Kate Middleton or Catherine Middleton?
That is the question!
In a slow news week, the story has used up a lot of column inches in the press, much of it off beam.
Kate, it is suggested, is always called Catherine by her family and old friends. It’s only those cads in the public prints and the paparazzi who call her Kate.
In private, the air is thick with Catherines, in public you can’t hear yourself think for Kates.
One headline in the hard-working Daily Mail suggests she wants to be known as Queen Catherine, and the article provides us with a list of past Queens bearing that noble name.
However, as is often the case, all is not what it seems in the journalistic melting pot that is Royal reporting.
Today we have another clarification — from a credible source — suggesting that Kate’s younger sister Pippa always calls her Kate. And others in her circle use it too, so she can’t be that much against it, at least in her pre-married state.
But the main reason the Kate moniker will stick is that a search on Google for Kate Middleton produces 1,220,000 mostly relevant results, while Catherine Middleton yields 455,000, with seven out of the first ten pointing to someone else.
Kate is the brand. Until she becomes a Duchess or a Queen, perhaps she should accept the Waity Katie and Kiss me Kate headers for the sake of the Google juice. They don’t serve it in Boujis, but it’s better for your health than Crack Daddy cocktails.
Nice summary, John. Very interesting that Pippa calls her Kate. I wonder what Prince William calls her? Perhaps he uses both names, depending on the context.
By Evelyn on May 27th, 2008 at 1:59 pm
He probably calls her Sugarplum.
By John on May 27th, 2008 at 2:03 pm
Same length as Catherine!
By Evelyn on May 27th, 2008 at 2:04 pm
First time I heard of her it was Kate, so Kate it is for me. Too late to change now.
By Marilyn on May 27th, 2008 at 2:20 pm
As I said earlier, Diana was always Di (Lady Di, Princess Di) in the early days, at least in a lot of the tabloid press. Her full name only seemed to take hold once she became a more serious—indeed, somber—figure.
Let’s hope Kate doesn’t have to become a similar sad, poignant figure before the public calls her by her preferred name. Of course, we’ll all refer to her simply as….
Actually John, here’s a question, presuming there’s a marriage: if she is crowned with William as Queen Consort, what will her style be? Her Majesty, like his?
By Dan on May 27th, 2008 at 2:39 pm
If Kate prefers her given name and it is used by those who actually know her then I can understand her frustration with the press deciding to call her something else. Actually if I were her and people called me a shortened version of my name because the press found it suited their headlines better I would probably be very angry with the whole thing. However, I have to say I think she is fighting a loosing battle, she is now Kate to the public and she will always be Kate to the public….the history books can list her as Catherine but the newspapers will call her Kate. Diana, even now, is still referred to as ‘Princess’ Diana even though she was never a Princess in her own right, but that is what the press called her, so that is who she became to the public. I think Kate will just have to accept, as unfair as it is, that she will be Catherine in private but Kate in public.
By Ash on May 27th, 2008 at 2:44 pm
Dan, in marriages at the top of the Royal tree, women fare better than men. The bride is crowned Queen and, like the Queen Mother, is Her Majesty. Whereas, like Prince Philip, he’s not crowned at all and remains His Royal Highness.
This convention goes back to Saxon times, I believe.
By John on May 27th, 2008 at 2:45 pm
Ash, before her divorce, Diana was the Princess of Wales — the full Monty. As I say above, women get the better deal in Royal marriages.
By John on May 27th, 2008 at 2:47 pm
It is right to be called by your given name. But like you said, John, the press have called her Kate. I think it makes her more touchable, not so prickely. We commoners, would love to know our Royals, on less formal terms. Her Majesty, I think , has always been touchable, comely, and approachable. I hope Catherine doesn’t loose sight of this.
By Jacqueline on May 27th, 2008 at 3:40 pm
Yes, she was The Princess of Wales while married and Diana, Princess of Wales after her divorce but what I meant was that her title was never ‘Princess’ Diana yet she was always known as such because it is what the press called her and the public followed their lead, much like they have in the Kate/Catherine situation.
By Ash on May 27th, 2008 at 3:45 pm
Actually, Ash, Princess Diana is a lesser form than The Princess of Wales, so was an acceptable usage.
We now know that many of Kate’s friends call her Kate, including her sister, so she can’t be that sore about it.
