I’ve been on the “royal beat” for so long, I remember when there was a HUGE controversy over Prince George’s birth certificate in 2013. You see, on Prince George’s birth certificate – which Prince William filled out – Kate’s occupation was identified by William as “princess of the United Kingdom.” The British royal reporters freaked out because up until then, the official word from Kensington Palace and Buckingham Palace was that the Duchess of Cambridge was just that: a duchess, not a princess, and that her job is technically “duchess of the kingdom,” not princess. People were actually really mad about it.
But time passed and I guess people forgot, because the controversy is here again. According to Richard Palmer, William registered the birth of Prince Louis this morning. William didn’t even have to leave the palace: the registrar from the Westminster Register Office came to them at Kensington Palace. Here’s Prince Louis’s birth certificate:
Prince Louis of Cambridge's birth has been officially registered. Photo of his birth certificate, signed today by his father, Prince William: pic.twitter.com/0zhJMKswYe
— CBC News Alerts (@CBCAlerts) May 1, 2018
Again, William put his job title as “prince of the United Kingdom” and Kate’s job title as “princess of the United Kingdom.” Going back and reading my prior coverage of the 2013 “princess” issue, I’m reminded of a theory I had back then, and I still have: that the Queen didn’t give Kate a princess title for good reason, and William was always pissy about it and so he threw a tantrum about it when he registered George’s birth. That was William daring his grandmother to say something or correct him, which of course she didn’t. And so now it’s on record: Kate is a “princess” and her job is princessing. *eyeroll*
Photos courtesy of WENN.
The Queen really couldn’t give Kate a princess title. She would have had to be born a princess to be called Princess Kate. However, since she’s married to William, she is technically Princess William.
She can, Princess Alice, Duchess of Gloucester was not born a princess and the Queen gave her a princess title. Prince Philip was born a prince but renounced his title as a Prince of Greece and Denmark in 1947 to become a commoner named Philip Mountbatten , she then made him a Prince of the UK in 1957. But you are right, she is currently Princess William and the Queen has no reason to make her a princess in her own right at this time. The only way I would see that happening would be if William pre-deceases Kate before she becomes Queen.
Princess Alice’s title wasn’t ratified by parliament which means it wasn’t real ie not legal.
Philip’s British Prince title was ratified by parliament wh8ch made it real ie legal.
In other words, the Queen (monarch) may wish/ pronounce certain things, but if she doesn’t do the paperwork (get parliament to sign off on it), it isn’t legal.
HRH Princess Alice was very old, and had carried out many duties in her time. There’s no way that Kate would get bumped up to princess and placed on a level with the York princesses! Kate still hasn’t even received a Royal Family Order.
I suppose Charles could give her a Princess title when he becomes King.
AAA
Kate will never carry a Queen Title or I’m guessing a princess title to her name aka princess Catherine. Not princess william.
She would be consort. If William passed while king I’m guessing the next heir would take the throne. So the bloodline never loses power and placement.
Queen Consort is still Queen, so if William becomes King (Regnant) then Kate will be Queen (Consort) unless the laws of UK accession are changed.
It is possible that the wife of a king is just “king’s consort” (aka “king’s wife”) and that is in rank even lower than “Queen consort”.
Technically The Queen can. She can issue a letter patent and elevate her to a princess title.
Exactly, she is Princess William but styled by his Dukedom as Duchess of Cambridge. Meghan will be Princess Harry but styled by the Dukedom the Queen bestows on Harry on his wedding day & she will be styled as Duchess of (Sussex or Clarence?) her children will have Their mother’s job be listed as Princess of the U.K. as well.
Catherine will one day be Princess of Wales & & then Queen so no matter the current title her job (as well as Meghan’s) will remain Princess of the U.K.
This woman has to put on stockings, make-up and hills a few hours after giving birth and parade in front of the camera for the whole world to judge her. And she did it 3 freaking times.
I’m no Kate apologist, but for Pete’s sake, let her have the bloody title. Who cares anyway??
OMG! I was thinking the same thing. She just pushed out a human being a few hours ago. At that stage I was still in my hospital gown looking like a semi truck hit me.
