. Maryl I hadn’t heard this before. Wouldn’t Charles want to continue to use BP for balcony appearances, garden parties, investitures, receptions, and so on? Windsor is nowhere near as convenient for this sort of thing…I can see him opening it up on a larger scale than it is currently, but I would think he would reserve it for some of these traditional uses as well, even if he doesn’t want to live there during the week. Also, I think it is still called the Court of St. James (although it is de facto at BP), and that probably wouldn’t change. Ricky Buckingham Palace would still be “the office” of the monarchy, and probably will be used pretty much as it is today. The only difference will be that King Charles III and Queen Camilla would consider Windsor Castle to be their real home. Maryl Ah, makes sense.

I think HM and the DoE already consider Windsor more of a ‘home’ (and of course Balmoral and Sandringham in their seasons). BP is really the weekday ‘office’ from I’ve read. Ricky It’s The Queen’s favourite of all her residences, and the place she feels most at home. She and Princess Margaret sat out the war at Windsor Castle, where the King and Queen would join them on weekends. They decided this was the safest place for them, since the dungeons below the castle made excellent air-raid shelters. To this day, Elizabeth’s regular routine is to leave BP every Friday afternoon and stay at Windsor until returning to London Sunday evening. The one time each year she spends a London weekend at the Palace is on Remembrance Day. She places great importance on attending the early morning services at the Cenotaph, where she lays a wreath. Maryl Although I knew that the Queen places great importance on Remembrance Day events, I didn’t know that is the one weekend she spends at BP. I wonder if, with the advancing years, those Friday to Sunday escapes to Windsor may expand to Thursday to Mondays as much as possible. Who would blame them?

On a related note, what will happen to Highgrove when Charles comes to the throne? The PoW has devoted so much passion and care to its wonderful gardens, I can’t see him giving it up. Will he and Camilla keep it as an occasional retreat, perhaps using it for more events to help it pay its way? I can see it someday as a centre for wholistic medicine or eco-gardening, reflecting the PoW’s interests…I’ve never had the sense that William or Harry had a particularly strong attachment to it, but of course one of them may well wish to make a home there some day. Maria Estrella Brual Militsala Good luck <3 Ricky In the even of Prince Charles’ death happening before the Queen’s, who would administer the Duchy of Cornwall’s affairs? Without a living Duke of Cornwall to manage things, I wondered to whom this duty would fall. cdfbrown Like any other vacant title, it would revert to the crown. Bruce Alan Wilson If Charles should pre-decease the Queen, Camilla as Dowager Dutchess will be entitled to 1/3 of the Duchy of Cornwall revenues for her lifetime.

William would succeed to his father’s titles and would be entitled to the rest of the Cornwall revenues. Ricky If Charles died before The Queen, William would never be eligible to be created Duke of Cornwall. That title is reserved for the eldest son of the monarch. Keldon McFarland So much confusion…I’m glad our Founding Fathers gave us the No Nobility Clause, US Constitution Article I, Sec 9, Clause 8. Bruce Alan Wilson However, descendants of Kingdom of Hawai’i nobility can still use their titles; also, one sometimes runs into an heir to a French or Spanish title in Louisiana or Texas. Keldon McFarland I’m pretty sure those guys–desendents of the Hawaiian Royal family, odds and ends of kooks claiming that they are descended from French or Spanish royalty in the US–are, at best, considered “pretenders”. I was stationed in Hawaii and visited the Hawaiian Royal Palace. They sent a representative, as a royal family, to the coordination of Victoria. I wouldn’t have thought that. Bruce Alan Wilson Yes, Dowager Queen Emma, Princess (later Queen) Lydia Lilliulalani, and Princess Victoria Kulani attended the Diamond Jubilee.

