Duke of Cornwall | Familypedia | Fandom powered by Wikia Edit Some folkloric histories of the British Isles, such as Geoffrey of Monmouth 's History of the Kings of Britain (1136), claim that the first leader of Cornwall was Corineus , a Trojan warrior and ally of Brutus of Troy , the original settler of the British Isles. From this earliest period through the Arthurian period, the legendary Dukes of Cornwall are semi-autonomous if not independent from the High-King or ruler of Britain, while also serving as his closest ally and, at times, as his protector. According to legend, Gorlois , Duke of Cornwall under King Uther Pendragon , rebelled against the latter's rule when the king became obsessed with Gorlois' wife Igraine . Uther killed Gorlois and took Igraine: the result of their union was the future King Arthur . The historical record suggests that, following the Anglo-Saxon settlement of Britain , Cornwall formed part of the separate Kingdom of Dumnonia , which included Devon , although there is evidence that it may have had its own rulers at times.

The southwest of Britain was gradually incorporated into the emerging Kingdom of England , and after the Norman Conquest in 1066 the new rulers of England appointed their own men as Earl of Cornwall , the first of whom was in fact a Breton of 'Cornwall' in Brittany. Edward, the Black Prince , the eldest son of Edward III , was made the first Duke of Cornwall in 1337. After Edward predeceased the King, the duchy was recreated for his son, the future Richard II . Under a charter of 1421, the duchy passes to the sovereign's eldest son. Cornwall was the first dukedom conferred within the Kingdom of England. Succession Edit The dukedom of Cornwall can only be held by the oldest living son of the monarch who is also heir apparent. In the event of a Duke of Cornwall's death, the title merges in the Crown even if he left surviving descendants. The monarch's grandson, even if he is the heir apparent , does not succeed to the dukedom.

Similarly, no female may ever be Duke of Cornwall, even if she is heiress presumptive or heiress apparent (that being a distinct and even likely possibility in the future after the passage of the Succession to the Crown Act 2013 ) to the throne. However, if a Duke of Cornwall should die without descendants, his next brother obtains the duchy, this brother being both oldest living son and heir apparent. It is possible for an individual to be Prince of Wales and heir apparent without being Duke of Cornwall. The title "Prince of Wales" is the traditional title of the heir apparent to the throne, granted at the discretion of the Sovereign, [1] and is not restricted to the eldest son. For example, King George II 's heir apparent, the future George III , was Prince of Wales, but not Duke of Cornwall (because he was the King's grandson, not the King's son). When the Sovereign has no legitimate son, the estates of the Duchy of Cornwall revert to the Crown until a legitimate son is born to the Sovereign or until the accession of a new Sovereign who has a son (e.g. between 1547 and 1603) (see more below).

James Francis Edward Stuart , son of James II , was born Duke of Cornwall in 1688. Although his father lost the throne, James Francis Edward was not deprived of his own honours. On a Jacobite perspective, on his father's death in 1701 the duchy of Cornwall was merged in the Crown. On a Hanoverian perspective, it was as a result of his claiming his father's lost thrones that James was attainted for treason on 2 March 1702, and his titles were thus forfeited under English law. [2] The current Duke of Cornwall Edit The current Duke of Cornwall is Charles, Prince of Wales , eldest son of Queen Elizabeth II , the reigning monarch. Charles was officially proclaimed Duke of Cornwall at Launceston Castle in 1973. As part of his feudal dues there was a pair of white gloves, gilt spurs and greyhounds, a pound of pepper and cumin, a bow, one hundred silver shillings , wood for his fires, and a salmon spear.

Since their marriage, celebrated at the Guildhall in Windsor on 9 April 2005, Charles's second wife has used the style Her Royal Highness The Duchess of Cornwall rather than Princess of Wales . Rights of the duke Main article: Duchy of Cornwall Should there be no Duke of Cornwall at any time, the income of the Duchy goes to the Crown. The Duchy includes over 570 square kilometres of land, more than half of which lies in Devon . The Duke also has some rights over the territory of Cornwall, the county, and for this and other reasons there is debate as to the constitutional status of Cornwall . The High Sheriff of Cornwall is appointed by the Duke, not the monarch, in contrast to the other counties of England and Wales. The Duke has the right to the estates of all those who die without named heirs ( bona vacantia ) in the whole of Cornwall. A sturgeon caught in Cornwall is ceremonially offered to the Duke. The Duke has right of wreck on all ships wrecked on Cornish shores.

