You need have no concern; dear Will has not been demoted. Royal princes have the title ‘Prince’ by right of birth. The other titles they may be given are simply add-ons, and are often given to mark significant points along their life paths – like getting married, for example. Prince Charles has a whole string of add-ons, including Duke of Cornwall, Duke of Rothesay and Earl of Chester. Prince Andrew is also Duke of York. Prince Edward is the Earl of Wessex, and so on. For all practical purposes, these titles are meaningless. The last time that being the Earl of Wessex actually meant anything in terms of power, prestige or practicality was in 1066.
So you need have no worries. Assuming the constitutional monarchy continues in Britain, there’s every likelihood that Prince William will become King William V one day. And just in case you’re interested: in the event that I live that long, I’m sure I shall continue to regard the whole thing as nothing more than an amusing anachronism.
10 comments:
I hate to ask but was the silly questions from we Americans..
LOL!
MM: Er... mostly. I've had six now, five from the US and one from New Zealand. Maybe it isn't such a silly question, though, if you're not used to the workings of a constitutional monarchy.
Andrea: For heaven's sake, don't go bursting anything!
More American questions, Jeff. My daughter wondered what the last name of the royal family was and though "House of Windsor" loomed vaguely in my mind I was doubtful, so we googled it. Curious that the Royals keep the name of their particular lineage even if it's from the maternal line (although Charles might use both). Is it somehow progressive or just about keeping privilege at all costs? :) Second Q my daughter asked was if "everyone has to pay taxes to the royalty" and after googling that I found that it was a little over a pound per taxpayer per year but apparently according to the BBC, the Queen has been squandering her reserves, so who knows where the money will come from in future. They only began paying taxes themselves in the 1990s from what I understand.
I typed a long reply to this, Della, but Blogger refused to send it and wouldn't let me back onto my blog without deleting the reply. Sorry. Google probably tells you far more than I could anyway. Bloody annoying, though.
Oh too bad, your commentary is always enjoyable!
This one wasn't. It was all boring stuff about Tudors, Stewarts, beloved German princes and the Civil List!
Ah, forgot one thing that might interest you. Did you hear that there's a move afoot to change the rules of succession so that the first born automatically succeeds irrespective of gender?
I'm afraid that I don't even know what the rules of succession are... I assume this would be an improvement though :)
The current rule is that the first born son succeeds, even if he's got ten older sisters. It dates back at least to the Norman Conquest (I gather Anglo-Saxon succession wasn't quite so simple, although it still favoured males because monarchs were expected to be warriors first and foremost, and battle axes were bloody heavy!)
Post a Comment