As a matter of fact, at the state banquet the Crown Prince of Germany (the future Kaiser Wilhelm III) refused to escort Princess L. in to dinner because she wasn’t white, so Queen Victoria asked her own eldest son, the Prince of Wales, to do it. A nice ‘take that’, as it raised the Hawai’ian Princess’ social status a great deal. They enrolled Princess Victoria in a British boarding school before returning to the islands. Louis E. Charles currently holds no titles that William can succeed to on his death.Duke of Cornwall is reserved for someone who is both Heir Apparent and eldest son of the Monarch,while Prince of Wales and Earl of Chester are given together as a life creation.Duke of Rothesay and Earl of Carrick likewise attach to one person.

If Prince Philip dies before the Queen,Charles becomes Duke of Edinburgh,Earl of Merioneth,and Baron Greenwich,and if Charles then died before the Queen William could inherit those titles (he would then be known as “Duke of Edinburgh and Cambridge” until the Queen created him Prince of Wales…King George III did in fact inherit the Dukedom of Edinburgh in 1751 before being made Prince of Wales by his grandfather George II).The Queen’s death would make all those titles merge in the Crown,the promise was made that when the Dukedom of Edinburgh merged in the Crown it would be recreated for the present Earl of Wessex (probably not with subsidiary titles since the titles the Earl already has would suffice). Dave Why would a remarriage between Andrew not happen while Prince Philip is alive? Elizabeth is the monarch, not Philip? Or am I missing something? Dave I meant between Andrew and Sarah Josh Kusiak he already expands it JBK I would think that a remarriage is more likely than a new marriage, which would have to be a civil ceremony, due to his divorce. I Prince Andrew remarries Duchess Sarah, could it be in the Church of England?

Also on that note, I recently read that Andrew and Sarah jointly purchased a ski villa in Switzerland. The article said as a family investment, where Sarah would take up occupancy there. I think this is so Andrew and Sarah can at least live in peace together somewhere without judgment. Maryl According to the Church of England’s web site, divorced people may remarry in the Church in certain circumstances (since 2002). So it’s a possibility, although the royal family may be very reluctant to take advantage of this, at least in the foreseeable future. If there were any such remarriage, I agree they would wait until the Duke of Edinburgh’s death, and I think they would have a civil ceremony like Charles and Camilla, or marry in the Church of Scotland, like Anne and Tim Laurence. That being said, I doubt very much they will ever remarry. They’re obviously close but they have both had relationships with other people and their joint vacations seem to be with their daughters, not romantic time as a twosome. As for the chalet, that was probably more of a nest egg/tax avoidance move.

It also ensures a permanent, highly private place to escape to–they certainly didn’t need it in order to spend time together since they already were doing that. So while a remarriage may be a pleasant daydream for some (including the Duchess of York herself), it doesn’t seem very plausible. Ricky Queen Elizabeth II is the monarch and has all the authority in matters concerning the throne and her role as Head of State. This is indisputable. But when it comes to family issues, Prince Philip is the boss. It’s been this way since their children were born, and behind the scenes his word is law. I’ve read many reports that indicate Her Majesty has softened her stance toward the Duchess of York in recent years, but the Duke of Edinburgh still can’t stand her. I don’t mean to imply that I have any special insight into Andrew and Sarah’s plans, since I’ve never met them. But when many different sources agree on something, there’s usually some truth to it. Keldon McFarland Wow! So he does wear the pants in the family! I wondered what his role was in all of this. Anita Oleksy What would be Prince Phillip’s title should Queen Elizabeth die first?

Certainly there is no such thing as “King Father” or “Dowager King”! Ricky He would remain what he is now; His Royal Highness Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh. (along with all his subsidiary titles) Keldon McFarland As a Downton Abby fan from across the Pond, I wondered the same thing my self. (After watching the series I brushed up on my British monarchy history and the lengthy titles, families that are intertwined throughout Europe.) This Is My Display Name He’s not King in the first place, just like those in that hypothetical position before him. The titles you mentioned don’t exist because there is nobody to take them. The only situation in which someone would be King is if they’re the Sovereign. If they’re the Sovereign, they rule, regardless of whether or not their spouse is still alive. Queens, on the other hand, can be either the Sovereign themselves or the spouse. If they’re Sovereign, see above. If they’re the spouse of the Sovereign, they take on the new title of either “Dowager” or “Mother” to differentiate them from the new Queen.

