Tuesday, 12 March 2013

Kate Loves: Titles and Styles

It's almost two years since the royal wedding and Kate is still very much referred to by her maiden name. It's a topic that I regularly get comments and emails about so I thought it would be interesting to write a post on Kate's titles and styles and the history behind them.

On the day of the royal wedding, April 29, 2011 The Queen conferred a Dukedom on Prince William. The Duke received the titles of Duke of Cambridge, Earl of Strathearn and Baron Carrickfergus. As a result Kate became Her Royal Highness The Duchess of Cambridge, Countess of Strathearn and Baroness Carrickfergus. Kate also automatically became Her Royal Highness, Princess William of Wales.

The British Monarchy Flickr

So, why is Kate not styled as Princess?

Kate did not automatically become Princess Catherine because she is not of royal blood. The Queen's late sister Margaret was entitled to call herself Princess Margaret and the Queen's daughter is Princess Anne and the Queen's granddaughters Beatrice and Eugenie are princesses in their own right.

But Diana was never officially Princess Diana. She was Princess of Wales, and after her divorce from Charles, she was Diana, Princess of Wales. Similarly Sarah Ferguson (wife of Prince Andrew) was never Princess Sarah, she was styled as the Duchess of York, a title she continues to hold despite the divorce and media scandals. Sophie Rhys-Jones (wife of Prince Edward) is styled Countess of Wessex, not Princess Sophie.

The British Monarchy Flickr

When Philip married the then Princess Elizabeth in 1947, King George VI, only created him Duke of Edinburgh. Although he was married the future Queen he was not a prince. Philip has been a Prince of Greece but he renounced his titles in order to take British citizenship. He only became Prince Philip ten years after the wedding, in 1957, when the Queen accorded him the style of a Prince of the United Kingdom. It's quite interesting to think when he married Elizabeth he was just Philip Mountbatten, isn't it?

The British Monarchy Flickr

Now back to Kate's titles. I remember on the morning of the royal wedding thinking the Duchess of Cambridge was a stellar choice on behalf of the Queen. It's not a title I was at all familiar with before the wedding, so, let's take a look at previous holders (I do hope you all enjoy history :)).

In 1706, George Augustus (later King George II) the only son of George I was created with the titled Duke of Cambridge. His wife Caroline of Brandenburg-Ansbach, commonly referred to as Caroline of Ansbach, was the first holder of the title. Her father, John Frederick, was the ruler of a small German state, the Principality of Ansbach. Caroline was orphaned at a young age and moved to Prussian court to live with her guardian Sophia Charlotte of Hanover consort of Frederick I of Prussia. At the court Caroline received an excellent education and is said to have adopted a rather liberal outlook.

Wikipedia

Caroline was a much sought after bride and rejected a string of suitors including the nominal King of Spain, Archduke Charles of Austria. In 1795 the aforementioned George Augustus visited the Prussian Court and they fell for each other almost immediately. George was quite taken by Caroline's intelligence and fair haired beauty, and decided then and there he would not marry anyone else. Just a few months later the couple were married.

The couple had eight children, seven of whom grew to adulthood. Their marriage was a strong one, despite the fact George continued to keep mistresses throughout their marriage which was customary for the time (could you imagine that nowadays?). Caroline preferred to keep her husband's mistresses as ladies-in-waiting so she could keep a close eye on them. She herself was known for her marital fidelity and never made any embarrassing scenes.

Wikipedia

Caroline became queen consort in 1727 and she was crowned alongside her husband at Westminster Abbey. As queen, she surrounded herself with artists and intellectuals. Many art historians believe she rediscovered a number of lost sketches by Leonardo da Vinci and Hans Holbein that had been hidden in a drawer since the reign of William III. She enjoyed collecting jewellery, acquiring portraits and supervised designs in the royal gardens.

Caroline died in 1737, aged 54 and was widely mourned by the public and the court. Protestants admired her moral example and the Jacobites acknowledged her compassion.

Wikipedia
There was no Duchess of Cambridge for over a hundred years until Her Serene Highness Princess and Landgravine Augusta of Hesse-Kassel married her second cousin Adolphus, Duke of Cambridge in June 1818 at Buckingham Palace.

Wikipedia

Adolphus was over twenty years Augusta's senior and known for his womanising and excessive drinking. He was the seventh son of King George III and unlikely to ever become King. The couple moved to Hanover where the Duke served as  viceroy to his brother and they had three children. In 1827, Augusta agreed that a new village would be founded in the south of Bremervorde bearing her name and later approved the name of Augustendorf for their municipality (now a component locality of Gnarrenburg).

The Cambridges later returned to Britain where they lived at St James's Palace. Augusta survived her husband by thirty-nine years, dying at the age of ninety-one.

Interestingly, the Cambridge Lovers Knot Tiara (I'm sure you all recall Diana wearing it) was commissioned by Queen Mary, the Queen Consort of King George V, to create a Tiara based on the design owned by her maternal grandmother Augusta. Below we look at Augusta wearing the original design.

Wikipedia

I do hope we see Kate wearing the iconic tiara in the future. It would seem quite fitting wouldn't it?

Joint Venture Jewellery

And, Kate is the third Duchess of Cambridge :)


Royal styles of the Duchess of Cambridge.

Wikipedia

Kate's monogram.



Kate regularly wears a charm bracelet featuring her monogram, reportedly an early wedding present from Camilla who owns a very similar piece. The disc charm has Kate's monogram on one side and Camilla's on the other. Both are Cs under a coronet, but Kate's C has an extra curl, while Camilla's is surrounded by a circle. It's a beautiful piece of jewellery and a very thoughtful gift.


Kate was given a new Coat of Arms in advance of her wedding with one half derived from a Coat of Arms granted to Michael Middleton. The Middleton family worked closely with the College of Arms throughout the design process to create a personal and identifiable Coat of Arms. The three acorns represent Kate, Pippa and James. Acorns were chosen because Berkshire is surrounded by Oak trees and the oak is a long-established symbol of England and strength. The other half is derived from the Duke of Cambridge's Coat of Arms.


It is interesting to think Kate is only the third Duchess of Cambridge. It is thought Kate will be styled as The Princess of Wales when Prince Charles becomes King. Do take a look at the comments below the post if you have time. Our readers have shared so much insightful knowledge :)

150 comments:

  1. Becoming a British citizen is the final step in the immigration process. Through naturalization, immigrants give’s you same rights as those born in the UK. If you have been granted a settlement visa, or indefinite leave to remain, applying for citizenship is the final immigration service available

    British Citizenship by Descent' is the Category for the Children born Outside the UK to a British Citizen. Rules for Acquiring British Citizenship by Descent Depend on When the Person Was Born

    ReplyDelete
  2. Hi again Charlotte! You know I love this posts, History is really one theme I enjoy! This one is very well written, very concise but very simple for us (not British) to understand the facts and make the connection! Thank you for bring Britain (that I love so much) to my little corner of world, a lovely country too wich I would love you o meet!"See" you again in next Sunday if Catherine not make us a surprise... XO

    ReplyDelete
  3. Thanks for another interesting and knowledgeable post Charlotte. I always wondered why Kate is called Duchess not princess and now I get the answer.
    I do enjoy reading this post very much.

    Keep up the good work!

    :)

    ReplyDelete
  4. Beautiful and interesting post! I have enjoyed very much the reading!
    I find Catherine's monogram very nice, I love the curl of the C letter!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I second this. I like history, hence I really enjoyed this topic!
      Wales is originally Principality (as Monaco i.e.), that´s why Diana was Princess (of W) but in English there is the same word for Prince/ss, meaning either child of monarch or head of principality, which is really confusing. In my language (and I guess in many others) we have two completely different words for each position and the word very similar to prince/ss just means royal child. But as people always saw "princess Diana", they identified it with this 1st obvious meaning, so when Kate came, they were confused why she is duchess and not princess.I guess that even in English speaking countries many people think that Diana was princess because she married royal prince, without knowing that it is because of Wales principality and her marriage to its head - the Prince of Wales). So I think that your explanation is really clarifying and useful, thank you Charlotte!

      Delete
    2. I am totally clueless on this stuff, but is her "C" a monogram or a cipher?

