Jessica Schmessica...We got a royal wedding to look forward to!

[honeychile]

^ 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!

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by honeychile

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).

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.

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

A candlelight supper, perhaps?

[Psi U MC Vito]

Originally Posted by MysticCat

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?

[Drolefille]

Originally Posted by Psi U MC Vito

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?

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by Psi U MC Vito

That assumes that Charles ever becomes King. There is a good chance his mother will outlast him.

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

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?

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

Originally Posted by Drolefille

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.

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.

[honeychile]

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?

[MysticCat]

Important? Nah . . . .

Originally Posted by honeychile

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.

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 . . . .

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

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.