In 2003, the Duchy earned £9,943,000, a sum that was exempt from income tax , though the Prince of Wales chose to pay the tax voluntarily. Since the passing into law of the Sovereign Grant Act 2011 , revenues of the Duchy of Cornwall pass to the heir to the throne, regardless of whether that heir is the Duke of Cornwall. In the event that the heir is a minor, 10% of the revenues pass to the heir, with the balance passing to the Crown. [3] Arms Edit Standard of the Duke of Cornwall The Arms of the Duke of Cornwall are " sable fifteen bezants Or", that is, a black field bearing fifteen gold discs, representing coins. A small shield bearing these arms appears on the Prince of Wales' heraldic achievement, below the main shield. This symbol is also used by Cornwall Council to represent Cornwall. These arms were adopted late in the 15th century and are often surmounted by a Prince of Wales coronet, four crosses patée and four fleurs-de-lis with an arch. Supporters are not always used, though the Cornish Red-billed Chough and ostrich feathers are sometimes found.

Rather than the motto used by the Prince of Wales (i.e., Ich Dien , German for "I serve"), the Duke of Cornwall's Coat of Arms uses the motto "Houmout" (meaning "honour" or "high-spirited"), derived from the Black Prince . The banner of the Duchy of Cornwall is simplified, showing the fifteen gold bezants on a black field. Loyal Toast Traditionally Cornish people refer to the Duke of Cornwall in the Loyal Toast , much like the Duke of Normandy in the Channel Islands . [4] Dukes of Cornwall, 1337 creation Edit All Dukes of Cornwall who have been the eldest living son of the sovereign are generally considered to have held the same creation of the duchy. The following is a table of these Dukes of Cornwall, with the processes by which they became duke and by which they ceased to hold the title: Duke of Cornwall Current Prince of Wales and Earl of Chester (1958), Duke of Rothesay, etc.

(1469 & 1540) Additional details appear in Cokayne, George Edward, The Complete Peerage of England, Scotland, Ireland, Great Britain and the United Kingdom, Extant, Extinct or Dormant, A. Sutton, Gloucester, 1982. [orig. 13 volumes, published by The St. Catherine Press Ltd, London, England from 1910–1959; reprinted in microprint: 13 vol. in 6, Gloucester: A. Sutton, 1982] Dukes of Cornwall, 1376 creation Edit When his heir-apparent Edward of Woodstock, Prince of Wales and Duke of Cornwall predeceased him, Edward III granted Woodstock's son Richard a new creation of the title Duke of Cornwall. When Richard acceded the throne as Richard II in 1377, this creation merged to the crown. also Prince of Wales and Earl of Chester (1376) Edit When Richard Duke of York pressed his claim to the throne, he was made heir-apparent to Henry VI by the Act of Accord .

On 31 October 1460, he was made Prince of Wales and Earl of Chester , Duke of Cornwall and Lord Protector of England by act of parliament. Since he was not the eldest living son of the monarch, this creation was outside the terms of the 1337 warrant; York died in battle on 30 December 1460. Richard of York, Lord Protector of England, Prince of Wales, 1st Duke of Cornwall, 3rd Duke of York, 1st Earl of Chester (1411–1460) See also Prince of Wales - Title, Succession and Wales - Page 2 - The Royal Forums Quote: Originally Posted by Jo of Palatine That was part of my idea: if it is politically opportunate, could the Welsh Assembly ask the new king to keep his title of Prince of Wales or could parliament in London declare that Charles still holds the title of Prince of Wales in addition to being king of the UK? The title of Prince of Wales must be created for each male heir to the throne, because if the heir subsequently inherits and becomes Sovereign, the title then merges with the Crown.

From that point forward, the title invested in the man who is now monarch ceases to exist. There is no further Prince of Wales until it is invested in the next male heir. This title is in the gift of the Sovereign and may only be granted by the Sovereign. It is held separate from any inheritable titles of the heir, precisely because the title is destined to merge with the Crown, and the investiture reserves the special status of Wales within Great Britain. Even if a Prince of Wales dies without becoming King, the title goes back to the Crown, and may only be re-invested as the gift of the reigning Sovereign. If, for instance, Prince Charles pre-deceases the Queen, then the title "Prince of Wales" would have to be re-created for Prince William, even though he is currently known as Prince William of Wales. There is a distinction between being a "prince of Wales" and "The Prince of Wales". Officially, Charles is HRH The Prince Charles, The Prince of Wales. If and when William is invested, he will be HRH The Prince William, The Prince of Wales.