      Delete
    3. I went and looked up monogram and cipher. From what I could determine, a monogram is three letters intertwined and a cipher is a separate letter. So I suppose Kate's bracelet would be a cipher.

      I am not an expert!

      Delete
  5. Charlotte, what an interesting and wonderful post. I wasn't aware of many of these historical facts. And I love History.

    But one thing I knew: the Duke of Edinburgh was born in Greece, son of a greek prince and british mother. Prince Philip of Greece and Denmark. And he had quite a tragic childhood, with his mother in a psychiatric hospital and his father in exile in France. Can you imagine that...? Almost unbelievable.

    On a completely different note, can't wait to see Kate wearing all the lovely tiaras! :)

    Thank you so much.
    Hugs from a cloudy and rainy Portugal. (The winter doesn't want to leave us!)
    Z.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Does anyone know how may languages does Prince Philip speak?
      Beside English, I would say French because he lived in France, but I am not sure. And what about Greek and German?
      Thanks!

      Delete
    2. Prince Phillup surely speaks German because his sisters all married Germans. One of them died very tragically with most of her family, possibly when she was in labor, in an air crash in 1937 on their way to her brother-in-law's wedding in England.(Her baby was found to have been delivered.) Since some of his sister's husbands supported Nazi Germany, it was very awkward when he married the queen, and his sisters weren't invited to the wedding, although one of them was later photographed informally with the queen. Saw some of Phillip's relatives on the guest list for William and Kate.
      Not sure if he speaks Greek, since he left as a baby. French seems likely.
      Lots of interesting stuff for the Royal Digest, and if Charlotte does posts, everyone should read it. She's done some great stuff, the portrait one was really great.

      Delete
  6. really interesting post but Catherine will not become Princess of Wales when Charles becomes King as this title is not automatic.

    William will become Duke of Cornwall which is the official title to the Heir to the Throne, therefore Catherine will be Duchess of Cornwall. In the past, title have been combined so it is possible that the title may be Cornwall and Cambridge (trips neatly off the tongue!).

    It will be up to the new King to decide whether to make William Prince of Wales. I'd say yes, but probably not until after the coronation.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hello CP,

      Very interesting points indeed. I spoke with three royal correspondents in preparation for this post, who all said Kate will be styled as Catherine, Princess of Wales when Charles becomes King. Of course there is always the possibility it won't happen but it does seem most likely.

      Delete
    2. I was very careful in what I wrote - it is not automatic. Charles did not become Prince of Wales until 1969, and he became heir to the throne from the age of 5.

      I think William will be made Prince of Wales but it is not automatic.

      I stand by my post.

      Delete
    3. Amendment to my last post Charlotte - Charles was made Prince of Wales in 1958 - apologies.

      Delete
    4. Jean from Lancs.12 March 2013 at 14:22

      Charles was named Prince of Wales at the time of the Commonwealth Games in Cardiff in(I think 1958), but was presented to the people of Wales in a ceremony much later.
      Of course when the Queen came to the throne Prince Charles was only 3yrs. old, so the circumstances will be different.

      Delete
    5. Charles became heir to the throne on February 6, 1952, at age 3 years 3 months. When George VI passed on this date, Princess Elizabeth became Queen Elizabeth and ascended the throne. Prince Charles became heir upon her accession to the throne. Charles was created Prince of Wales by Letters Patent on July 26, 1958. His investiture as Prince of Wales was July 1, 1969.

      I would find it hard to believe if Charles did not bestow the title of Prince of Wales on William. You are correct in stating the title does not come automatically, but Charlotte is correct that it most likely will happen. I don't think his subjects would go for not giving William the title. So, yes I do believe Catherine will one day be HRH Catherine, Princess of Wales.

      Delete
    6. Every monarch does itr differently. Here is a quote George V
      "On the death of Queen Victoria on 22 January 1901, George's father ascended the throne as King Edward VII. George inherited the titles of Duke of Cornwall and Duke of Rothesay, and for much of the rest of that year, he was styled His Royal Highness The Duke of Cornwall and York. He became Prince of Wales in December."

      There is no consistency at all! :)

      Delete
    7. Very interesting CP, so much knowledgeable information being shared today! Thanks to everyone contributing.

      Delete
    8. Catherine's formal title will be HRH The Princess of Wales. Same as Diana. She did not become Diana, Princess of Wales until after her divorce.

      Formal titles and what she will be known can be different and it doesn't matter, because the media will call her Princess KAte regardless.

      Delete
    9. Yes. All of this "Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge" and "Sophie, Countess of Wessex" stuff is, technically, wrong, wrong, wrong.

      Diana and Sarah were/are only styled that way due to the divorces. A courtesy that will be revoked in the event of re-marriage on Sarah's part.

      But since nearly all people hate the idea of losing their personal identity, we erroneously refer to the ladies as such. LOL

      Delete
    10. You're so right, we should avoid that usage. What would be correct, and still get her name in? HRH The Duchess of Cambridge, the former Catherine Middleton? Probably why everyone calls her Kate.

      Delete
  7. Great post Charlotte! I really enjoyed reading it, thank you for it. Do you know anything about what happened to Augusta's original tiara? Was it lost out of the family which is why Queen Mary commissioned the Cambridge Lovers Knot Tiara? I look forward to the day when we see Kate wearing that tiara! How fitting that will be :)

    I was also wondering, and I hope you don't mind me asking, but would you keep in mind the idea of a Kate Loves: Jewelry post for another day, about the main pieces of jewelry she's worn thus far (along with the more special and rarely worn pieces like those stunning rubies with the black velvet McQueen gown) and the royal jewelry she will wear in the future someday when appropriate as Princess of Wales and later Queen consort? Besides how obviously beautiful the pieces are, I think there's a lot of interesting history behind them which says a lot about the role she will take in the future as a more senior royal!

    Cheers from a cloudy, rainy, and icy Canada, the winter doesn't want to leave us either!
    Kate.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hello Kate,

      I will of course write a post on Kate's jewellery. As for the tiara I'm not sure but I will try to find out. The Cambridge Lovers Knot is such a beautiful tiara.

      Delete
    2. Jean from Lancs.12 March 2013 at 15:46

      According to the book "The Queen's Diamonds" the original tiara was left to Augusta's eldest daughter also Augusta, Grand Duchess of Mecklenburg-Strelitz. It was eventually sold at Christies in 1981.
      Queen Mary's was made in 1913 from jewels from a necklace tiara --a wedding gift and jewels taken from other necklaces and tiaras in her possession.
      Queen Mary loved altering her jewellery-she died just before the present Queen's Coronation and left much of her jewellery to the Queen

      Delete
    3. Thank you very much Jean :)

      Delete
    4. Jean: I was lent that book (with my house as collateral) and I had to wear a bib the jewels are that magnificent. And they aren't even the crown jewels!

      Delete
    5. Jean from Lancs.13 March 2013 at 09:14

      Bluhare,
      I was lucky--got it as a Christmas present. The jewels are truly magnificent and of course in this book are only the diamonds in HM's collection, though emeralds and pearls are mentioned where they are interchangeable in a tiara.
      Many of the jewels have been listed as to be passed from monarch to monarch.

      Delete
  8. Jean from Lancs.12 March 2013 at 13:13

    But Catherine is a princess--that was made quite plain on the morning of the wedding when it was announced she would be Princess William, Duchess of Cambridge. The Duke of Edinburgh was not automatically Prince Philip because a man does not take his wife's title.
    Previous princes who married British Queens kept their titles as they were already Princes--Prince George of Denmark and Queen Ann and Prince Albert and Queen Victoria. William Prince of Orange married to Princess Mary insisted on joint Monarchy as William III and Mary.
    Prince Philip gave up his Greek Citizenship because the then Labour Government insisted as there was trouble in Greece and they did not want the British Monarchy involved. I always understood that he had a claim to British citizenship as a descendant of Queen Victoria with his own claim to the British throne---However remote that was.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Sarah from Calif.12 March 2013 at 14:06

    Thank you Charlotte, you did a lovely job on this! I love seeing portraits. They are beautiful here, I can only imagine how wonderful it would be to see up close. I do love history, I'll start reading about one person and then I'll find myself branching off to some other royal.
    Also the information on the jewery is always fun and interesting and, yes I would love to see Kate in that tiara !
    Thank you again for all you do ! Have a wonderful day :)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thank you very much Sarah, I hope you're having a great day :)

      Delete
  10. Catherine is a princess by marriage if not by birth, but the reason she is not called "Princess William" (as Prince Michael of Kent's wife is called Princess Michael) is that William was given a ducal title, and it is of higher status than the princely title. It added a peerage to the princely title and meant that Prince William was no longer a commoner. (Yes, a prince can be a commoner; Prince Harry still is one.) This is the one situation in which it is better to be a duchess than a princess.