I care. Loads of women have to do much more difficult things on a regular basis, with less money, power and privilege. This is the life she has signed up for, and in return she is rewarded with un-imaginable wealth and luxury. Maybe I’m cranky today but I really can’t wait until we do away with the whole lot of them.
But you actually care that the birth certificates for her children label her a princess? I wish I had your problems.
wow – seriously? this is a gossip site so we all “care” to one extent or another, you included. In fact, you cared enough to even leave me a nasty response! No need for your snark. You also know nothing about my life or my problems
also, I do care about royals because they take my country’s money, and are lazy and useless.
@marigold – love your comment!
What on earth does it matter what was written on someone’s kid’s birth certificate
I totally support your comments OriginalLala. I can’t believe some women want to make a hero out of Kate for putting on make up after giving birth. I personally expect more from someone before I make them a role model. Oh, and its a bit rich to chastise OriginalLala for having such petty problems. The representation of weak women like Kate as role models should be problems for us all.
No, she doesn’t have to, she chooses to. Just like she chose to bring three members of her makeup and hair team up a mountain in Bhutan because she wanted to get “photo ready” before photographers were allowed to take her picture.
This is priceless. I didn’t realise she’d done that. One of them should have also brought an egg lifter to hold up her cheeks.
Exactly! This is Kate’s vanity at work here, not some societal pressure she is succumbing to. The ridiculous Bhutan example flushed out her vanity.
The Swedish royal women have it in perspective: Sofia left hospital in track pants and sweater and no-one thought the worse of her.
Well, she is Princess William but cannot be Princess Catherine on her own right, since she wasn’t born royal. I don’t think the Queen could have given her the title of “princess”.
there’s really no reason why the queen would want to. Her work ethic is very poor. Hell she still hasn’t given Kate the Family Order and Sophie got her after 2 years of being married in.
Mountain out of not even a molehill. The Queen can’t give a Princess title without restructuring the British title system. Kate is currently a duchess because her husband’s highest title is a duke. If he hadn’t received the additional title she would have been Princess William.
Agree.
1. Why does the father’s title come first on a birth certificate?
2. Why are there occupations at all?
What does this look like when a young woman working as a cashier (or something) gives birth with no father involved? Like, this format is designed to be especially humiliating for her.
At least we have moved on to where space is given to the mother’s occupation because when William was born, Diana was listed by her POW title, and nothing more. None of this Princess of the United Kingdom nonsense, but also no space to list an occupation.
https://i.pinimg.com/originals/4d/f9/09/4df909317066aabfc6843d622d9d20fc.jpg
Wow, even Diana’s name wasn’t on the birth certificate, just her title.
That confuses me too – being a “princess” is a title, not an occupation, right?
It is both an occupation and strictly speaking, she can have it as her title too, but she would be Princess William, and presumably prefers to go by Duchess of Cornwall. Princess Michael of Kent has a similar title, but I don’t think she has another title she can use, except for the one she had before she married her current husband.
Given their work history, we can only conclude that the occupation of ‘prince/princess of the United Kingdom’ means abject laziness while spending buckets of other people’s money. Ridiculous titles for ridiculous people.
When I was born, IIRC, birth certificates had a space for Occupation for the father but not the mother. (New York State). So … progress? However, you’d think as the carriers, mothers would and should come first.
@Bettyrose fwiw, I was born in the US and my birth certificate looks almost exactly the same. It includes occupations of both parents.
Occupations are listed I think because it is also census type information – I only know what my ancestors did because it is on birth and marriage certificates etc. It is social history being recorded.
A father can only be recorded on the birth certificate if he goes along when the birth is registered, so the form is hardly the problem. If the father was working away, on active service or whatever they also wouldn’t be on the birth certificate and it would have to be sorted retroactively. So it isnt just single mothers.
The rules have changed. The absent parent can complete a statutory declaration of parenthood which the other parent takes to the registrer.
https://www.gov.uk/register-birth/who-can-register-a-birth
Wow. I’m Canadian and I registered all 3 of my children’s births online, no one had to be present.