As “Duke of Edinburgh” isn’t attached to his current position as the spouse of the Sovereign, he has no need to take on a new title, since he can keep his own. Ricky A Queen Dowager cannot be called a Queen Mother unless she is the parent of the sovereign. Anita Oleksy That explanation helps. Thanks. Keldon McFarland What are the odds that HRH Charles, Prince of Wales, Duke of Cornwall and the rest…, would chose the regnal name to Arthur?! Would he be King Arthur I or II? How well would that improve his image? It’d probably help. Ricky Very slim odds, I think. He could choose any of his names; Charles, Philip, Arthur, or George upon his accession to the throne. If he chose to be “King Arthur,” there wouldn’t be any roman numerals, since he would be the first King with that name. (There’s no concrete proof that a real King Arthur ever lived.) If he chose that name, he would only be referred to as King Arthur I if there was ever a King Arthur II later on.

There have been a few articles saying Prince Charles intends to take the regnal name of George VII, in honour of his late grandfather. There’s been no official confirmation of this, and I think it’s just a fantasy cooked up to sell newspapers. Keldon McFarland I meant most of that as a joke. I know that King Arthur is probably not real and is not recognized as a king in any of the official records going back to Æthelstan. (But a real King Arthur would be really cool. ) Seriously though, would taking the name Charles recokon back too far in history? I’d buy the ‘King George VII’ theory due to his grandfather and now with his grandson, by circa 2070, there could be a King George VIII. JBK Hi, I also think King Arthur would be cool! I want a different name than George as King because we are anticipating Prince Georgie to by King George. Let’s have a new name. King Charles II or King Arthur. Joshua Gonzales Will Prince George of Cambridge be crowned King even if he is just a toddler and her mother Catherine be Queen Regent in the event Queen Elizabeth II, Prince Charles and Duke William all die?

Ricky If the Queen, the Prince of Wales, and the Duke of Cambridge were all to die, Prince George would become King, regardless of his age. Someone in the family would be named regent, perhaps Prince Andrew. There’s no way Catherine could ever become Queen Regnant. She’s royal by marriage, and will become Queen Consort when William becomes King. Holly Wolfe Regent more likely Henry as he’s next adult in line? Nicola Boden Probably, George likely wouldn’t be crowned until the age of adulthood at 18. Josh Kusiak It just a title and there old so it not liek you have it for long P William K C I Well if Prince Charles dies before Queen Elizabeth II it is most likely that Prince William will become heir and the first in line.But,the Queen may make Prince Andrew the first in line placing all the descendants of Prince Charles to such a line which everyone believes that he she will not become a monarch.And as far as I think Prince Charles will come as King Charles III and Prince William as King Calvin I which is one of his favourite names as discussed.Prince George is likely to come as King George VII Ricky If Prince Charles dies before Queen Elizabeth II, Prince William would definitely become heir to the throne.

The rules of succession are quite firm, and Her Majesty cannot choose who succeeds her the way some of the Arab monarchies do. In order for Prince Andrew to be the Queen’s immediate successor, Prince Charles, Prince William, Prince George, Princess Charlotte, and Prince Harry would all have to predecease her. That’s extremely unlikely, so Andrew has almost no chance of being King. I’d be interested to know more about why you think Prince William will choose the regnal name of King Calvin, since it’s not one of his names. Rob Smith Let’s address these questions in order. 1: When Prince Harry Marries, what will his and his wife’s title be? I don’t think that the Duke of Sussex has the ring to it that Harry deserves. The Duke of Albany or Connaught would be more apt – especially given the relationship between the Duke of Connaught and the Great War. The best option would be the Duke of Clarence, given HRH The Prince of Wales’ relationship with the Queen Mother. The Duke of Windsor is a big NO-NO, given what happened with HM King Edward viii 2: What will our next 3 kings be called? Not a case of what they will be called.