It is also important to remember that females, even if they are the next in line to the throne, may not be invested in the Prince of Wales title. Quote: Originally Posted by Jo of Palatine It really is not important if there is a duke of "York" or "Edinburgh" or "Gloucester" as there is no duchy and never was historically. That depends on your meaning that these titles were never duchies historically. A peerage was originally considered to be a landed title, from which the holder can derive or collect income, and has authority over the people living in his landed estates. The Duchy of York was first created in 1385, and was a landed dukedom until it merged with the Crown in 1461, when the holder became Edward IV. There have also been several Earls of York in medieval times. Since 1461, it has traditionally been the title for the second son of the Sovereign. The Duchy of Gloucester was also first created in 1385, and was a landed dukedom.

The first three dukes all died without issue, and afterwards it was considered unlucky, and was not granted again for 150 years. The Duchy of Edinburgh has existed since 1726, and to all intents and purposes, is not a dukedom in the sense of the two others, however, it was supposedly a source of income for the initial holders of the title. Quote: Originally Posted by Jo of Palatine But there was a principality of Wales like there was a kingdom of England and one of Scotland. This is quite true, there was a Principality of Wales, but there were very few men that were actually "Prince of Wales" and recognized by the English Crown. The principality was divided into several separate kingdoms, and each had their own prince - the Prince of Gwynedd, for example. Prior to the Norman Conquest, the most powerful Welsh ruler of any given time was known as "King of the Britons". In the 12th and 13th centuries, the title evolved to that of Prince of Wales. The last native Prince of Wales was Owain Glydwr, who was proclaimed Prince in 1400. His short reign ended in 1409.

Quote: Originally Posted by Jo of Palatine But what about Wales? At the moment Wales is treated as a conquered country who was included into England. While I don't believe that Wales and the UK will go their separate ways in the near future, it would be a nice gesture by Charles to declare himself the heir of the Welsh princes by keeping his title, and not behave as the heir of their conquerors. Unfortunately, Wales is a conquered country, just like Ireland, and Ireland never even had a special designation. The Sovereign, of course was known as the Lord of Ireland until the time of Henry VIII. Prior to that, the country was under the guardianship of the Pope. When Henry broke away from the Catholic Church, he declared himself King of Ireland, as did subsequent monarchs. But for the Irish, there has never been a "Prince of Ireland" as there has been a Prince of Wales. The United Kingdom of Great Britain consists of England, Scotland and Wales. Even if there were a Welsh Parliament, I doubt they would request that the Prince of Wales keep his title after becoming King. And I doubt the British Parliament would overturn centuries of tradition, even if such a request were made.

The special status of Wales is that they "hold the heir of the Crown", and they do so exclusively. The Prince of Wales is not the Crown Prince of Scotland, nor is does he hold a title in Northern Ireland. Hereditarily speaking, he doesn't hold an Irish title at all. At least with Wales, they have their own Crown Jewels, which are separate from the Crown, and known as the Honours of the Principality of Wales. Wales has historically retained its special status within the kingdom of Great Britain, and likely will continue to do so. Location: , United States Posts: 2,736 Wales does not exclusively hold the heir of the Crown. The British heir and eldest son is also Duke of Rothesay, Earl of Carrick, Baron of Renfrew, Prince & Great Lord Steward in Scotland, reflecting the title and historical styles of the heir to the Scottish throne. In England, he is Duke of Cornwall as the duchy's revenues and lands are exclusively reserved for the heir to the throne. The title "Prince of Wales and Earl of Chester" reflects the bestowing of the lands to the King's son after being conquered in 1301.

While it is accompanied by historical tension and sensitivities of sovereignty, it is inextrictably tied with a United Kingdom of England, Wales and Scotland. The tradition of bestowing the title to the heir will continue unless Parliament agrees to grant Wales special status separate from the State as represented by the Crown. Not likely to happen. Just a small correction about the UK: There is the "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland" - that's official :-) "Great Britain" consists of England, Scotland and Wales. "Northern Ireland" is a province within the UK. The progress of DEVOLUTION: Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland have devolved governments, each dealing with "devolved" and "reserved" matters, e.g. Armed Forces is a reserved matter, whereas Education is a devolved matter. Each of the three want to make further progress, e.g. by obtaining fiscal autonomy, or additional devolved matters. Of the three, Scotland has made the most progress so far, and, at the time of writing, the UK government has offered to transfer a range of devolved matters to the Scottish Government. Watch this space....