By John on May 27th, 2008 at 3:51 pm
“Her Majesty, I think , has always been touchable, comely, and approachable”
And she has managed to do this without having to shorten her name to Liz. LOL
If Kate does genuinely go by Catherine then I don’t think that it is an unreasonable request that she asks to be called her by her own name and not one that was put on her by the media. It is not going to happen but she is entitled to ask.
By Ash on May 27th, 2008 at 3:54 pm
I agree, Ash, but do we know she has asked? I don’t believe she has been so blatant about it.
Maybe she just indicated that when married her title should be Catherine rather than Kate.
By John on May 27th, 2008 at 3:57 pm
Growing up in the social circles of upper and high classes, (being a debutant, attended many balls and functions), I was always introduced by my given names, Milaid Jacqueline, but my friends all call me Jaque(jake). I can definitly see her wanting the same, but I’m sure she would never actually request it. She has good breeding, and social skills. I love the name Kate, it’s indearing. And I will call her Catherine from now on. If she is PW choice, when it is time for his rule, they will have my allegiance, and I hope yours as well.
By Jacqueline on May 27th, 2008 at 4:26 pm
I was surprised to learn that Pippa Middleton is actually named Philippa, one of my favorite of all names, which I believe came into the Royal Family when Philippa of Hainault married King Edward III and became his Queen. In the next few generations of the Royal Family, there was a plethora of girls named Philippa for the Queen. Two sisters named Catherine and Philippa, growing up together in a close family, would understandably call each other ‘Pippa’ and ‘Kate.’
The situation is really one of convenience in a verbal sense. When a person has a three syllable Christian name, persons around them seek to shorten that name to something crisp and swiftly spoken, preferably a word of one syllable. Nevertheless, if Catherine Middleton prefers to be called by her proper Christian name, her request should be honored. If there is anything the British are known for and admired world-wide, it is their proper behavior, civility and deference to their Royal Family. This seems to me to be an apropos opportunity to demonstrate those qualities.
By Gigi on May 27th, 2008 at 4:27 pm
“I don’t believe she has been so blatant about it”.
Oh I don’t believe that she would either and I certainly don’t believe that she would say something like ‘Call me Queen Catherine’, but as they say ‘paper never refuses ink’.
By Ash on May 27th, 2008 at 4:31 pm
But, Gigi, we don’t know she wants this immediately. My guess is that she’s looking way ahead and some people have picked this up and made a song and dance about it now.
By John on May 27th, 2008 at 4:33 pm
Good one, Ash. Is that short for Ashley?
By Jacqueline on May 27th, 2008 at 4:34 pm
And pixels never refuse electricity.
By John on May 27th, 2008 at 4:35 pm
Yes I agree John. I think this whole thing is hilarious. Do you think this has possibly something to do with the palace grooming her for Royal life and that one of the aides let it slip?
The press are really funny she has a body guard and the headlines read ‘new royal kate middleton’ she possibly has said she would like to be called Catherine in future and it ‘Kate assumes formal Royal name’
No wonder she has been trying to live under the radar she can’t do anything without it being blown out of proportion.
I’m really hoping though that something could happen by the end of this week. Is all still quiet on the engagement front John? I know you had said last week that there were no indications as the moment but I was wondering if anything had picked up at all??
By Jackie Mccoy on May 27th, 2008 at 4:38 pm
John and I were discussing the engagement timing in another thread. He feels an announcement may be more likely when Parliament is not in session, that being a slower news day.
Parliament is not in session this week. Their next break will be July 22-October 6, the end of which may fall after Prince William’s attachment with the Royal Navy. Either time frame (or any of the weeks in between) would be just fine by me!
By Evelyn on May 27th, 2008 at 4:45 pm
Jackie, here in the Royal Anecdotes bubble, we’re not picking up any signs of imminent activity on the engagement front. But that doesn’t mean it’s not happening in the fortified basement of Clarence House.
By John on May 27th, 2008 at 4:48 pm
Yes, Evelyn, I think the Palace likes to make sure the grumpy old politicos are consigned to their publicly-funded constituencies.
By John on May 27th, 2008 at 4:51 pm
I would love to see Prince William & Catherine engaged this week, before the Garter ceremony and PW’s birthday.
Oh, my! I just realized that Prince William will be with the Royal Navy next month! I hope they work out his schedule so he is able to attend his first Garter ceremony!