It’s what they should be called. Prince Charles should adopt the title of King George VII. By adopting Charles III he is kowtowing to Parliament – to a time when parliament flexed their muscles and executed our monarch. William will be William V. His son will be King George VIII. 3: What will happen if the Queen lives for 70 years on the throne? She might well do that. And if she does? Fantastic. She will be our monarch, if anything like her mother, in full charge of her faculties. 4: If HRH The Prince of Wales dies before the Queen? Highly unlikely given the advances in modern medicine. However, we will probably end up with a situation similar to his majesty King Edward VII (1901 – 1910). If Charles does die before the queen, then the Duke of Cambridge will become King William V. 5: Will Camilla or Kate Middleton ever become queen? The simple answer is not yes or no. It is that they should be.

In the case of the Duchess of Cornwall, she has handled herself with pride; with such an elegance despite taking an extraordinary amount of (unnecessary) abuse from the press; in fact anybody who hasn’t the slightest ounce of intelligence. If they did they did, they would understand the sacrifices that this woman has made to be with the man she loves. HRH has made similar sacrifices. Charles took a massive risk marrying a divorcee. Lest we forget that David (Prince of Wales) had to give up his throne for the love of Wallis Simpson. I would not have a problem with Queen Camilla or Queen Katherine. What I do have a problem with is Parliament deciding the future of our monarchy. I have a massive problem with parliament now having the same thing that they wanted to wrestle from Charles I between 1642 – 1651: The divine right to rule. Successive governments since then have proven themselves to be more corrupt and oppressive than King Charles I ever was. Let’s face it, the vile man whose statue now stands proudly outside the houses of Parliament (Cromwell) even had himself crowned Lord Protector. MPs see him as the “father of democracy”,.

He was, in my view, the 17th Century’s answer to Tony Blair. God save the Queen. God save the monarchy from idiots micmac I think it helped Charles and Camilla that her first husband was a Catholic and that he had already remarried before 2005. His second wife died in 2010, so he has long moved on. I don’t think it is fair for people to object to Camilla, whilst forgetting whatever role her first husband played in royal affairs. JBK Hi Rob, Thank you for your post! Question: Why should Charles become King George VII? I know his grandfather was George VI, but why would King Charles III be kowtowing to Parliament? JBK Also, I think Prince Harry would style the Duke of Exeter very nicely. MJC What will be Harry’s title when he gets married after Charles became king? Is it “HRH The Prince Harry, Duke of Sussex” for example? Or is the “the” dropped? Ricky Harry won’t have the word “the” before his name until Charles is King. Only a child of the sovereign is entitled to that, and once he has it it’s permanent.

Douglas Sutherland-Bruce I was under the impression that Prince Charles had already expressed a preference for taking the regnal name of ‘George’, thus George VII. It would be a smart move as ‘Charles III’ would raise trouble with the Scots and George VI was much loved. Antony Todd-Bennett Elizabeth is on the throne. we are Elizabethian. What would the subjects be called for Charles? and William? Elizabeth is on the throne. we are Elizabethian. What would the subjects be called for Charles? and William? Elizabeth is on the throne. we are Elizabethian. What would the subjects be called for Charles? and William? Elizabeth is on the throne. we are Elizabethian. What would the subjects be called for Charles? and William? Nicola Boden We’ve never had those eras before (the’ve never lasted long enough to be an era like the Victorians, Elizabethans, Georgians, Edwardians) but from European History: Carolingian? From the Latin, hence Carolina is named after King Charles I. This was an era of Charlemagne in France AKA Charles the Great. Wilhelminian was used in German for the era of King Wilhelm, the German version of William.