    The Wales title is not automatic. Who knows whether King Charles will confer it on William? For one thing, he may not have time. It's not necessary for William to bear it in order to become king. Plenty of British monarchs were never Prince of Wales.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I think the reason that the wife of Prince Michael of Kent is referred to as "Princess Michael" is that is not very popular in Britain. The use of her husband's name, while technically correct, as opposed to her given name (Marie Christine) is a sign of the low regard in which she is held.

      Delete
    2. I do think you're right. And her given name is long. But I think popularity has a lot to do with it. While there have been complaints about using Kate instead of the Duchess of Cambridge, I've always thought it was actually a sign of affection.

      Delete
    3. No, zipzip, it's not a matter of "low regard" (though she isn't very popular). Had she married Prince Michael in a later, more casual era, the media might have called her by her first name, but that didn't happen. Things were still much more formal back in the 1970's where the monarchy was concerned. She was called, correctly, Princess Michael from the start, and the public got used to it. I doubt most members of the public even know her first name.

      Delete
    4. Kate, Texas, USA14 March 2013 at 05:17

      I love to hear Catherine's title and style, HRH Princess William of Wales. Sounds so romantic knowing their love story. Don't you wish some things would stay on the formal side?

      Delete
    5. Hope this doesn't sound like I am picking a fight with Vittoria, but I don't think I completely buy that the "Princess Michael" thing is a byproduct of the formality of the times when she married Prince Michael. They married in June 1978, just three years before Charles married. I suspect that Diana was never referred to (by the press or the public) as Princess Charles (although Ronald Reagan did once call her Princess David!). Very interesting posts and commentary all around. I love this stuff.

      Delete
    6. I would still love to see them both as Prince and Princess of Wales for some reason.....

      Delete
  11. Thank you so much Charlotte for this very interesting post.
    I think your blog is the best to follow about Duchess Kate for the variety of information!

    ReplyDelete
  12. Thanks for this interesting history lesson!

    ReplyDelete
  13. One interesting feature you didn't mention is Frederick, the eldest son and heir of George II and Caroline who was the frist Duchess of Cambridge. Frederick and his parents did not get on,typical of the early Hanovers. He wanted to marry Lady Diana Spencer. That's right, the first Lady Diana Spencer, granddaughter of Sarah, Duchess of Marlborough. Much was made of this at the time of Charles wedding to his Diana, who was named for her ancestor. Frederick was not permitted to marry the first Diana. She married elsewhere and died very young without heirs. Frederick also died relatively young, having married a German. His son became George III. So twice over Diana Spencers have been plagued with ill luck, although the latter will hopefully be known as the mother of a king.

    I understood the title Prince of Wales had to be bestowed, although it seems almost a given William will get it when his father becomes king. I think Duke of Cornwall may pass automatically but not sure or which Dukedom would take precedence if for some reason the titel Prince of Wales wasn't bestowed.

    An exampe of a Princess known by her husband's surnname today is Princess Michael. Interesting and once controversal. Might be a subject for the Royal Digest. So Catherine is Princess William but not a princess in her own right.

    Another subject for Royal Digest might be Lillian of Sweden who just died. A Welsh woman and a fascinating love story!

    Almost all royals with the execption of the Queen get called by their first names or nicknames. (Like Fergie and Di) My opinion is that Kate continues to be linked more closely to her surnname, because when she was dating Prince William Kate Moss was much in the news (also Kate Winslet) so the papers tended to use her surname to avoid confusion. It will probably always be used until she becomes queen and I don't think it's really meant to be disrespectful.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I had read about Frederick but had no idea about Lady Diana Spencer. It's really are very fascinating isn't it? Royal history is so enjoyable.

      Thank you all for contributing your knowledge, it's a very interesting discussion :)

      Delete
    2. Sarah from Calif.12 March 2013 at 16:52

      I'm in the middle of 'Georgiana by Amanda Foreman ' a lot of Spencer history in it. She was quite a (mover and shaker)) very involved in politics, surprising for those days. Yes I know very scandalous, but what else is new.
      The love story of Lilian of Sweden would be a great one for the Royal Digest.
      Charlotte., as if you dont have enough to do !!!! :))

      Delete
    3. Jean from Lancs.12 March 2013 at 17:17

      When George 1st came to England his son (Later George 11) came with him--they didn't get on--not really surprising as the elder George had imprisoned his wife Sophia Dorothea(the younger George's mother) supposedly because of her adultery.
      The younger George was made to leave his son Frederick back in Hanover, so by the time George 1 died and Frederick came to England he hardly knew his parents, so they too quarrelled.
      Frederick's son George 111 was mad, but managed to quarrel with all his sons---but worse than that he managed to quarrel with America!!




      Delete
    4. Sarah - There are so many great possibilities for The Royal Digest that I want to write about. I probably need to allocate my time a little better. I tend to give all my blogging time to this blog and researching future events/posts. I really must remedy that because I have endless ideas...


      On another note, I'm sorry to hear the Queen has cancelled engagements for tomorrow and Thursday. I hope she's resting. She really is a terrific woman for her age.

      Delete
    5. Pauline Oak Hills12 March 2013 at 20:13

      Charlotte- I hope the Queen starts to feel better soon. She is such a great lady and it is sad to see her feeling ill.

      Delete
    6. Kate, Texas, USA12 March 2013 at 21:40

      Jean, tis sad what that quarrel with America led to. Charlotte, you do a fabulous job keeping up both blogs!!! Your right, the possibilities are endless..... I look forward to all the wonderful future posts on both blogs!!!

      Delete
    7. Kate, Texas, USA14 March 2013 at 04:56

      I was looking back at some notes from a very long time ago when I was in college. I took a British Lit class that ended up being British history with a little Jane Austen on the side. :) I learned that George II was the last British monarch born outside of Great Britain. He was born and brought up in Northern Germany. When he and Caroline came to Britain, they left Frederick back in Hanover. He was only 7 years old. That was the last he saw his parents until he came to Britain as an adult. No wonder they quarreled and had a strained relationship.

      As far as George III, he was mad and suffered from mental illness as we all know. Possibly losing his father at a young age and having a very strict mother (Princess Augusta) who wanted him close so she could influence him with her strict moral views fed this madness. After ascending the throne, the search for a suitable wife was on. He met and married Princess Charlotte on the same day. They had 15 children together and surprisingly he never had a mistress. Charlotte, seemed just as crazy never wanting her daughters to marry. She wanted them as her companions. Crazy. He preferred his daughters over his son's. As Jean from Lancs mentioned, he did not have a good relationship with his sons....seems like that was a family trend.

      And then comes George IV....oh dear. My first thought....Prince Phillip and Queen Elizabeth should have taken note to what happened between George and his wife Caroline when it came to finding a suitable wife for Prince Charles. Thanks goodness William IV was the last monarch from the seemingly dysfunctional House of Hanover.

      Delete
    8. Charlotte wasn't the last royal lady to want to keep a daughter or daughters to be a companion. Queen Victoria was very upset when her youngest daughter Beatrice wanted to marry (a Mountbatten) since she was supposed to take on the role of mother's companion. She was allowed to marry (and spread Hemophilia to the royal house of Spain) as long as she and her husband continued to live with the queen. One of Queen Alexandra's daughters did remain single and a companion to her mother.

      It's worth remembering that George's IV's daughter Charlotte (an Austen contempory and fan) should have been queen but died in childbirth. I still think that would be a great name for a royal baby girl who is expected to be queen. There is a beautiful and touching tomb of Charlotte and her lost baby at Romsey Abbey.

      Delete
    9. Kate, Texas, USA15 March 2013 at 04:00

      I think Charlotte would be a lovely name as a future queen. I think the country was really hoping to see Princess Charlotte come to the throne after her grandfather was deemed mad and her father's unpopularity. Even sadder that she seemed happy in her short marriage unlike her parents and died so young. I think she and her son are buried at St. George's Chapel.