Was education once listed on the US birth certificate or am I making that up? I could have sworn that was on mine (1981). I should go find it & check.
Yes, this is rather old-fashioned. On my daughter’s American birth certificate from 1994, mother and father info is side by side. And it doesn’t ask about occupation for either of us.
She wasn’t born a princess so the queen couldn’t “give” her a princess title. However, as the wife of a British prince she is a princess of the UK. Same as Sophie, same as Sarah prior to the divorce.
It’s actually great that she wore heels just few hours after giving birth. But for god’s sake she wore them only for few minutes!!!!! Moreover she did not walk for hours in those heels! She must have removed them as soon as she entered the car. So let’s not give her huge credit for it! This women likes to wear them because she ‘s obsessed with them!
Right? I mean from there on she literally has to nothing except feed and care for her newborn. No chores, no cooking, no school runs etc. All the things us common folk would be doing with a third baby. I would gladly stuff myself into hose and heels for 15 minutes in exchange for the lap of luxury the rest of my life! Get a grip people. There are stronger, more admirable women out there.
Yeah, she looked great after all births (George’s appearance was my favorite though.) But I’m tired of everyone praising her to high heaven over it. First, she clearly likes heels. She is comfortable in them. Second, she also clearly has fast and uncomplicated labors and deliveries. I know lots of people who went med-free, delivered at midwife centers (here in the US) and went home a few hours later, and were feeling pretty normal pretty fast. (minus sleep deprivation and stuff like that, lol.) And third – she literally got dressed up, and then is going home to her palace where we wont see her again until May 19, and then probably not again until June, if that.
Did I want to meet the press a few hours after giving birth? no. But this is the trade off for her lifestyle, and she loves her lifestyle (I would too, so no judgment there.)
There is no Nobel prize for wearing heels, no Pulitzer, no honorifics whatsoever. It is not an achievement. If she wants to squeeze into ’em and likes the way they look, god bless.
@WATP, Well there should be! Don’t you know Kate is a hero! *sobs real tears* A HERO! That eyeliner and concealer doesn’t put itself on, you know! Her makeup artist has to do it 😉
I don’t know why she did not wear flats or cute, comfy shoes. Could have sent a more accessible message to the women going through labor. Should have been completely fine. I think it’s her choice, it’s not like she was forced to wear a short dress and heels – could have opted for another outfit… Just as a contrast here’s Princess Sofia leaving the hospital: https://us.hellomagazine.com/royalty/12017090123731/sweden-prince-carl-philip-princess-sofia-bring-newborn-home
Likely she isn’t doing all the feeding and caring for her newborn. She does probably insist on her beauty sleep and such. She has nurses and nannies and staff to do the household chores and such.
I don’t like Kate’s glamourization of giving birth either. It is bad enough that society seems to expect women to look good and nice and hair and fashion and thin and heels and such. But does this kind of glam womanhood have to happen after birth, too? And does a public figure like Kate, “Princess of the UK” have to advertise such an idea of womanhood? She isn’t doing the women / the people who she works for any favours by walking out dolled up like that right after birth.
I’m sorry, I am still focused on the Rosemary’s Baby dress comparison.
It is soooooo…..right, there.
I read the Rosemary baby/prince Lou thread last night and I couldn’t get the picture of MF creepy face out of my head. I had nightmares of Kate morphing into Mia and vice versa, that thing gave me the creeps!! 🙂
Isn’t she going to be the Princess of Wales once Charles ascends the throne though?
She will be after Charles creates William the Prince of Wales.
I suspect that the Monarchy will have a very tough time continuing on after the Queen passes. Charles – on course to be King so far – will face huge uproar because of Camilla, because of his history, because he’s political and because he’s unlikeable.
In fifty years, there might not be a monarchy to represent, at least in the commonwealth countries. So all of this Prince and Princess stuff will likely be moot.
Let’s hope for that. These lazy royals are boring as hell!