By Evelyn on May 27th, 2008 at 5:04 pm
John and guys, do you all have your royal mugs yet? If not you can get them at Peter Jones China and order them. See who’s face is on the mugs.
By Claudius on May 27th, 2008 at 5:08 pm
Ok I just read the other thread. I guess it’s a matter of this week or December then as if I remember correctly he doesn’t finish until around christmas time, and they can’t announce an engagement if he is away. From what I remember of the Diana/Charles engagement they took questions from the press on the steps? Is that right I was very young then. December just feels so far way……
By Jackie Mccoy on May 27th, 2008 at 5:08 pm
They will, Evelyn. I think he’s going to be on station for two weeks with a Trident nuclear submarine which will give him the cherished Dolphin badge to sit alongside his Wings.
They couldn’t let us down now, could they?
By John on May 27th, 2008 at 5:10 pm
Claudius, as you will know Peter Jones is one of Kate’s favourite Sloaney stores. I’ll have to check out the mugs — they’d better be an improvement on Woolworth’s tatty plates last year.
By John on May 27th, 2008 at 5:13 pm
It would be so wonderful to have an engagement before the Garter ceremony! Plus Catherine would have security, and could spend her summer learning more protocol and planning a wedding gown.
In timing such a royal wedding, will they also look for times when Parliament is not in session?
By Evelyn on May 27th, 2008 at 5:14 pm
I doubt that she minds being called Kate. Wasn’t she listed as Mss Kate Middleton on the invitation list to William’s wings ceremony? Looks like William calls her Kate, too. The press will continue to refer to her as Kate anyways since that’s the name everyone knows now. I’m sure a lot of people weren’t even aware that she’s actually called Catherine. This just looks like an article to fill a slow news day.
By Isana on May 27th, 2008 at 5:16 pm
“Good one, Ash. Is that short for Ashley?”
No Jacquelinen it is short for Aisling.
“I’ll have to check out the mugs — they’d better be an improvement on Woolworth’s tatty plates last year”
John I don’t think that it is possible produce anything worse than the Woolworth’s plates.
By Ash on May 27th, 2008 at 5:21 pm
I agree it can’t be any worse but look at the source ‘woolworths’??? It’s not exactly known for producing high end merchandise.
So if it is this week then it would have to be Friday. If they leave Mustique on Wednesday they would only return on Thursday. We will see.
By Jackie Mccoy on May 27th, 2008 at 5:37 pm
It would really be the start of a great era. Can you imagine, the press at that time.
By Jacqueline on May 27th, 2008 at 5:51 pm
Doesn’t a royal engagement generally last 6 to 8 months? Certainly not a year. If they announced soon, that would put the wedding in the dead of winter, which they won’t have. I wouldn’t expect an announcement before fall.
By Dan on May 27th, 2008 at 6:16 pm
It’s a moveable feast, Dan.
By John on May 27th, 2008 at 6:29 pm
Maybe they’ll announce an engagement soon, and have their wedding toward the end of November. That would remind people more of the November wedding of Prince William’s grandparents (a long and successful marriage) rather than the summer wedding of the Prince’s parents.
I also think it’s possible that all the Queen’s grandchildren may be thinking about weddings at Windsor, rather than London. For Prince William and Prince Harry, St Paul’s would have too many memories of their parents’ wedding, and the Abbey hold too many memories of their mother’s funeral. A new venue seems likely to me.
By Evelyn on May 27th, 2008 at 6:30 pm
I’m just thankful her name isn’t Tiffany. Can you imagine Princess Tiffany, HRH Tiffany, Duchess of Cambridge, or worse, HRH Tiffany the Queen Mother? I’ll take Kate or Catherine any day.
By Arthur on May 27th, 2008 at 6:35 pm
Would it be a good idea to announce an engagement, then have William need to leave for his Navy stint? Given how things have gone for past future-wives of Royals…would it be harder on Catherine/Kate not having him there to help her navagate the craziness that will follow?
By Claire on May 27th, 2008 at 6:37 pm
Since I was married at Christmas, I have a soft spot in my heart for December weddings, but November will suit equally well.
Reagrding the wedding mug, I am going to the Peter Jones site immediately! I have in my china cabinet the mug that marked the Coronation of Queen Elizabeth II. 