There are a lot of variations on William such as Guillaume, Liam, Willem etc… Royal pain Eddie's Future Title? - Casebook Forums Eddie's Future Title? Posts: 95 Eddie's Future Title? Everything concerning Prince Eddy and JtR aside, there's a general question that's puzzling me. If Eddy had lived past 1901, when his father became King, would he (Eddy) as heir have become the Prince of Wales? Or would he have remained duke of Clarence or even kept BOTH titles? The same question applys with the current Prince Charles: when (or IF) he becomes King, does the title "Prince of Wales" transfer (if that's the proper term) to William? Also, is there a formal sequence of titles AFTER 'PoW' and are the heirs 'promoted' up the sequence? There doesn't seem to be: Andrew's title is not the same as Henry's, even though they BOTH are 2nd sons, but I can't find any actual information. C. F. Leon Posts: 4,031 Hello C.F.Leon, I may be able to explain part of your query.

The title of any Royal is bestowed upon them by the reigning monarch. When a particular time arrives (Charles was 21 I beleve) then the title of Prince of Wales is bestowed upon the heir to the throne. SHOULD Charles become King, his title of Prince of Wales will be erased almost immediately because his oldest son is already of age and if the Monarch so wish it, William will be bestowed the title and an investiture will take place. As regards 2nd sons, there are Dukedoms and Earldoms currently available. The Monarch will choose and bestow one, or more, and there is no particular "order" of title. Some are regarded as more appropriate than others, and the title Duke of Clarence and Avondale has not been used since the death of Eddy because it is regarded as "unlucky". That is a simplification of the processes, as far as I understand it. I may be in err though! :-) Merry Christmas to you and your loved ones. :-) Phil __________________ The fools are the men who will not be blamed for doing something wrong.They never did anything wrong...or did they? Justice for the 96 = achieved Accountability? ....

Join Date: Sep 2014 Posts: 1,542 If Prince Eddy had lived into his father's reign his father King Edward would have bestowed the title of Prince of Wales on him. It's not automatic but it has almost always been done in centuries past. Until he was given the title of POW Eddy would have become Duke of Cornwall in 1901. This is the subsidiary title of the heir to the throne and the title of Duke of Clarence and Avondale would have gone back to the Crown and not been continued. This is what happened when Victoria died to George, Prince Eddy's surviving brother, and in fact the King Edward VII for one reason or another delayed the Prince of Wales title for quite some time. George ceased being Duke of York and became Duke of Cornwall after his grandmother's death. Queen Victoria, for reasons best known to herself, didn't give her own second son the title of Duke of York, he became Duke of Edinburgh! George gave his own second son the title of Duke of York. He was Queen Elizabeth II's father. Harry won't become Duke of York because Prince Andrew, the Queen's second son holds that title and he's still alive and healthy.

Prince Harry doesnt have a Dukedom yet so he remains Prince Harry of Wales. Probably when he marries he will be given a Dukedom. The speculation is the Dukedom of Sussex. Rosella Location: Flushing, New York Posts: 2,616 Boy, I was about to write a long discussion on this last night, but had second thoughts. George III had seven sons and three daughters who lived long enough to become adults. Besides the Prince of Wales (nicknamed "Prinny" or "Florizel, and later Prince Regent and then George IV), the sons were the Duke of York (later General in Chief of the Army), Duke of Clarence (yes - the name was not always unlucky), Duke of Kent, Duke of Cumberland, Duke of Cambridge, Duke of Sussex. I believe the girls remained Princesses. All the boys had offspring, but only four had legitimate offspring that survived: the Prince of Wales had a daughter Princess Charlotte; the Duke of Kent had a daughter, Princess Victoria; the Duke of Cumberland had a son, George, and the Duke of Cambridge also had a son named George.

Princess Charlotte married Leopold of Saxe-Coburg Gotha, and they had a baby who died in childbirth (as, unfortunately, did Charlotte) in 1817. Leopold eventually married again and (in 1830) was made King of the newly formed kingdom of Belgium - which his family has ruled ever since. William, Duke of Clarence was married to Princess Adelaide (whom the city in Australia is named for). They tried to have children but only had still-borns. [Oddly enough William has descendants through his eleven illegitimate children by an actress who was his mistress.] But William was George's heir to the throne. As Duke of Clarence he served briefly in the Cabinet as First Lord of the Admiralty, but in 1830 he became King William IV (known as "the Sailor King" or "Silly Billy"). A popular man he proves that being Duke of Clarence did not mean you were unlucky. The 5th brother was Ernest Augustus Duke of Cumberland. He was not particularly liked, as he was an extreme reactionary (head of the Orange Lodges) and was widely suspected of murdering his valet De Selis at St.