We can only hope the whole shebang collapses during Charles’s time, not because of his views (at least he thinks) or distaste for Camilla. It should be abolished because it is obscene to forcibly take public monies and strew them on one uber-wealthy family who revel in fantasy titles and protocol to exclude others. Royalty = no such thing. It is an insane system to elevate a few at the expense of the many.
I’m hoping for Charles is the last king TBH, nuff said. 🙂
40 percent of marriages in the UK end in divorce. There is a small percentage of hanger-on devout Diana fans who hate Camilla, but otherwise most people either don’t care or moved on long ago.
Can someone explain how Diana was a princess but Kate is not? Confusing rules to an American!
Diana was married to the Prince of Wales so she became the Princess of Wales. She was not a princess in her own right the way Princess Charlotte is. technically Camilla is also the Princess of Wales but does not use that title. Kate is married to the Duke of Cambridge so she is the Duchess of Cambridge.
She wasn’t. At least, she wasn’t Princess Diana. That was always incorrect. She was technically Diana Princess of Wales (I think there are some rules as to when she was Diana, Princess of Wales and Diana Princess of Wales, and she lost the HRH in the divorce).l She was never Princess Di.
And yes to tack on to Merritt’s comments – had William not been a duke, Kate would have been Princess William, so a princess then, but she’s a duchess now. She’ll be Catherine Princess of Wales when William becomes Prince of Wales.
Becks: to be clear vis a vis title
Married = The Princess of Wales.
Divorced = Diana, Princess of Wales.
Daughter = Princess Charlotte of Wales (daughter of George 4)
So speaking of Sophie, she has two titles, Princess Edward and Sophie, Duchess of Wessex, correct? She uses the Duchess title because it is a higher rank and she can’t call herself Sophie The Princess Edward, or can she?
How would I as a commoner (that sucked to write) address say Sophie or Beatrice or other royals in public? Simply call them by their first name while saying hello, or do they expect titles in the greeting too?
No Sophie is a countess, not a duchess. I think its expected Edward will be Duke of Edinburgh some time after Philip dies and then she’ll be a duchess.
Lady D: The wife of an Earl is a Countess. Therefore Sophie is The Countess of Wessex.
If Edward is upgraded to Duke as many expect he will, she will also be upgraded to Duchess.
As for how you address them…….
First contact = as formal as possible ie Your Majesty / Highness / grace (depending on whether they are Monarch / Prince / Duke rank respectively). And if you are really obsequious, you bow or curtsey to Monarch and Prince, but never to a Duke or lower.
After that it is Sir / Ma’am for Monarch / Princely ranks, and your grace for duke rank.
It’s less pedantic the ranks lower than Duke because you only call attention to their rank if you are in a situation that calls for it. You might stretch to Lord / Lady X, but other than usual politeness, no specific language.
Regarding your question about when to use their first names, only if they invite you to do so and or you are so familiar with them that you are given permanent permission to use their first name.
Fun fact: all of Charles’s girlfriends and friends call him Sir to his face. Diana only started using his first name after the engagement.
Within the family they use first names or nicknames, but can be quite formal when discussing each other to outsiders to the extent that they use their titles. Very few of them deviate from this public formality.
Sophie is a Countess but is also Princess, yes, as Kate, but Sophie with Edward’s name. Sophie is HRH The Princess Edward, Kate is HRH The Princess William, Meghan will be HRH The Princess Harry. Sarah Ferguson “was” The Princess Andrew.
Camilla is HRH The Princess of Wales.
Does anyone know if Harry will be given a Duke title or Earl on wedding day?
Then Meghan would be Countess ….. anyone know? Does Harry have to be given a Dukedom? Duke title?
Diana lost her HRH after divorce, but so did Sarah. I always wondered why a fuss was made about Diana losing HRH but no one said anything about Sarah losing HRH. Don’t the HRH stay with the Monarchy it came from anyway in a divorce.
If Kate divorced William wouldn’t she lose the HRH too?
Larne: Regarding the fuss over Diana’s HRH vs Sarah’s HRH……blame Diana and Sarah’s public disgrace at the time of her divorce.
To begin, Sarah was divorced first, with HRH intact. Soon after that divorce, Diana’s divorce negotiations started. She voluntarily gave up her HRH (and RPOs) in exchange for a better divorce settlement.