      Delete
    10. You are right. Think I lost my mind there. A beautiful memorial.

      Delete
  14. Yes, thank you for this lovely post. Thanks too, for the additional knowledgeable comments from various posters. As others have said, I would like to see more historical posts as well. The portraits are a lovely touch.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Very interesting post Charlotte!
    I love History and it's always a pleasure to learn more!
    I must admit that I've been surprised to read that Kate's only the third duchess of Cambridge!

    Cath

    ReplyDelete
  16. Very interesting post! I really enjoyed it! Most of this information was new to me, so I learned quite a bit. Thank you.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Thank you for this post! It's so interesting to catch the little details like the bracelet from Camilla. I didn't realize that it had the 2 "C"'s. What an interesting relationship Kate must have with Camilla...
    And, the use of the word STYLED as a way to describe the titles. Thanks for this.

    ReplyDelete
  18. This was an interesting post. Thank you!

    ReplyDelete
  19. LKC in South Carolina12 March 2013 at 16:25

    Yes, thanks for all the new to me information. I am off to Google the Cambridge tiara. I adore jewelry and have noticed Kate rarely wears any of the "big stuff" and even her wedding tiara was modest - considering it was a diamond tiara.

    I have also noticed she mixed white gold/platinum with mo yellow. Something that would have my sister in a dither if she noticed.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Lynn Georgia USA12 March 2013 at 16:56

    What a wonderful, well-written article, Charlotte! I also enjoyed your readers' comments and contributions. Many bloggers here are quite knowledgeable about Britain's royal history and traditions. I'm impressed!

    To those bloggers who expressed interest in Parisian history (in comments accompanying your last post), I recommend the book Is Paris Burning? Written by Larry Collins and Dominique Lapierre and published in 1965, the work combines investigative journalism and historical research to create a very readable, suspenseful (yes! even though we know the outcome!) account of Paris in 1944. The film, shot entirely on location in Paris and starring Kirk Douglas, Leslie Caron (and lots of other luminaries!), was absolutely wonderful, too. Though released in 1966, I'm sure it's still available in classic films sections of libraries, Netflix?, Amazon, etc.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Pauline Oak HIlls12 March 2013 at 17:02

    MS. Charlotte another great post. I loved reading about all the history. I am in the middle of doing family research on my fathers side. And I have found out that I could be realted to the Spencer family of England (so Princess Di could be related to me). My great grandfather was from England. And he was a Spencer. That is my maidam name.

    Now I can't wait until Sunday when we get to see this beautiful couple together again. It has been a long time.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That is one very exciting possibility Pauline, do let us know if you find out more :)

      Delete
    2. That's very exciting!!!

      Delete
    3. Sarah from Calif.13 March 2013 at 13:01

      Pauline, that is so exciting ! We will be in the 80s (temp) here today! I'm not ready for that but, no complaints. Have a lovely day. :)

      Delete
    4. Sarah , how amazing the temperature at this time of year is? Is that normal for California ? Whereabouts ru? We visited disney in California and LA a few years ago and San Fran. Loved then all but was disappointed by the temp in San Fran. It's very cold here again in uk, minus 2 with snow flurries although being in the west it's a bit milder. Sally, bath

      Delete
    5. Pauline Oak HIlls13 March 2013 at 23:29

      @ Sarah- Hello my Northern Calif. Friend. W will be abou tthe same today. It sure is nice to have warm weather for a change. I have to laugh, we had about 6 inches of snow on Friday. Go figure...lol

      Delete
    6. Sarah from Calif.14 March 2013 at 13:37

      Sally, LA is generally warmer. I'm on the Central coast. We have a lot of fog in the morning but will be in the 80s again today. San Fran can be abit cooler than us. I have been there when it was cold and foggy, and when the weather is gorgeous. Unfortunately you were there on a bad (weather day) . So you will just have to come back! I have only seen pictures of Bath and it is beautiful :)

      Delete
    7. Kate, Texas, USA14 March 2013 at 14:55

      Sarah, Sally, and Pauline, It's been a beautiful spring week here too. Temps are in the mid 70's today and will be in the 80's by the weekend. The flowers are blooming, trees are budding, and the birds are singing! Y'all come for a visit!

      Funny that my kids are "dying" to see snow! I don't think they would know what to do. It drops below 60 degrees and they are "freezing"...LOL!!!

      Whatever your weather, have a beautiful Thursday!!! :)

      Delete
    8. As a San Francisco girl, I should warn everyone to take heed of Mark Twain's apocryphal quote "the coldest winter I ever spent was a summer in San Francisco" and bring a jacket any time of year. Same is true of Carmel where Sarah just had a romantic weekend, a beautiful seaside town. The fog is what does it. Los Angeles is generally warmer but can still be cold in winter.

      Beautiful here on the San Francisco peninsula, with the trees in bloom and summer weather but we need more rain!

      Delete
    9. Sarah from Calif.14 March 2013 at 23:33

      Anonymous. 15:36. So true about S.F. and Carmel. It is kind-of funny that the (elite) golf tournament is in Pebble Beach, (granted on a nice day it's beautiful) but they are always dealing with the weather! I tell my husband (who loves golf) why don't THEY change the time of year. Seems simple to me. We were fortunate to get lovely weather on our little get away.

      Delete
    10. Yes San Francisco has better weather than the central coast certainly but not as good as southern california. The central coast except for carmel and monterey is a rural farm area and the poor weather helps grow the lettuce and salad fixins for the US. North is Santa Cruz where there is surfing and last american hippies.
      People interested in reading about the area can read John Steinbeck.

      Delete
  22. I would just like to say that I love all the comments this post created! Great discussion and I love the book suggestions everyone :)
    Kate from Canada

    ReplyDelete
  23. Wonderful history lesson! Thank you so much for the hard work you put into this. We really appreciate it and love every new update...even from all the way over the pond in the US :)

    ReplyDelete
  24. Thank you so much, Charlotte, for this wonderfull and very informative post. I, personally, can't wait to see Kate wearing a tiara. And I must admit, I'd find the Lovers Knot very appropriate for Kate. But what would be a possible occasion? What do you think, Charlotte?

    Can't wait to see William and Kate on Sunday and still hoping for un unexpected sighting ;-)

    X0
    Veronica

    ReplyDelete
  25. Very interesting post Charlotte! I love the history of the British monarchy. I'm American but have English and Scottish ancestry on my mother's side, descended from Henry III of England and his son Edward I. A question: what is Kate's legal name? Say when she gets her driver's license renewed, what name would be put on there? I know William uses Wales as a last name in the RAF, as does Harry, would Kate do this as well? Or Kate Cambridge? Kate Mountbatten-Windsor? I understand that in the court documents filed after the topless photos of Kate were printed William was listed as William Mountbatten-Windsor and Kate as Catherine Middleton.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I remember reading somewhere at the time of the proceedings that "Catherine Middleton" was a French legal requirement, as the lawsuit was filed in France. When she signs her name on official documents in the UK it's just Catherine. Didn't people spot the names on her Olympic pass and her credit card?

      Delete
    2. Jean from Lancs.13 March 2013 at 21:17

      Emily,
      We must be related! My husband and son have the same ancestors as you. Have spent years tracing them.
      Have you gone back from Henry 111?

      Delete
    3. Anon- I believe her Olympic tag said "HRH Duchess of Cambridge". I did not consider the possibility that her name would depend on her location, but that makes total sense. She is The Countess of Strathearn when in Scotland, but the DoC in England. I guess that wouldn't cut it as a legal name where France is concerned. I notice she is called "Madame" to reflect the marriage.

      Jean- Oh that's exciting! I love making genealogy connections. I stopped at Henry III but some day I'll go back and add his parents, grandparents, etc. But I've traced everyone in between me and Henry III. He is my 27th(!!!) great grandfather. I am a descendant of Edward I's daughter Joan of Acre, her daughter Margaret de Clare, her daughter Margaret de Audley, and her son Hugh de Stafford.

      Delete
    4. Jean from Lancs.14 March 2013 at 19:52

      My husband's line goes through John of Gaunt 1st Duke of Lancaster son of Edward III.
      Pretty straight forward after Henry III--I've traced back to Alfred the Great and through the wife of Henry I into Scotland.