James Palace in 1810 (there still is some cloudiness about this event, but most historians feel that De Selis, who was a Catholic, tried the kill the bigoted Duke and then committed suicide). Ernest did marry and had a son George. When William IV died in 1837 English people know that his niece (by his fourth brother Edward, Duke of Kent) Victoria became Queen of Great Britain. What they don't always know is that due to her sex she lost a kingdom. The Hanovarians (1714-1837) not only ruled the British isles but were monarch of continental land too - the German state of Hanover. But the Constitution of Hanover turned down female rulers (unlike Great Britain). So the Kingdom of Hanover went to Ernest Augustus, the next male heir of William IV. Ernest would have preferred to have all five kindoms (Britain's four and Hanover) and would be a pain in the neck to his niece whenever he visited about matters of court precedent.

In fact, in 1840, when Edward Oxford made the first assassination attempt on Victoria, there were widespread rumors that it was a plot by Ernest to get rid of his niece before she gave birth to any child. Ernest ruled Hanover with an iron hand, not caring for democracy. However in terms of improving roads, health conditions, etc. he was quite good. When he died in 1851 he was truly mourned. His son George became King. George, unfortunately, became blind. Because he sided with Austria in it's conflict with Prussia in 1866, the Prussians marched into Hanover and took over the country. George reverted to Duke of Cumberland. However (there is always an however in history), the Cumberlands stayed in Germany, and married into German aristocracy. In World War I they served the Kaiser's army. The British Government took away he title of Duke of Cumberland from the family. There were fitfall attempts between the Royal Family and ex-Cumberlands to make up in the inter-war years, but they did not work. They were worsened in World War II when the Cumberlands served again in the German army. This saga actually has a happy ending.

As the two surviving legitimate strands of the family of George III, by the 1970s all was forgiven, and Cumberlands were invited to visit their royal now Windsor relatives again. The current head of the family is married to the daughter of the late Prince Rainier and Princess Grace Kelly of Monoco. The Duke of Cambridge was the sixth son of George the III. His son was also George, and (upon the father's death) became George, the 2nd Duke of Cambridge. He would be the General-in-Chief of the British armies for his cousin Victoria through most of her reign. He died in 1904 without any male heir. The title became extinct. The Duke of Sussex never had any legitimate children. I will spare this quasi-historical/genealogical review for us all, with only one point. It was mentioned that Victoria did not give her second son, Alfred, the title, Duke of York. I suspect she hoped her oldest son "Bertie", when he settled down and married, would have more than one son, and she thought York would be good for the second boy. So Alfred became Duke of Edinburgh.

He is best recalled for being stabbed while on a tour of the Australian colonies, at Melbourne, in 1868. He survived, but the madman who stabbed him was executed because the Prime Minister of Victoria insisted it was a Fenian plot (it wasn't). Alfred married and had one son and several daughters. He enjoyed music, and Sir Arthur Sullivan would give him music lessons. Then, in the 1870s, his uncle died. This was the older brother of Albert, and was Duke of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha, which was near Belgium. This title could only be held by males, and Alfred was the nearest legitimate male to his uncle (Bertie rejected being next because of the primogeniture rules of the Duchy). Alfred became (for the rest of his life) the Duke of Saxe Coburg Gotha. Under normal circumstances the title would have gone to Alfred's son. But in 1899 the boy killed himself. Apparently the boy fell in love with a servant, and his parents vehemently objected to such a match. So he shot himself. Both parents became distraught and blamed each other. For Alfred it was the end.