Afew weeks later, she regretted the loss of HRH particularly the loss in status which meant she had to curtsey to minor royals AND the disgraced divorced Sarah.
She went to the media and complained about the lost HRH. She reframed the truth as the mean horrid royals taking / stripping away her HRH. She threw in little William to give the tale extra emotive kick, and didn’t mention that she’s voluntarily given it up. She was trying to shame the royals into giving the HRH back to her. They refused, and the Queen’s response to the media shaming was to amend the letters patent that govern who can hold HRH to say that if you divorce, you automatically lose the HRH.
The unintended consequence of that amendment was that Sarah lost her HRH, but no one cared about that since Sarah was divorced under a cloud and the media had been running a hate campaign for years.
Diana’s media lie and attempts to shame the royals about her HRH has become accepted as truth in public opinion even though her divorce moves were later confirmed by various (retired) lawyers working on both sides and biographers. Helped along by her brother’s eulogy at her funeral.
Edward asked for an Earldom which was granted with the express wish that he receives Philip’s dukedom when Philip dies.
Edward was a special case in his request because the highest title on offer for the royal men is a dukedom. That is the title Harry is expected to receive.
The men who marry princesses are offered Earldoms. That’s the highest title on offer.
@LAK, you rock!
Thank you Lak. I always wondered why Diana was kicking up a fuss about HRH and Sarah never said much concerning the matter after she lost the HRH.
Diana was still called Princess and Sarah is still Duchess, I wondered why the HRH mattered so much to Diana. She was beloved worldwide, still Princess and respected by millions.
This is a tricky one, and its interesting to me because I’ve done a lot of reading about the Windsors. There are three issues at hand:
First: When Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon, really the first commoner to marry in the Royal Family, married Prince Albert (at the time Duke of York, to become George VI) the announcement was made that “in accordance with the settled general rule that a wife takes the status of her husband Lady Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon on her marriage has become Her Royal Highness the Duchess of York with the status of a Princess”.
However: when Wallis Simpson married the Duke of Windsor, George VI issued Letters Patent that she would not be a Royal Highness, thus she would not be granted the status of her husband. The Letters Patent were issued for this particular situation, but upset the “settled general rule”.
And then: When Alice, Her Royal Highness the Duchess of Gloucester was widowed, she requested that the Queen allow her to use the style Princess Alice, Duchess of Gloucester rather than the Dowager Duchess of Gloucester. The Queen granted this request. It gave Princess Alice equal status to her sister in law, Princess Marina, Duchess of Kent (who was born a princess of Greece.
So what I think happened is that there was a lot of confusion in the Royal Household about who in fact can bestow the title of princess, and whether there is generally settled rules about it.
TL; DR: I’m okay with the Princess of the United Kingdom thing.
Some clarifications,
1. Everyone, regardless of status, is a commoner unless they hold a peerage title in their own right. Peerage titles are recognised in our peer system ie Duke, Marquess, Earl, Viscount, Baron, knight.
That makes Prince Harry a commoner because he doesn’t hold a peerage title and Dame Helen Mirren is not because she holds a Dame title -Dame being a female Knight.
2. It’s accepted that George 6, with the encouragement of his wife and mother) was being petty in refusing to grant Wallis an HRH title because legally she was automatically an HRH. However, the monarch can grant or withhold certain privileges eg HRH/ style IF parliament signs off on the decision. Therefore, given the animosity of the British establishment towards Wallis and the lengths the govt went to smear her, no one was in the mood to give her a style if the King didn’t want to give it. In other words, if she’d lobbied parliament, and found supporters, the King wouldn’t have a legal leg to stand on.
3. The Queen adored Princess Alice, and acquiesced to her wish to be known as Princess Alice instead of Dowager Duchess of Gloucester. However, the Queen never got parliament sign off on the decision, nor did she add a note to the letters Patent about it therefore whilst it was nice for PA to be called thus, she wasn’t legally a princess. Ie it wasn’t real.