      Delete
    5. Sarah from Calif.14 March 2013 at 23:35

      Jean and Emily, that is so cool! !!!!

      Delete
  26. Just wanted to say that I was looking at pictures of the Countess of Wessex and it appears that she and Kate have both worn the same dress, but in different colors. The dress Kate wore in May 2012 for a reception at Buckingham Palace and a garden party (http://www.justjared.com/2012/05/29/duchess-kate-buckingham-palace-garden-tea-party/) appears to be the same as the one the Countess of Wessex wore in March 2012 for the opening of Leeds Hospital. http://yorkshirepost.newsprints.co.uk/view/20687082/jh1_6679_jpg

    ReplyDelete
  27. Kate, Texas, USA12 March 2013 at 22:05

    Charlotte, I LOVED this post! WOW!!! I was a history teacher before having kids and now staying home. I miss teaching terribly, but am thankful to be home raising my children. This was so informative and a great read! I love reading and learning about Britain's royal history....so fascinating. I love seeing the portraits. They are so beautiful. I would love to see them in person!

    One idea for The Royal Digest....the love story between Queen Elizabeth and Prince Phillip. After 65 years of marriage, commitment, love, friendship, and respect all come to my mind. I love seeing early footage before she became queen. You can tell how much she loved him. So, in all you spare time...LOL!!!

    This will definitely be a post I will come back and read later this evening and probably several times after that. I haven't had a chance to read all the comments yet. SO interesting and exciting for me! FABULOUS job Charlotte!!! Thank you so much for your hard work and research!!!

    ReplyDelete
  28. Thank you for a very imformative post. :) Interesting history indeed.

    ReplyDelete
  29. LOVE this post! History of the monarchy is super interesting, particularly when considering where the modern monarchs fit in. Thanks for this.

    ReplyDelete
  30. Great post! I like learning more about the history of the monarchy and some of its other members. Thanks Charlotte!

    ReplyDelete
  31. hey charlotte,
    thanks for another great post. I really enjoyed the historical facts. well done. i have another fact to share although i am not really sure it is actually a fact. it is just something i once read.
    Augusta was the grandmother of Queen Mary as you know. So Cambridge was also the maiden "name" of Queen Mary's mother. Although after getting married Queen Mary's mother had the title "Duchess of Teck" (Mary being Mary of Teck before she married George V)Cambridge must have stuck somehow. I once read that queen mary's family were always referred to as "the cambridges" in royal circles when queen elizabeth was little. i don't know if i got that right but i always thought that is where the queen got the title from. the queen was very close to her grandmother Queen Mary so it would make sense. it would be a pretty sweet gesture to pass that title on to her grandson i would like to think.
    ps: the amount of germans in your royal family is hilarious :) greetings from germany!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Jean from Lancs.13 March 2013 at 13:28

      Dani,
      During WW1 George V changed the family name to Windsor and the numerous German Princes and Princesses who were living in the UK got their names changed--The Battenbergs became Mountbattens and others changed too. Queen Mary's brother Prince Adolphus of Teck became the Marquess of Cambridge. There were several daughters who used the surname Cambridge--I remember Lady Mary as she was about the present Queen's age--I think she was a bridesmaid at the Queen's wedding. Another sister married the Duke of Beaufort. They were all nieces of Queen Mary
      Another of Queen Mary's brothers became the Earl of Athlone--he was married to Princess Alice the daughter of Prince Leopold--Queen Victoria's youngest son.

      Delete
    2. Kate, Texas, USA13 March 2013 at 14:42

      The House of Windsor was established by King George V on July 17, 1917. He changed the name of his family from the German Saxe-Coburg and Gotha , a branch of the House of Wettin, to the English Windsor. This was due to the anti-German sentiment in the British Empire during World War I. In 1917, The Gotha G began bombing London. This coupled with the abdication of Nicholas II led to the King realizing he needed to abandon all titles under the German crown and go for an anglicised title. Many of the German relatives adopted British sounding surnames. One of those was Louis Alexander Mountbatten (Prince Louis of Battenburg) who was Prince Phillip's grandfather.

      A little more history on the German side.... Queen Victoria married her first cousin, Prince Albert of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha in February 1840.....Charlotte, this would be another great love story for The Royal Digest. :) The family was connected to many of Europe's ruling monarchs. They had 9 children together. When Queen Victoria died in 1901, their eldest son, Edward VII, succeeded as the first British monarch of the House of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha (named after the house which Albert, his father, belonged). He reigned from 1901-1910 and upon his death, his son George V ascended the throne. Interesting fact that Edward VII was heir apparent and held the title Prince of Wales longer than anyone before him. George V came to the throne of the House of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha, but as mentioned before abandoned the German titles and created the House of Windsor. An interesting fact on he and Queen Mary.... George's elder brother, Albert Victor, was engaged to Princess Victoria Mary of Teck (her father also having strong German influence being from the House of Wurttemburg). When Albert Victor died six weeks into the engagement, that left George as heir to the throne. During their mourning, they fell in love and married in July 1893. Then we have King George V and Queen Mary of Teck. :)

      The story continues on as you know, but I thought your comment on the "amount of Germans in the Royal family" was funny and very true.

      Delete
    3. thanks kate and jean for the more in depth info. it was very interesting to read and definitly set my vague knowledge about the whole "Cambridge" issue straight. i still think that the queen probably chose "Cambridge because of queen mary's connection to it and find it a very sweet gesture.
      i knew about queen victoria and albert from a movie called young victoria. it is such a romantic "girls" movie. period drama is the right term i think. if you haven't seen it you should definitly check it out. i would also love to read about them on the royal digits some time if charlotte wants to write about them of course :)

      Delete
  32. hey charlotte,
    thanks for another great post. I really enjoyed the historical facts. well done. i have another fact to share although i am not really sure it is actually a fact. it is just something i once read.
    Augusta was the grandmother of Queen Mary as you know. So Cambridge was also the maiden "name" of Queen Mary's mother. Although after getting married Queen Mary's mother had the title "Duchess of Teck" (Mary being Mary of Teck before she married George V)Cambridge must have stuck somehow. I once read that queen mary's family were always referred to as "the cambridges" in royal circles when queen elizabeth was little. i don't know if i got that right but i always thought that is where the queen got the title from. the queen was incredibly close to her grandmother Queen Mary so it would make sense. Mary played a huge part in bringing up Queen Elizabeth and Princess Margaret. It definitly would be a very sweet gesture of the queen to pass this title on to her grandson.
    ps: the amount of germans in your royal family is hilarious :) greetings from germany!

    ReplyDelete
  33. hey charlotte,
    thanks for another great post. I really enjoyed the historical facts. well done. i have another fact to share although i am not really sure it is actually a fact. it is just something i once read.
    Augusta was the grandmother of Queen Mary as you know. So Cambridge was also the maiden "name" of Queen Mary's mother. Although after getting married Queen Mary's mother had the title "Duchess of Teck" (Mary being Mary of Teck before she married George V)Cambridge must have stuck somehow. I once read that queen mary's family were always referred to as "the cambridges" in royal circles when queen elizabeth was little. i don't know if i got that right but i always thought that is where the queen got the title from. the queen was incredibly close to her grandmother Queen Mary so it would make sense. Mary played a huge part in bringing up Queen Elizabeth and Princess Margaret. It definitly would be a very sweet gesture of the queen to pass this title on to her grandson.
    ps: the amount of germans in your royal family is hilarious :) greetings from germany! also sorry if you got this comment 100 times. i don't know what my computer is doing!

    ReplyDelete
  34. SO interesting! It can be so tricky to keep all of Kate's titles straight. Thanks so much for all your research about the past Duchesses of Cambridge! Loved the part about the tiara- I am sure one day we will see Kate wearing the Cambridge tiara:)

    ReplyDelete
  35. My wife found out she was a 13th cousin to her royal majesty the Queen and a 8 cousin to Diana Princess of Wales. I myself was born in Reading, Eng to an English mum and an American air force dad. We try to keep up to date with my native country. This blog is a great way to do so.