He died in 1900, and the British Coburg Duchy died with him (since his daughters could not inherit it). Sorry for the length. Will Prince William Be Prince Of Wales? – Royal Central Besides which, it’s already held by Prince Andrew at the moment… Jeannie Right, and the Duke of York will become available only when he passes, because he has 2 daughters, not sons… denise maguire Andrew is already the Duke of York, it’s not an open title. Now when he passes who will it go to? WeAreNotAmused Prince Edward was created Earl of Wessex until the Dukedom of Edinburgh becomes available. He will be granted the Dukedom of Edinburgh only after the current Duke dies and the Prince of Wales ascends the throne. Jeannie I thought the Duke of York was for 2nd sons…I know that Prince Andrew still is the Duke of York. I guess people are living much longer now, at least in the Royal Family…. I like the sound of Prince Henry, Duke of Exeter or Duke of Manchester.

(have no idea if they are available.) Royal Titler Prince Harry = Baron Bum Shane Providing the new King (Charles) creates his eldest son Prince William, The Prince of Wales, there is no reason why Catherine should not be Princess of Wales (being the wife of the Prince of Wales). With all due respect to the late Diana, Princess of Wales, she was not the only Princess of Wales in history nor should she be the last — no one is that ‘great’ or ‘memorable’. I am sure that Diana herself would not want to see her eldest son’s wife be deprived of her rightful title out of some over done homage to her memory. A. P. Schrader Of course, it is also perfectly true that HRH The Duchess of Cornwall IS also the Princess of Wales, though she chooses not to use that title out of deference to her husband’s first wife, the mother of her two step-children. I do hope, however, that they will re-think all this ‘Princess Consort’ nonsense. I see absolutely no reason why, when HRH The Prince of Wales becoming King, his wife should not be known by her correct title as ‘HM The Queen’ or ‘Queen Camilla’.

Will Larson Queen Camilla, Hahahaha! WeAreNotAmused A consort is not entitled to be addressed as HM; that designation applies only to regnant queens Royal Central Not true: Queens consort have their style matching their husband, therefore the wife of a King would be ‘Her Majesty The Queen’ Steve Warford Camilla is divorced. I know Charles was too but his ex-wife is dead. I know divorce is more common now in the royal family too. Is her ex-husband still living? Remember the Duchess of Windsor was divorced and caused a royal crisis. They have long memories in Buckingham Palace. It is one thing to be divorced and be royal – it another to be Queen. Of course the Duchess of Windsor was a divorced AMERICAN – a significant difference. Paula Burton The reason that Albert was Prince Consort had more to do with 1 him being german and 2 the problems making Mary Tudor’s husband king Maddie When Camilla becomes Queen, that’s when Australia and New Zealand will bolt from the Commonwealth. Michael No way. ⅔’s of NZ & Aus never marry though they have kids. It’s not an issue. With Wills in line it’s set.

Western Civ When William ascends to the Throne, he won’t necessarily be King William V. He can choose a different regnal name. It is widely believed that Prince Charles will take the name of King George VII in honor of his grandfather, George VI. I don’t see how Charles could take his own name (Charles III), given its unhappy association with his Stuart predecessor who lost his head. But William V has a happy ring to it. King William IV (1830-37) may have been a philanderer, but he rose to the occasion of his unexpected kingship by supporting major reforms, including the abolition of slavery and expansion of voting rights which helped save the British Monarchy from the fate of other monarchies on the continent. May God extend our present Elizabethan age, and may she not be succeeded for many more years to come! Royal Central We are aware Prince William could choose a different regnal name, though it’s almost not worth considering as none of his other names have history in the Monarchy and he’ll surely want to keep his own name. Prince Charles could be King Charles III, there is really no reason he couldn’t be.

