Prince William Named Prince of Wales

[tihkon2]

And was there ever Prince Louis of Wales?

As far as I am aware and can see, no. There was a Prince Frederick Louis of Wales in the 1700's though.

 

[CyrilVladisla]

As far as I am aware and can see, no. There was a Prince Frederick Louis of Wales in the 1700's though.

Yes, There was a Prince Frederick Louis of Wales. However, I did not include him in the mention of Prince William's children because Prince Louis of Wales' first name is Louis not Frederick.

 

[tihkon2]

Yes, There was a Prince Frederick Louis of Wales. However, I did not include him in the mention of Prince William's children because Prince Louis of Wales' first name is Louis not Frederick.

Okay.....I didn't say you didn't? I am simply answering the question. And that answer was no.

 

[Mbruno]

The main gain is that King Charles ended any discussion of "when will William be made Prince of Wales" and he ended any assumption as if someone has "to earn that title".

"He is the Heir, he should be Prince of Wales. Period."

I hope the King will attribute the same clarity to Royal Family Orders and act alike in other monarchies: "She is the wedded wife to a prince of the blood royal. She gets the Royal Family Order because she is my daughter or granddaughter too. Period."

With such clarity the King damps any discussion of "earning a title" or "finally worth the Royal Family Order". Also that would be a fresh, modern and unbiased part of the new monarchy.

As part of his "reforms", the King could have made the title of Prince of Wales automatic and also accessible to women in their own right, in line with the titles for example of Prince of Asturias and Prince of Orange in other countries. However, he was not prepared to go that far.

 

[Hallo girl]

Thinking about the state the Uk is in at the moment, I think it was the best Charles could do when he announced that W&K would be Prince and Princess of Wales. I really believe he has loved his title as the heir and so many charity doings are now connected to that title - why let it lie around and be discussed when William needed to step in and take over right away? Having "no" PoW was far more dangerous that having one so soon after the queen's death. Plus it put an end to the whole Wales/Cornwall-title he acted out with his wife for so long. Announcing not only William as the Prince but Catherine as the Princess of Wales ended the situation with Diana, princess of Wales and Camilla, The Duchess of Cornwall before it could be muddled further with a Catherine, The Duchess of Cornwall (and Cambridge) who later becomes The Princess of Wales. Ugh, I don't see what Charles could have done better than this, even if it was fast. But I guess The Queen would have forgiven her son for acting in the interest of the Royal family here even though she is not buried yet.

But that is what happens in a constitutional monarchy, Charles became king at the moment of his mothers death. The historical events we witnessed this morning reflects that. We do not wait for the monarch to be buried to move on . There is no gap.

 

[wbenson]

As part of his "reforms", the King could have made the title of Prince of Wales automatic and also accessible to women in their own right, in line with the titles for example of Prince of Asturias and Prince of Orange in other countries. However, he was not prepared to go that far.

The principality of Wales already can be granted to women in their own right (but never has been). I believe George VI sought legal advice and was told that there's no restriction whatsoever on who can receive the title, though he ultimately decided not to rock the boat. It's the other titles of the heir apparent that can only be held by the sovereign's son.

 

[Sister Morphine]

As part of his "reforms", the King could have made the title of Prince of Wales automatic and also accessible to women in their own right, in line with the titles for example of Prince of Asturias and Prince of Orange in other countries. However, he was not prepared to go that far.

He's been king for 48 hours. Can you let the man bury his mother before you start complaining about what he hasn't done yet?

 

[tihkon2]

He's been king for 48 hours. Can you let the man bury his mother before you start complaining about what he hasn't done yet?

Seriously.....

 

[Sister Morphine]

Seriously.....

With the next two heirs being male, I would think if George's firstborn is a girl, the title of "Prince of Wales" will be redone similar to Prince/Princess of Asturias and Prince/Princess of Orange. I don't think it's something that has to happen right now, but I'm sure it'll happen at some point.

 

[Mbruno]

He's been king for 48 hours. Can you let the man bury his mother before you start complaining about what he hasn't done yet?

I was not "complaining", but rather merely remarking.

And thanks to WBenson for the clarification on the Principality of Wales.

 

[Biri]

As part of his "reforms", the King could have made the title of Prince of Wales automatic and also accessible to women in their own right, in line with the titles for example of Prince of Asturias and Prince of Orange in other countries. However, he was not prepared to go that far.

If Prince George's first child will be a daughter, it will be no problem to make her Princess of Wales in her own right, I am sure.

 

[Kataryn]

No. Prince Louis of Wales is the first Louis in the British, English, or Scots royal families (by birth.)

Interesting enough, there is no "Louis" in the jacobite succession line as well, though all "heir-generals of king Charles I. of Engalnd and Scotland" are descended from the "Louis"-kings of France up from Louis XIII. (via Henriette Ann's marriage to Louis XIII.'s son Philippe d'Orleans)- BTW - the descendants from Henriette Ann of England and Scotland obviously accepted that the claim died with Cardinal Henry Stuart in 1807 who was the last descendant of James II/VII. to die, thus ending the "Royal Stuart"- male line. That, even though the cardinal had explicitely named his cousin Charles-Emmanuel IV. of Sardinia as heir of the Jacobite claim to the throne of the UK. But obviously after nearly 100 Years of the Hanover dynasty in London it made no sense to discuss Royal inheritance in the North, when the interest of the "Jacobite claimants" lay elsewhere, mostly in Italy and nowadays (since the end of WWI) as a, while once Royal, nowadays a private family in Bavaria.