    ReplyDelete
  36. My wife discovered she was a 13th cousin to the Queen and a 8 cousin to Lady Diana, Princess of Wales. I myself am British-American, American Air Force dad and English mum so we use this blog as a way to keep up with the royal family. Love your blogs.

    ReplyDelete
  37. WOW that was a very interesting read about the British Monarchy! The story of George and Caroline was an eye opener, especially about the mistresses he kept.Thank you Charlotte for this very informative post!!xoxo

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Kate, Texas, USA13 March 2013 at 15:10

      Having mistresses was quite common, but what a smart woman to keep them close as ladies-in-waiting...LOL!!! That would have never flown in today's society. We saw what happened with Charles and his 1 mistress....wow! The press would have a field day!

      Delete
    2. Pauline Oak HIlls13 March 2013 at 23:26

      @Kate & Siddhii- Hello my friends. Let's just hope our beautiful Duchess does not have to put up with William & a mistress. I think he has learn from his parents mistakes and seen how is mother was hurt.

      Delete
    3. Kate, Texas, USA14 March 2013 at 15:10

      Hello Pauline! I hope we can thankfully say William did learn his lesson. I think it will be a different story between him and Catherine. They had their "divorce" when they briefly split in 2007. I think William realized what a treasure Kate was and that he truly loved her. He realized he didn't want her with anyone else. So, I think he will follow his grandparents example and have a marriage based on love, respect, and friendship. You can tell how much they love each other and that they are a team. I think that love will continue to grow, especially as their family grows. I would definitely think William would not want a replay of his childhood with the hurt, sadness, and distrust.

      Delete
    4. I wouldn't bet the farm that William won't take a mistress at some point. He's used to getting his way. This is not a slam on Kate in any way, shape or form. It's more a slam on William who appears to be getting more petulant ande "my way or the highway" as he ages.

      Delete
    5. Pauline Oak Hills14 March 2013 at 22:33

      Hello My Friend from Texas- I sure hope you are right. I just would not want to see the Duchess hurt. You can tell the love they have for each other. But since she has been pregnant it seems she is in London (there is no proof that she has been back to Wales since they annouced her pregnancy) & William in Wales. I would think that William would want to spend as much time as possible with his Duchess & their unborn baby. But that is hard when he is spending all his time getting flying hours.

      Delete
  38. Hi Charlotte,

    Thanks again for a great post. As an American, I am totally fascinated with all things royal. One item that I still don't seem to have a handle on is the whole Eugenie/Beatrice outranking Catherine bit. At the moment, it is understandable because they were born Princesses. However, won't she outrank them at some point? But when -- when she becomes a mother to an heir, when/if she becomes Catherine, Princess of Wales, or when (god-willing), William becomes King?

    Or will it matter? Can Charles, once he's ascended, lay out the pecking order in a more favorable light to Catherine or is this not laid out by the monarch but by more formal rules?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Jean from Lancs.13 March 2013 at 13:06

      Hi Lynn,
      She outranks them now if she is with her husband and yes, when Charles becomes King, he can change the "pecking" order.

      Delete
    2. Kate, Texas, USA13 March 2013 at 15:07

      Lynn, Beatrice and Eugenie are blood royals, born princesses. When William and Catherine are together, she outranks all of them because of William's rank as future king and they curtsey to her. Interesting that when William and Catherine's baby is born, "It" will outrank them as heir and they will have to curtsey to "It". When William becomes king and Catherine queen consort, I believe then she will outrank them and they will curtsey to her.

      The same stood for Diana. If Charles was with her, everyone except the Queen and Philip would bow and curtsey. If she was alone, she had to curtsey to Margaret, Alexandra, Anne, Beatrice, and Eugenie (although I don't think she would have ever curtseyed to Beatrice and Eugenie).

      The Queen updated the Order of Precedence in 2005 after Charles and Camilla married. Someone correct me if I am wrong, but I think this is how it will be.

      Delete
  39. Elizabeth in Colorado13 March 2013 at 03:13

    http://queensjewelvault.blogspot.com/2013/02/the-cambridge-emeralds-and-delhi-durbar.html

    What I would love to see is the Cambridge emeralds gifted to the current Duchess of Cambridge. Interestingly, if you look at the above website, a pair of cabochon emerald and diamond earrings that are post earrings look quite similar to the dangle ones Catherine wore with the Mulberry green dress (the second time she wore it).

    ReplyDelete
  40. Elizabeth in Colorado13 March 2013 at 03:19

    http://queensjewelvault.blogspot.com/2013/02/the-cambridge-emeralds-and-delhi-durbar.html

    I'd like to see the Cambridge emeralds gifted to the current Duchess of Cambridge. If you look at the above website, you'll see a pair of emerald cabochon and diamond earrings that, although posts, appear remarkably similar to the ones Catherine wore the second time she wore the green Mukberry dress. If you recall, Diana also had access to these emeralds. Loved this post Charlotte! Love history.

    ReplyDelete
  41. Dear Charlotte,
    I read your blog frequently, and certainly enjoyed this post because of the historical background. I have a Bachelors in Art History so I like reading about the various royal lineage and too, their indulging in artistic endeavors and such. :) I wanted to share with you also, a blog post I wrote on Catherine soon after the announcement was made she was pregnant. Thought you and your readers might enjoy it: http://emilyroseschiller.blogspot.com/2012/12/duchess.html
    Blessings,
    Emilyrose

    ReplyDelete
  42. This was one of the best posts yet because I am a HUGE fan of the history of British royalty!! Fascinating to learn the history of the duchesses of Cambridge. I think we all see how and why the press and UK historians noted, both when Diana married Charles and Kate married William, that the two non-royal brides were more English than the English royal princes they were marrying - who were more German than English!! Really enjoyed this post. As far as the media using the "Kate Middleton," I would say that's more as a matter of recognition, especially overseas (and even in the UK) where people may not connect the Duchess of Cambridge and Kate Middleton as being one and the same. It's not a matter of disrespect, they just want readers and listeners to know who they are talking about. I'd also guess that it is a matter of space too, with "Kate Middleton" taking up fewer news inches than "Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge" every time she's mentioned in a story.

    ReplyDelete
  43. I also found a bit of information on the Lover's Knot tiara. I do remember reading, at the time, that the tiara was not given to Princess Diana but was a loan from the queen. Diana reportedly wasn't fond of the Lover's Knot piece, she famously said that it was too heavy and it gave her a headache. She often opted to wear the Spencer family tiara. Reports say the tiara was returned to the Queen upon Diana's death and is now back in the royal vaults. No word on who gets it after Elizabeth. Also, for those wanting Kate to be wearing a tiara at every formal occasion - even the Queen herself doesn't do that!!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The main engagement where everyone hoped for a tiara was the formal banquet in Singapore. None of the other formal occasions Kate has attended would have warrented a tiara. But that banquet proved less formal than we expected. William even wore a suit. Not sure why.

      Delete
    2. I'd guess politics and public relations - and knowing how that would look in the media when so many are struggling economically, both in the UK and in Asia - were at play there. These aren't the affluent 1980s and 1990s where Diana appeared dripping in jewels at every formal occasion. Different times and different circumstances.

      Delete
    3. It seems in general people dress more informally and wear less jewelry. Outside of the oscars where the stars borrow million dollar pieces world wide people, with the exception of the european royalty have moved away from large jewels and make the jewelry accent the clothes not the otherway around.

      Delete
  44. Hi Charlotte!

    This is my first time commenting, although I love your blog and check for new posts obsessively! Just wanted to say thanks for such a fascinating post! I thoroughly enjoyed it, and well done you for making sense of all the historical relationships. You have a real talent for writing about people, past and present, in a respectful yet humanizing way :)

    ReplyDelete
  45. The comments have been so interesting. Thank you all for sharing! We have so many knowledgeable people on this blog and amazingly some with links to the royal family. It's such an interesting discussion, I really appreciate your participation.

    Sometimes it's nice to do something a little different from news/fashion. I'm so pleased you all enjoyed the post. I've edited the end of the post advising new readers to take a look at the comments :)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. And thank you, Charlotte, for a post where we can all talk with each other. Getting to know someone is a good thing.