@LAK – didn’t they also withhold the HRH from Wallis because, with two marriages behind her, they were afraid that #3 wouldn’t last, either, but she’d be walking around for the rest of her life with an HRH?
@Violet, that was the logic given why Wallis was not made HRH and that made sense for why it did not happen right off the bat, but there came a point where it was .clear that the Windsor marriage would last, and Wallis still was not given the HRH styling, so yeah petty.
Violet: What AAA said. They were using moral rather than legal reasons for witholding the HRH.
The Queen solved the divorce problem by adding a caveat to the letters patent to say that if you divorce an HRH, you automatically lose the HRH.
Congrats Will, you outwitted the entire monarchy. Or at least committed fraud or incompetence. As my Puerto Rican Mom would say “the rooster reveals himself by his scratching in the barnyard.”
I love that!
Also, this is pure gossip from 7 years ago so I may be misremembering, but I read at the time of their wedding that William had asked NOT to be made a duke, so that Kate could go by Princess (Which seemed a weird request?) but if she was made a duchess, she would go by that since it was the higher title.
So who knows if that was true, but it would make sense with your theory Kaiser that William just put that on the birth certificate to make a point.
He really is a petty little man…
Also a spoiled prick. Worthless man.
I doubt that story is true since it doesn’t make much sense. Also people are overreacting about the occupation. It seems like a stretch that there was any point being made. It is not like anyone in his family is going to read it or care.
I remember that. He allegedly thought that Duke was fuddy duddy and not high enough a rank in terms of a courtesy title for Kate. He wanted her created a princess.
Also, allegedly, he was surprised to learn that duke ranked higher than Prince!!!
LAK yes! So I’m not making it up lol. I remember he was surprised that the duke ranked higher and apparently was willing to stay “just” a prince.
Would the Queen or Charles ever elevate someone to a title of a princess by a letter patent? I always wondered why people including myself still call Diana Princess Diana?
We call her Princess Diana because that’s what People Magazine taught us to call her. Plain and simple! But she was Diana, (the comma!) Princess of Wales. There’s a difference between that and the Princess Royal, Princess Anne.
Well, Princess Diana has stuck even after 20 years since he death. It’s amazing to be honest.
It also flows better.
and now 30 years later, People insists on calling Kate “Princess Kate” and confusing readers all over again.
What else would he write though? She is a working royal so that is her occupation. Duchess of the UK?
Also, why is he His Royal Highness William and she is Catherine Elizabeth, Her Royal Highness?
What else would he write? How about the truth: Do nothing lazy fart
Yes.. Lol
Also, why is he His Royal Highness William and she is Catherine Elizabeth, Her Royal Highness?
Once Kate married William she no longer has a first name, technically she is Her Royal Highness The Duchess of Cambridge. I’m guessing he included Catherine Elizabeth to give her some form of identity and perhaps so that in a few hundred years the reader of the document will know which Duchess of Cambridge is being referenced.
Overly simplified, it’s because the “HRH” goes with the Cambridge duchy, NOT with Kate herself.
If a princess title is lower than a duchess, I don’t think he’d try to stick it to the Queen to get the lower title. Getting on the Queen’s bad side doesn’t make sense to me, to be honest. William may be petulant, but I don’t see it how it is in own best interest to antagonize the head boss of the institution. Yeah, I know Diana did it, but her kids would have learned lessons from watching what happened.
He can’t write unemployed for either of them (even if that’s the truth), so I think he wrote prince and princess as default. He’s probably so used to hearing those titles, I wouldn’t be surprised if he wrote it by reflex.
I mean, yeah, she put on makeup and hose and heels right after giving birth and had them on for a few hours, but hasn’t everyone here done things far harder than that? Not to downplay her, but shit. I’ve done far more difficult things just in the last year of my life.
Kate is married to a bona fide Prince of the United Kingdom, isn’t she? It keeps being said that wives take their rank from their husbands, this is why what was done to Wallis Simpson was wrong. So, either as Princess William OR HRH (I thought the HRH gives her the “rank” of princess?) the Duchess of Cambridge, she may not be a Blood Princess of the UK, but she holds the rank of Princess, or am I completely off here? So on the passports and kids’ birth registrations, it isn’t exactly wrong that she’s a Princess of the United Kingdom, she just isn’t a blood princess? Do they really have to make a distinction on something like a passport or kid’s birth registration thingy?