Quote: Originally Posted by CrownPrincess5 Does anyone know why Charles' title is "Prince Charles" instead of "Crown Prince Charles" like the rest of the heirs of the European thrones. Is it different because that's how its always been? In Spain the heir has the title Prince of Asturias and in Britain when the heir is the eldest son of the monarch and thus the heir apparent he holds the title of Duke of Cornwall etc and the title Prince of Wales is also added to indicate that he is the heir. These two titles can only be given to the heir. The Cornwall title can also only be held by the eldest son of the monarch. If Charles were to die during the present reign then William could be created Prince of Wales but could never be Duke of Cornwall as he wouldn't be the Queen's eldest son and heir at the same time. The eldest surviving son of the Queen would be Andrew but as he isn't the heir he couldn't be Duke of Cornwall either but if the dreadful happened and both William and Harry died along with their father in the present reign then Andrew would automatically become Duke of Cornwall as he would then be the eldest living son of the monarch and the heir. As good a "Prince of Wales" that he is.

At the end of the day. The title should rightly belong to the Welsh poeple. There were no sons, therefore, to inherit the title of Prince of Wales, but as the daughter of Prince Llywelyn, Gwenllian was the heiress of the Princes of Gwynedd and the royal family of Aberffraw. She was the Princess of Wales and as a result represented considerable danger to the king of England. Were it not for their close family ties it is likely that the king would have arranged for her too to be killed. Instead: Edward I ordered the Princess of Wales called "Gwenllian" to spend the remainder of her life in a Gilbertine priory at Sempringham in Lincolnshire. Edward kept the title of 'Prince of Wales' for the crown, bestowing it upon his son Edward who was crowned in Caernarfon in 1301 aged 17 years. Gwenllian spent her life in the flat fenlands of eastern England rather than amongst the mountains of the land of her birth and, in all likelihood, she never knew the sounds of her native tongue.

Throughout her time at the priory the English never succeeded in correctly pronouncing her name; she is listed as 'Wencilian' in the priory's records and it seems that she herself used the signature 'Wentliane' According to the priory's records, Gwenllian, daughter of the Prince of Wales, died in 1337 having spent fifty-four years in the order. It seems therefore that Edward succeeded in his aim of ensuring that the heiress of Llywelyn the Last would play no part in the history of Wales. She merits no more than a brief mention in history books and until recently remained forgotten in Sempringham. However, following a campaign by the late Captain Richard Turner of Caernarfon and Angharad Thomas, in 1993 a memorial plaque of Welsh slate was laid bearing the following inscription: In memory of Daughter of the last Prince of Wales Born at Abergwyngregyn 12.6.1282 Died at Sempringham 7.6.1337 Having been held prisoner for 54 years So you see, as good as prince that he is.

To us Welsh, he is not the "Real" prince of wales. After what his family before him did to our Princess of Wales. I think its a disgrace! There should be a public apology from the Queen to the Welsh poeple! Quote: After what his family before him did to our Princess of Wales. I of course would not speak on behalf of a Welsh citizen and I certainly wouldn't tell them what to feel or think but I do think if the above statement is a sentiment shared throughout Wales, then in this instance I think perhaps some people should really try and move on. I don't see why the Queen should make an official apology for it either. What would that achieve exactly? National healing? I certainly think that to be taking it a bit far. Pro or anti monarchy support isn't going to be built upon an apology for the mistreatment of a Welsh princess a long long time ago. The opinions of the Welsh state, one should hope, would be reflective upon current day events and ideologies. Matters that are of real importance to a 21st Century Wales. Is it really felt that an apology would make much of a difference to many? And besides those that have an interest in the monarchy, would many even really care?

Maybe there will need to be a revisal of the title at some point, and perhaps even making it extinct, if there was a substantial push from Wales on the matter. __________________ Location: Chesterfield, United Kingdom Posts: 3 I know that several formal apologies have been made for things which happened in the distant past but I am not really sure how much good they do or how much difference they make, for either the person apologising (who has not personally been involved in the action they are apologising for) or the people they are apologising to (who were also not directly affected by the actions of people who lived so long ago). It the Queen were to apologise to the Welsh for her English ancestors role in conquering Wales, should she in turn apologise to the English people for her Norman ancestors role in conquering England? Or would we be better asking the French President for an apology as current head of state for Normandy ...