      Delete
  46. Theresa, from Paris13 March 2013 at 08:33

    Brilliant and fascinating post, Charlotte !
    Thank you so much.
    Snow again in Paris : where is the spring ??? Wish I could fly to Mustique ;)

    ReplyDelete
  47. For anybody wanting to read more about titles and styles these two posts from Royal Musings are fantastic. The first one explains in more detail about Kate's titles and styles while the second one talks about titles in general of the British Monarchy. They are both very interesting!

    http://royalmusingsblogspotcom.blogspot.com.au/2010/11/british-style-for-princess.html

    http://royalmusingsblogspotcom.blogspot.com.au/2011/02/princess-charles-who.html

    ReplyDelete
  48. Wow, very interesting to read. Just asking, when Prince Charles becomes a King, Kate will be Princess Kate right ?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. No, she will be the Duchess of Cornwall and Cambridge. In the very likely event that William is made Prince of Wales, she will become The Princess of Wales. Not Catherine, Princess of Wales, that would imply she was divorced. Basically, she is very unlikely ever to become Princess Catherine but will become Queen Catherine one day.

      Although there have been hints of changing that because male consorts aren't made king. I think this change is unlikely but who knows. In which case, the would become the Princess Consort, and then she would most likely be granted the title Princess Catherine, much as Phillip was made Prince Phillip.

      If for some reason, William didn't take the throne (let's hope not) it's possible that Kate might eventually be allowed to call herself Princess Catherine, just as the doweger Duchess of Gloucester used Princess Alice, even though she wasn't a princess in her own right. That has to be done by the monarch and there is no reason for it at this point.

      Other European monarchies have variations. Maxima for instance, is call Princess Maxima, (soon to be queen) but not Princess of Orange, even though her husband's title is Prince of Orange. That title is reserved for the heir and the spouse dones't take it. It will pass to their oldest daughter in April and she will become Princess of Orange. In Spain, Letizia is not a Princess with her own name but a Dona, (with the correct diocritical marking) and Princess of the Azures.

      Delete
  49. What drives me CRAZY is how Catherine is still, two years after the wedding, referred to constantly as 'Kate Middleton' in the mass media.

    The Countess of Wessex is not referred to as Sophie Rhys-Jones in the media, Diana post marriage was no longer referred to as Diana Spencer (though 'Lady Di' did persist for a bit it too eventual faded away), whether we adopt nicknames for them such as Princess Di there is still some connection to their new titles.

    I grudgingly accept that this is likely an effect of the digital age where generating hits is more often the objective than any serious attempt at journalism and search for her maiden name will generate more attention that Duchess of Cambridge or even simply just Catherine.

    What really puts me over the edge though is an article which refers to her as Duchess of Cambridge or Catherine all the way through and then sneaks in a 'Kate Middleton' in a photo caption or sidebar annotation just to get that search bot attention.


    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. People still call Diana Lady Di. I think because they really don't know what they are saying. The significance of title. Maybe she still was a Lady even after her marriage to Charles. Not sure. Anyone know?

      Delete
    2. Sarah Ferguson has always been called by her maiden name too. It confused me when I was a child that's why I remember!

      Delete
  50. If only Queen Elizabeth had taken the approach of other modern monarchs and allowed the women who marry princes to be known as princess! After all, there's Princess Maxima, Princesses Mary & Marie. Even Princess Lilian who wasn't allowed to marry Prince Bertil for years, specifically because she was a commoner, got to be called Princess "First Name." I'm fairly sure that Princess Letizia is technically the Princess of the Asturias, but she's still referred to as Princess Letizia. Even Masako in Japan is known as a princess. Because Kate & Catherine are common names, and because our era is casual, the press apparently wants to use her first name & Duchess Kate just doesn't roll off the tongue! There was some talk at the time of W&K's marriage that he wanted her to be known as Princess Kate (and Sophie had also preferred to be Princess Sophie). It just seems to me that the queen, in refusing the use of the term princess, has put these two women,and especially Kate, in the position of constantly being referred to as if they don't count as royals.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Sarah from Western Australia14 March 2013 at 03:02

      I believe I came across a discussion about this on the Royal Forums some time ago; it seems that the European continental royalty/aristocracy have a different system to Britain.

      According to the discussion, in Britain Kate is Princess William, in Europe she would be Princess Kate.

      It came up because last year Hereditary Grand Duke Guillaume of Luxembourg married Countess Stephanie de Lannoy. If Stephanie were British she would be known as a Lady, not as Countess, because of the British system.

      Frankly I prefer the continental system. It's so much easier to think of Crown Princess Mary of Denmark than Crown Princess Frederick. And doesn't Crown Princess Mette Marit sound better than Crown Princess Haakon?

      Besides, once you think of it, it really is ridiculous. Catherine is Princess William, but when William becomes King she won't be Queen William, will she? No queen has ever been known that way! Why the British royals can't change it so that she is Princess Kate I do not know. Perhaps someone can explain the reason why?

      Delete
    2. But Camilla can never use her title Princess of Wales because of the whole Diana connection. So it has been mentioned before that even if they could change the system, in order not to offend Camilla, who is more senior than Kate, Kate would be Duchess. But I really don't think Kate cares. She's still a Duchess! Will become Princess and then Queen. So I'm sure she isn't complaining. Beats working in Jigsaw! :P

      Delete
  51. My question is why are Bea and Eugenie princesses and Edward's children are not a prince and a princess? It seem like blatant favoritism to one child over another to make some royal and some not. I heard Princess Anne did not want royal titles but I never heard Prince Edward wanted that as well.
    One of the tabloids (not much cred) said the Queen wants Andrews's children to be the Cambridges' child's god-parent and not Kate's siblings. Again this may have no basis in reality but if it comes true it makes the Queen appear to have clear favorites among her children and grandchildren. She seems to like the Countess of Wessex but then she lets Charles eliminate her security making the Windsors appear to have odd family dynamics and in a way like many non-royal families. All the "rules" such as who bows to who make it appear things like titles are clear cut, but obviously this is not the case and family dynamics play a role.
    I also do not see why Edward was made an Earl and William and Andrew Duke's. I heard he may get his father's Dukedom eventually but again it seems unequal.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I think it's quite likely that Edward will take his father's title and it may be the queen's wish that her beloved Phillip's title be used by one of her children. To me, that wouldn't be unequal. It's worth remembering that it took Edward and Sophy a while to grow into their roles, much as is true now (in my opinion) for William and Kate. They have done a great job in recent years and have represented the queen on many occassions.

      I've always wondered why Louise and James aren't called prince and princess unlike Andrew's children, even though, according to what I've read, they are technically Prince and Princess. (Unlike Anne's children.) The queen seems devoted to her younger grandchildren too so not sure why the difference and whether that will change if their father takes a royal dukedom. It could be a personal choice of their parents. Since neither child is likely to have a royal role, they may have been thought to have a better chance to develop their own future without the weight of a prince and princess title. Still, it does seem a bit unequal.

      Delete
    2. I agree but according to media Charles does not want Andrew's children to have a royal role yet they are always referred to as Princesses. It may be a hubris streak in Andrew that makes him demand they be called as such.

      Delete
    3. It's the choice of the parents. Remember, Princess Anne decided that neither Peter nor Zara Phillips would have the title of prince or princess. I'd guess that Edward and Sophie have made the same choice, their children are Lady Louise and James, Viscount Severn. And you're right, the queen seems very close to her young grandchildren.

      Delete
  52. I would guess that Kate would wear a tiara for Charles' crowning, whenever that occurs. Colorado Eve

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Most likely before then, if she and William start to attend state banquets or go to royal weddings and the parties that go with them. (Although not too many heirs at age to marry right now.) Think William and Kate have chosen to keep things informal on their two royal tours, but as they do more, there's also a chance a tiara occasion could occur.

      Delete
  53. Catherine will never have the title "Princess Catherine" formally
    unless the monarch changes the current protocols.

    She is HRH the Duchess of Cambridge (she isnt Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge)
    When Charles becomes King she will immediately become HRH The Duchess of Cornwall and Cambridge.

    When William becomes Prince of Wales, she will be HRH The Princess of Wales (not Catherine, Princess of Wales)

    When William becomes King, she will be Queen Catherine.

    That's how it is FORMALLY but as these 2 have said, they dont mind what they are called.