For example, Edward VIII abdicated in scandal in 1936, though you can guarantee there’ll be more King Edwards. Martin Pilon I think he should be Charles III. It has been over 300 years since the Stuarts. And being the Heir so long has made the name Charles closely associated with him. It would seem foolish to change his name after over 60 years. If he had become a king younger that might have proved a good option, not so late in life. A. P. Schrader I would have no problem with ‘King Charles III’ either but it might be a canny move to opt for ‘George VII’, as I think if he sticks with Charles then the popular press will continue to refer to him simply as ‘Charles’ instead of by his correct title as “the King”. You never hear the Queen referred to in the media as ‘Elizabeth’ but it has become commonplace to refer to other members of the Royal Family simply by their Christian names. I actually find this rather impudent and I certainly don’t think the King should ever be referred to as such.

I find it hard to believe that, should HRH opt for ‘George VII’ as his regnal name, that the press will start referring to him as ‘George’. A few, may, stick stubbornly with Charles but, actually, I think most would switch to ‘the King’ and we’d finally see an end to references to ‘Charlie Boy’. Janine Daly i was not aware that HRH Prince Charles was able to take the throne on the grounds that he was divorced and also married a divorcee as they are very steeped in tradition this states that he should abdicate his position to the throne to his heir which is Prince William. A. P. Schrader Show me the Act of Parliament that bars divorcees or those married to divorcees from the throne. Just because the Gov’t in 1936 took one view, does not mean that their successors are bound to take the same view. A previous gov’t took the view that Princess Margaret could not marry Group Captain Peter Townsend because he was divorced but, when the Prince of Wales re-married, the gov’t of the day took a different view. Times change and so should we.

It was wrong to force King Edward VIII to abdicate in 1936 because he happened to have fallen in love with a woman who was divorced (God knows there were plenty of other good reasons to force him to abdicate, but not that!). I would like to think we have moved on over the last 78 years. Divorce is very common nowadays – sad to say, but it is – and I don’t think we should hold the Royal Family to an impossible standard. Divorce is a reality. It could prove problematic: Don’t forget, three out of four of the current monarch’s children are divorcees. We start excluding all divorcees from the succession, I think we’re going to run into problems very quickly! denise maguire Edward abdicated because the current mindset was that he wanted to marry a divorcee who had 2 living husbands. That was the story. The real reason was that he just didn’t want to be king. And it wouldn’t have sat well to just quit because he just didn’t want to do it. That’s NOT what you do. Stiff upper lip and all that. Jeannie Well, it was only a civil marriage, not recognized (only blessed) by the Church.

Vancouverois That’s an ironic position to take, since it’s based in the Monarch’s position as Supreme Governor of the Church of England… and we all know that Henry VIII started the Church of England in order to grant himself a divorce. denise maguire I guess he felt that just killing them off was getting old.. LOL Jeannie King Henry vIII created the Church of England to divorce his 1st wife, I thought, then killed some of the others…. A. P. Schrader You say it’s “not worth considering” but weren’t you as surprised as I when the former Prince of Orange opted to becoming King Willem-Alexander of the Netherlands instead of the anticipated ‘King Willem IV’? I know I was. I do agree though, I would think it unlikely that the Duke of Cambridge would choose a different regnal name, for the reason you mention. Though he can choose any name he wants technically. It doesn’t even have to be one of his own given names. He could chose to be ‘King Constantine III’ or ‘King Stephen II’. It’s entirely up to him.

James Well, he couldn’t call himself Constantine III as there are no Constantine I or II in the history of English and British monarchs. Your point is taken, though. Vancouverois Prince Charles could indeed be King Charles III, but I too have heard that he intends to be called George VII. And weren’t both Edward VII and his grandson George VI actually called “Bertie” within their families? I believe it’s become something of a tradition. And I think AP Schrader, below, has a good point as to why it might be a good idea. Arthur The title King Charles III would be contentious especially in Scotland. There was enough of a to-do when Elizabeth II ascended the throne as Elizabeth I was not Queen of Scotland. Charles is said to be in favour of being George VIII? Thought to be in honour of his Grandfather. My view is it’s the Scottish thing. vegastearoom

Question: Who was the last monarch to award one of his sons the title 'Duke of Clarence'?
Answer: EDWARD VII