Anyway, to get back on topic, whilst I understand Jo of Paletiine's idea that the Welsh Princes of Wales were the sovereign, whilst currently the title is held by the heir of the Principality's ultimate sucessor state, I think that to attempt to restore this would be a serious mistake and would open a huge can of worms. Prior to the Acts of Union in 1707, England was ruled by the King of England and Scotland by the King of Scots. Therefore unless these titles were also renewed and the monarch of the UK was styled Elizabeth II, Queen of England, Queen of Scots, Princess of Wales and XXXXX (whatever the equivelent Northern Irish title would be), why should the monarch be sovereign of England, Scotland (and Northen Ireland) as Queen of the United Kingdom, simply because the heir to the thone still holds the same titles as the heirs to the thrones of these as separate kingdoms, but sovereign of Wales seperately? Not to mention that even these titles were successors to titles such as King of Mercia, King of the Picts and King of Powys.

I suppose the ultimately fair thing to do would be when the Duke of Cambridge becomes heir to the throne, he should simply be given the title HRH The Crown Prince of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland; that way the heirs titles would reflect the monarchs title in being created especially for the sucessor state - unfortunately that would mean losing hundreds of years worth of history and tradition, so I don't see it happening! Posts: 510 [QUOTE=Lord Pemberley;1247457] Prior to the Acts of Union in 1707, England was ruled by the King of England and Scotland by the King of Scots. Therefore unless these titles were also renewed and the monarch of the UK was styled Elizabeth II, Queen of England, Queen of Scots, Princess of Wales and XXXXX (whatever the equivelent Northern Irish title would be), why should the monarch be sovereign of England, Scotland (and Northen Ireland) as Queen of the United Kingdom, simply because the heir to the thone still holds the same titles as the heirs to the thrones of these as separate kingdoms, but sovereign of Wales seperately?

Not to mention that even these titles were successors to titles such as King of Mercia, King of the Picts and King of Powys. QUOTE] I think the idea of the Queen being the Queen of England, Scotland, Wales etc. may be arising in the near future, especially with the plans for the Scottish Independence referendum __________________ God Save the Queen! Advance Australia Fair! "Life is a game in which the player must appear ridiculous" - The Dowager Countess of Grantham, Downton Abbey Location: Richmond, United States Posts: 6 "Another recent example of this is Queen Elizabeth II, who also never held the title of Princess of Wales. Females in Great Britain are considered "heirs presumptive", because they may be displaced by any future sons born to the sovereign. They are never considered "heirs apparent"." I am just curious...this is a question that is so far out in left field but as I said, I am just curious. To begin with, did Queen Elizabeth II actually become Queen upon her fathers death or was she an "Acting Queen" (not sure whatelse to call her) until the actual coronation?? Now for my "what if" question.

IF Queen Elizabeth II was actually the Queen and by some shear miracle, the Queen Mother found herself pregnant after the death of King George VI, and gave birth to a son 6 or 7 months later, would Queen Elizabeth II have to turn over the crown to her baby brother? If she was only acting Queen, would the crown be given to the infant? Who would act as King until the baby became of age? Quote: Originally Posted by swtnsassy Now for my "what if" question. IF Queen Elizabeth II was actually the Queen and by some shear miracle, the Queen Mother found herself pregnant after the death of King George VI, and gave birth to a son 6 or 7 months later, would Queen Elizabeth II have to turn over the crown to her baby brother? If she was only acting Queen, would the crown be given to the infant? Who would act as King until the baby became of age?

A similar scenario was discussed some time ago in this thread ; basically, a similar situation has never happened, but the 1830 Regency Act stated that if King William IV died childless he would have been succeeded by his niece Victoria, but also that if at his death his wife Queen Adelaide was pregnant and then she gave birth to a child, then this child would succeed Victoria (who would have became Queen in the meantime). So, back to your question, it's likely that Elizabeth would have immediately succeeded her father as Queen; then if her mother gave birth to a son, this son would have succeeded to Elizabeth as King; if a daughter, Elizabeth would have remained Queen. __________________ 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

Question: The eldest son of the British monarch traditionally holds which Scottish dukedom?
Answer: Duke of Rothesay