    ReplyDelete
  54. Ana B. from Brazil14 March 2013 at 01:57

    Hello!
    What a great idea, Charlotte!
    Very interesting to read about the history of Catherine's titles...
    I've been thinking, once she becomes Princess of Wales, don't you think she will be more compared to Lady Di than she already is? I don't know, but I think it won't be healthy... the media will be insanely terrible, I guess.
    Can't wait for Sunday!
    Hugs from Brazil :)

    PS: I've read that some of you want the sun shining in the sky! Well, I can't take the heat anymore, it simply won't go away!!!! I'm willing to give you all the sunshine possible!

    ReplyDelete
  55. Great post. Love everyone's comments, so informative. I think part of the reason Kate is still called Kate Middleton is because that is who she was for 10 years while dating William. He even formally introduced her to the world as Kate in the engagement interview. He didn't start calling her Catherine until they went back to St Andrews. I know she is the Dutchess of Cambridge, but I hope she doen't get that tiara. She got Dianas ring so I would love Harrys wife to get that tiara. Just because she is Williams wife, I don't think she should have it all. And I think those are the 2 pieces tied so closely to Diana. The Spencer tiara belongs to her brother so that won't go to Harrys wife.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Just went onver the transcript of the interview. Didn't think much about it at the time. You are perfectly right! William does call her "Kate" repeatedly throughtout the interview (as does the interviewer). I always thought that business about her being known only as Catherine to her family was a lot of twaddle, and pushing the public to call her Catherine very off-putting. William doesn't sound quite sincere to me when he uses Catherine. So, I think she will stay Kate to most of us. It isn't disrespectful, just friendly.

      As for the tiara through, it's far too important a piece to go to Harry's future wife. It will stay in my opinion in the direct line of the sucession. If Kate doesn't choose to use it, it will be passed down to her children. Sooner or later though, I suspect she may use it. The Cambridge connection is a good reason to do so. There are a lot of years ahead.

      I doubt Diana's memory will ever fade completely but a new generation won't remember her while she was alive. I doubt the Spencer tiara will be used again, since William doesn't seem that close to his mother's family.

      It is interesting to remember that the ring technically belonged to Harry who gave it back to William to give to Kate. Harry is clearly extremely fond of Kate so I'm sure he's happy about it. He is also the one who has really kept his mother's legacy alive so hopefully some personal piece of Diana's jewelery, perhaps the pearl and heart necklace she had, will be passed to his future wife.

      Delete
    2. I think it's also wise to keep in mind that the jewelry owned by the queen could go to her daughter and granddaughters. William, Harry and Kate aren't the only grandchildren. Zara Phillips Tyndall has always been said to be the queen's favorite grandchild so even though she doesn't get the media's attention, she still stands to inherit from her grandmother, as do Beatrice, Eugenie and Edward and Sophie's children.

      Delete
  56. Charlotte, I love this blog because everything is respectful of the Royal Family, and it isn't a bunch of gossip. I'm sure Kate would approve and even enjoy it herself! Maybe she reads it too! I'm sure the Royals appreciate your responsible factual journalism. Thank you for having some dignity and writing such interesting things. I learned a lot! But, I still don't understand the significance of the titles. What is the significance of "Cambridge" or "York" or "Cornwall" Does this mean they are to be concerned with these regions of the UK?

    ReplyDelete
  57. Kate, Texas, USA14 March 2013 at 15:31

    I pulled out Paul Burrell's book "The Way We Were" last night remembering him speaking of the Lover's Knot tiara. He speaks of and has several pictures of some of the jewelry given to Diana from the royal vaults, but speaks of the day the Queen chose the tiara ahead of Charles and Diana's wedding in 1981. There is a beautiful picture of the tiara up close. It really is a stunning piece of jewelry!

    I think it would be a lovely and fitting gesture for Catherine to be gifted the tiara. Until then, I guess she can wear the more modest Cartier tiara worn on he wedding day. :)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Just a quick reminder that Catherine will be loaned that tiara, not gifted it. Most likely the same with Cartier. Possible that she could one day be given one in her own right, most likely an outside purchase, but most she wears will continue to be passed down through the royal generations.

      Delete
    2. Kate, Texas, USA15 March 2013 at 14:42

      Anonymous, yes I do know, but thanks for the reminder. I guess a wrong choice of words. When I was reading through the book, Paul Burrell refers to the jewelry as being gifted or gifts, but it's a given that everything comes from the Royal vault. After Diana died, everything went right back to the Royal vault. Do you think they would make an outside purchase or take jewels and create a new tiara? Fun to think about! Queen Mary had definitely added many pieces to the already large collection and upon her death everything was "gifted", "given", "loaned" to Queen Elizabeth. It will one day go to Charles and then to William. Catherine will have much to chose from in the future, but it would be lovely to see her in one of the beautiful tiaras now. :)

      Delete
  58. There's quite a bit of chatter on twitter regarding the possibility of William and Kate attending Cheltenham's Godl Cup Day tomorrow. I'll keep my eyes peeled for any more info :)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Pauline Oak Hills14 March 2013 at 22:40

      Oh what a bonus for us fans. I sure all the chatter is correct. It hs been awhile since we really seen them together. Yes they were at the wedding a few weeks back but you did not get any really good pictues of them, just a few. So hopefully if they do go then we will get alot of great photos of them.

      I will be up early here in California to check the blog...lol

      Thanks again Charlotte for always giving us great inof & pictures.

      Delete
    2. Sarah from Calif.14 March 2013 at 23:47

      Oh dear Charlotte, I was hoping for a peaceful weekend so I can catch up with all this reading and trying to figure out the title thing, also all this great info. of history that is calling my name left and right. So now we might get another post before I can catch up !!!!!!! Ha ha

      Delete
    3. Kate, Texas, USA15 March 2013 at 04:19

      Charlotte, any news from the tweeting world? Will there be a sighting at the Cheltenham Gold Cup? :)

      Delete
  59. Robin Indiana USA
    Charlotte you have out done yourself great job. Such a wonderful history lesson and you write it so magically. I totally agree with the other ladies I hate when the media refers to the Duchess as Kate Middleton! She has been married almost 2 years enough. Ana B I will take some of your warm weather it was 16 degrees last night with a little snow I am losing it fast. I had know idea that Duchess ring belonged to Prince Harry how caring of him to give it to his brother. Can anyone tell me what would happen to Prince Phillips if the Queen should pass. Does he keep his title? Charlotte you are the go to person just wondering. Have a great evening to all Robin

    ReplyDelete
  60. Prince Philip did go through the naturalisation process, but it was later established that he was already legally a British subject - all Protestant descendants of Sophia, Electress of Hanover (i.e. all people in line to the British throne) are British subjects thanks to a 1705 Act of Parliament.

    ReplyDelete
  61. What an *excellent* post, Charlotte! Thank you so much - as always, your writing style is lovely and the information is compelling. I really appreciated all the additional comments - well done, all! :o)

    ReplyDelete
  62. I read that Prince Edward will eventually become the Duke of Edinbrough. If Prince Andrew's daughters can be Princesses then why not Prince Edward's children be Prince James and Princess Louise? It just does not make sense, does it?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. i think they might have chosen not to burden their children with the titles prince and princess?!

      Delete
    2. More likely the choice was made for them. Prince Edward seems to like the pomp and like Andrew would most likely choose it for his children.

      Delete
  63. Good Morning everyone,

    No further news on Cheltenham. I do think it's a possibility but definitely not a certainty yet :)

    ReplyDelete
  64. I loved this post and especially the comments. I plan to read them over and over and get fresh pleasure from each reading. Colorado Eve

    ReplyDelete
  65. This is amazing I love all your post but ones like this with a history lesson are my favorite. Great morning read with my tea :) thanks for all your work!!!

    ReplyDelete
  66. This was a great post! Thanks so much for all of the fantastic information you included. :)

    ~ C. x

    www.RoyalGawker.com
    www.royalgawker.tumblr.com
    www.TheBlogtini.com

    ReplyDelete

Comments are most welcome! Constructive discussion is always encouraged but off topic or hateful remarks will not be published. If you wish to share your name and where you're from without using the sign in options, simply select the "Name/URL" option on the drop down menu and insert your name, and if you wish the country/state you're from. You can leave the URL blank.

If there are a large number of comments, it is necessary to click the 'Load More' button at the end of the comments section to see the latest additions.