So IMHO it is auch a lovely choice to name the first-born boy George, the girl Charlotte (now of Wales, like George IV.'s daughter and heiress who died so unfortunately after having been so happy in her marriage for such a short time) and the last boy Louis, which is a first for the family.

 

[Hallo girl]

As part of his "reforms", the King could have made the title of Prince of Wales automatic and also accessible to women in their own right, in line with the titles for example of Prince of Asturias and Prince of Orange in other countries. However, he was not prepared to go that far.

He hasnt actually made any reforms yet. Give him time.

 

[Kataryn]

First names make better headlines. Remember how they insisted to write about Duchess Kate, Duchess Camilla, Duchess Meghan? I assume that journalists will switch between Kate Middleton and Princess Kate.

The Daily Fail already calls her "Kate Middleton, princess of Wales" as if she was already a divorced former princess who reverted to her maiden name!

 

[wartenberg7]

The Daily Fail already calls her "Kate Middleton, princess of Wales" as if she was already a divorced former princess who reverted to her maiden name!

Terrible! I will never understand how "royal correspondents" or other people dealing with royal matters, get it all so wrong...!

 

[wbenson]

The Daily Fail already calls her "Kate Middleton, princess of Wales" as if she was already a divorced former princess who reverted to her maiden name!

If "Kate Middleton" is a popular search term, online media outlets will be induced to use it in order to attract clicks.

 

[Kataryn]

But that is what happens in a constitutional monarchy, Charles became king at the moment of his mothers death. The historical events we witnessed this morning reflects that. We do not wait for the monarch to be buried to move on . There is no gap.

You mean there is no Interregnum - and you are right. The queen is dead, long live the king (in that case). But that doesn't mean he can only act directly afterwards and then not ever again. So I think it is only respectful to wait till this predecessoress is buried till starting to allot dukedoms to his family (apart from the title for his actual successor).

 

[Kataryn]

If "Kate Middleton" is a popular search term, online media outlets will be induced to use it in order to attract clicks.

I never thought about that! Thank you for this important (at least for me it is) information.

 

[Lilyflo]

Terrible! I will never understand how "royal correspondents" or other people dealing with royal matters, get it all so wrong...!

I don't think they get it wrong in the sense that they don't know better. It's a deliberate use by some online media to drive clicks and the sub-editors are the ones who edit text submitted by correspondents. I also think it's a deliberate disrespect in some instances due to reasons I won't elaborate here.

 

[Sister Morphine]

I don't think they get it wrong in the sense that they don't know better. It's a deliberate use by some online media to drive clicks and the sub-editors are the ones who edit text submitted by correspondents. I also think it's a deliberate disrespect in some instances due to reasons I won't elaborate here.

Yeah, if after 11 years of marriage and three children, you're still calling the Princess of Wales "Kate Middleton," you have an agenda, and it's not opaque.

 

[Mbruno]

Does Prince William sign William P now? What about Catherine?

 

[Sister Morphine]

Does Prince William sign William P now? What about Catherine?

Yes, he does and did earlier today, and I would imagine Catherine will as well.

 

[wbenson]

Does Prince William sign William P now? What about Catherine?

We'll have to see more of his signatures to know how frequently he's going to use it. The King only signed "Charles P" on official documents*, and neither of his wives used any letter at all after their names.

*And he wasn't necessarily consistent. I believe he signed "Charles P" at his first wedding but "Charles" at his second.

 

[W.Y.CII]

How frequent they would sign with "P" actually? Quick search on Google Charles didn't sign the "P".

Edit: oops just saw wbenson's reply

 

[Mbruno]

We'll have to see more of his signatures to know how frequently he's going to use it. The King only signed "Charles P" on official documents*, and neither of his wives used any letter at all after their names.

*And he wasn't necessarily consistent. I believe he signed "Charles P" at his first wedding but "Charles" at his second.

It looks inconsistent to me that the Queen Consort should sign "Camilla R" , but the Princess of Wales should not sign "Catherine P".

 

[Somebody]

I agree. It should be either both or -preferably- neither.

 

[ruaudladoube]

If "Kate Middleton" is a popular search term, online media outlets will be induced to use it in order to attract clicks.

This is true, however it's still lazy and disrespectful.

It would be easy enough to slip in a stock, "the former Kate Middleton" or something of the sort in their articles to have the search term without deliberately misnaming her.

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

Is it all the British media who do this or just the ones who also need to put the price of every outfit or value of the houses they have?

It is the British media. I never see in Continental media: "The actress' family has assembled in their 1.2 million Euro mansion in the Provence, while the hostess welcomed them in a summery 1.200 Euro dress by Fendi". Never. It must be the British media 's addiction and preoccupation to celebbies, properties and spending.

 

[Sionevar]

Terrible! I will never understand how "royal correspondents" or other people dealing with royal matters, get it all so wrong...!

On CNN yesterday, when Anderson Cooper asked what a Queen Consort is, and why the Queen wasn't known as that, not one of the supposed royal experts on hand was able to explain it correctly. Then, Don Lemon referred to Charles as 'His Royal Majesty'.

I don't expect Americans (or even most Brits) to know this stuff, but surely, when an event like this happens, a brief 101 should be issued to anyone who's likely to cover it on TV, so they know the basics?

 

[tihkon2]

It is the British media. I never see in Continental media: "The actress' family has assembled in their 1.2 million Euro mansion in the Provence, while the hostess welcomed them in a summery 1.200 Euro dress by Fendi". Never. It must be the British media 's addiction and preoccupation to celebbies, properties and spending.

Actually, the Italian magazines do this and it is extremely annoying. The age and price of everyone and everything.