thanks honey!

I find it funny that everyone is calling her "Princess Catherine" or "Princess Kate" since her actual title will be "Princess William" (since she's a commoner she doesn't get her own name anymore).

It took me a while to figure out that Princess Michael of Kent's first name wasn't really Michael (it's Marie Christine).

^^^Really? I thought maybe they name girls "Michael" in England like it's not a big deal.....good to know! :p

I think I might break out my old homecoming tiara while I watch so I can feel like a princess, too. :)

But, that is assuming that she isn't ennobled by the Queen.

Actually, it's assuming William isn't given a title, which isn't likely. Per tradition, William will be made the Duke of Somewhere upon his marriage, in which case she will be Her Royal Highness the Duchess of Somewhere. But even then, unless the Queen says otherwise, she would still be Princess William of Wales -- it's just that her usual title would be HRH Duchess of Wherever. Diana's full title when she and Charles were married was Her Royal Highness The Princess Charles Philip Arthur George, Princess of Wales & Countess of Chester, Duchess of Cornwall, Duchess of Rothesay, Countess of Carrick, Baroness of Renfrew, Lady of the Isles, Princess of Scotland.

But I bet that, as with William's mum, people will popularly call her Princess Catherine (or even Princess Kate), even though it's not proper.

^ agreeing, of course, with MC

This is the first I've heard of Kate being called Princess. Look at Sarah Ferguson - never heard anyone refer to her as a princess, always Duchess of York. But when Prince William becomes King, then Kate will be Queen Catherine (as his consort).

Oh, I'll be wearing my tiara, too, as I plan to use china for breakfast. I feel like I'm channeling Hyacinth Bucket!

I think the difference in thinking of her in terms of being a princess is the fact that he's second in line. Which means, of course, that when Charles becomes King, and assuming William is invested with the title Prince of Wales, Kate will become HRH The Princess of Wales.

A candlelight supper, perhaps?

That assumes that Charles ever becomes King. There is a good chance his mother will outlast him. Though I do have a question for you MC. Has there ever been a case before where the Heir Apparent was not the child of the Sovereign?

When the Sovereign had children? Or do you include times when the Sovereign was childless? Because for the latter the answer is yes definitely, the former I'm not as sure about. Possibly skipping daughters in favor of brothers?

I imagine Charles will become king, though maybe not for long, a la Edward VII.

George II (Mad King George) was heir apparent to his grandfather, George II.

Without double checking, I'd wager that in this case, we're probably talking about heirs presumptive, not heirs apparent. There is a difference.

An heir apparent's claim generally cannot be displaced. An heir presumptive's claim can be displaced, say by the birth of a child to the monarch. So, for example, if the Queen and Charles were to die in the next month or so, and William became king, Harry would be the heir presumptive. But as soon as William and Kate had a child, Harry would no longer be heir presumptive. If William and Kate had a son, that son would become heir apparent. If, however, they had a daughter, she would be heir presumptive, because the birth of a son could displace her claim.

Oh, it's someone important to whom to respond! ;)

I daresay that Parliment is changing the order of succession, or at least, there are those who are trying to change it. If changed, the eldest child would precede any younger child, male or female.

And Queen Victoria is a prime example of not being the child of a sovereign, is she not?

Important? Nah . . . .

There have been measures to that effect introduced in Parliament, as I understand it, but so far they have gotten nowhere. I think Blair's government actually blocked any such measure, not because he/they disagreed in principle, but because they thought changing the rule at this point would be a constitutional quagmire, especially since the monarch is monarch not only of the UK, but also of Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Fiji . . . .

Yes, but if I'm not mistaken she was not heir apparent; she was an heir presumptive. I guess there was at least the theoretical possibility that William IV could have fathered a legitimate child before he died.

Here's what wikipedia says

Victoria's grandfather and father died in 1820, within a week of each other, and the Duke of York died in 1827. On the death of her uncle George IV in 1830, she became heiress presumptive to her next surviving uncle, William IV. The Regency Act 1830 made special provision for Victoria's mother, the Duchess of Kent, to act as regent in case William died while Victoria was still a minor.[5] King William distrusted the Duchess's capacity to be regent, and in 1836 declared in her presence that he wanted to live until Victoria's 18th birthday, so that a regency could be avoided.[6]

[Palm on forehead]

Of course she was an heiress, not an heir. Oops.

Yeah to change the order of succession, all 16 Commonwealth Realms have to agree on it. Also correct me if I'm wrong, but this would require Royal Consent just to be read, then Royal Assent to be made law. The Queen could very well deny both, and might in order to prevent a constitutional crisis.