As William’s “birth” and “job” titles happen to be exactly the same thing (the ducal title wouldn’t have changed anything basic about his rank), what else would he put there?! Do people this close to the throne get to head up private sector organizations?! Does Charles put on his passport, “And President (or whatever his title for it is) of The Prince’s Trust”?!
When Meghan marries Harry, she will also be a Princess of the United Kingdom, or if the Queen gives Harry a ducal title, Meghan will be an HRH Duchess of xxxxx (rank of Princess) OR if no ducal title, Princess Henry, right?
So I don’t get the anger about the title unless they really want to restrict the stuff on official docs to make a distinction between blood and “married to get it” princesses.
Also, I have another question: if Meghan still isn’t a UK citizen by the day of the wedding, and from what I understand she’s taking the long, not-grandfathered-in-with-special-treatment route, can she still be a Princess of the UK like Kate is? How can you be a Princess of the UK if you aren’t yet a citizen of the UK?
So the Queen might announce that Meghan has the courtesy title of Princess Henry and then grant the ducal title when her citizenship is final? How does that all work?
When you marry a title, it is extended to you as a courtesy. You are not holding the title in your own right. Therefore MM can hold the courtesy female version of Harry’s title without her citizenship coming into it.
On the other hand, if she were to be granted a title in her own right without holding full UK citizenship, that title would be honorary. Like DAME Angelina Jolie who is an honorary dame rather than an actual Dame because she isn’t a UK citizen. It gecomes real the minute she becomes a UK citizen.
@LAK – thanks! I wondered how the citizenship thing would work with a title. So Meghan will have the title, which will be whatever Harry’s is, by courtesy, but won’t be able to put it on a passport until it’s a UK passport.
What about Anne’s husband? Was he the Prince Anne?
Snap Happy: Titles are granted to males, but courtesy extended to females.
To your specific question, both Anne’s husbands refused titles – this option is available to all. They retained their own names sans titles. Ditto *Alexandra’s husband.
*Alexandra’s husband later admitted his regret at refusing the offered Earldom so that when he was later offered a knighthood, he took it without hesitation.
Margaret’s husband accepted the title to become The Earl of Snowdon.
The Queen’s husband was given a much higher rank than Earl because the King felt the heir to the throne couldn’t marry someone without a title or one of a rank less than a duke.
Violet: She can use her courtesy title her passport because confusingly in marrying Harry, she loses her name so they have to call her something which in this case is her courtesy title.
What she can’t use is any title given in her own right if she isn’t a UK citizen ie she can be Mrs Harry Windsor (the courtesy title), but she can’t be Meghan Windsor (title in her own right).
I have read that Princess Margaret was furious that her husband-to-be , Tony Armstrong-Jones, was “only” offered the title of earl on their marriage. She wanted him to be a duke as her sister’s husband was created on their marriage. Completely different as said sister was to be Queen.
Princess Alexandra’s husband was the second son of an earl and an “Honourable” at the time of their marriage. Alexandra became HRH Princess Alexandra, the Hon Mrs Angus Ogilvey.
Although Princess Anne’s first husband refused a title (and her second?), I think when her children were born, the Queen did offer them titles in their own right.
Diana was only called Princess Diana in the UK through affection. It was not her official title. Everyone called her that though. Kate still gets referred to as “Kate Middleton”. I call her that.
Carolind, unfortunately, in life, status is everything, it wasn’t only affection from the subjects. Diana was born into one of the oldest, most aristocratic families. HM and others gave jewels, honours etc for Diana at lightening speed compared to Kate.
But Kate is centered on family which HM respects.
Perhaps her aristocratic roots played a role, but I think that the status Diana most benefited from was her rank as Princess of Wales. Camilla has likewise benefited.
I agree that there are things about Kate that the Queen respects and / or she has goodwill towards Kate.