John you are perfectly correct, we do not know with any degree of certainty that Catherine Middleton did request that she be called ‘Catherine’ rather than by the name ‘Kate.’ The press story does sound a bit fishy, I agree. We will no doubt get better information regarding this issue when the engagement is announced from the Palace, as the wording will tell us something about how she is to be addressed. An announement before the Garter Ceremony would be marvelous, but we have waited this long and can wait a bit longer if need be.
My nerves can stand it if yours can. 
By Gigi on May 27th, 2008 at 6:41 pm
Although I would love an announcement this week I’m not holding my breath. However Claire Kate has managed to keep an extremly low profile the last couple of months so it is possible that she would still be able to do so even after an announcement was made. Although I don’t know if she would be expected to live at CH?
By Jackie Mccoy on May 27th, 2008 at 6:43 pm
I don’t know Gigi my nerves are stretched!! I’m driving my family and friends in England mad asking for daily updates!! This week however doesn’t feel right for some reason and I would expect it around December.
By Jackie Mccoy on May 27th, 2008 at 6:48 pm
I recall it was very difficult for the Duchess of York when the Duke was away with the Navy for extended periods. Indeed, it doomed the marriage (although apparently not the relationship.)
Regardless, William’s tour with the military will reportedly end this year. Kate will not have to be a military girlfriend, fiancée, or wife for very long.
Good memories or bad, Westminster Abbey is the most senior of the sovereign’s churches (those “Royal Peculiars”) and cannot be dismissed by William or Harry simply for past experiences in it. I think the public (to say nothing of history) will clamor for a venue at least as large as the Abbey, if not St. Paul’s. Personal preference cannot be the only determining factor.
Personally, I think a Windsor wedding is fine for “lesser” Royals (pardon the slight, but that’s what they are), but there’s something “on the sly” about it; not too far removed from a civil ceremony, or a couple getting married at home—always a sweet affair, but not quite like a real wedding. The wedding of the heir to the throne requires all the trappings of a State occasion. I think William’s wedding could erase the bittersweet memory we all have of St. Paul’s, just as Harry’s could create new happy memories of the Abbey.
By Dan on May 27th, 2008 at 7:00 pm
I think you may be right, Jackie.
Also, I have been all over the Peter Jones site and can’t find one Royal Wedding mug. 
Maybe this is a sign from Heaven (read: my Mother) that I need to calm down. 
By Gigi on May 27th, 2008 at 7:01 pm
Gigi, the commemoratives are at peterjoneschina.com . However, I still don’t see a mug of Prince William & Catherine. Claudius, where did you find it?
By Evelyn on May 27th, 2008 at 7:09 pm
I agree with you, Dan. I, too, believe that the man who will be King in the fullness of time should marry in either Westminster Abby or Saint Paul’s Cathedral and the wedding should be a State occasion. The bride and groom should ride in the state coaches through the streets of London, under decorative arches with their initials, and all the pomp, splendor and pageantry that only the British do to perfection should be employed. All the church bells in London should be rung, crowds of cheering Britons should crowd the streets, toasts drunk to the happy couple, who should appear on the balcony of Buckingham Palace to accept the cheers and adulation of multitudes of British subjects. There should be pipers, drummers, garlands and chaplets of roses, silk and satin ribbons, prancing horses, uniformed officers, the Beefeaters in full regalia, Royalty from all over Europe and Asia in splendid formal dress and the champagne should flow like the Thames at high flood! Royal jewels should glitter, wedding doves should twitter and there should be dancing in the streets! Have I forgotten anything? Food! (How could I?!) The cuisine of the wedding breakfast should be unsurpassed!
By Gigi on May 27th, 2008 at 7:11 pm
Queen Tiffany would be bad; Queen Britney would be worse!
For myself, I hate the trends in kids’ names over the past generation or so. Give me the old stalwarts, of which Catherine is one. Indeed, it was my Grandmother’s name.
By Dan on May 27th, 2008 at 7:20 pm
I agree with you Dan, on the “old-fashioned” names. (If they can be called that.) My 2-year old daughter is named Josephine. Not many little Josephines running around these days! *smile* I dare say she’ll be the only one.
By Claire on May 27th, 2008 at 7:23 pm
Gigi you need to stop!! I’m getting so excited just by your description of the wedding
There are definietly some interesting names for children nowadays. Kate’s parents thank goodness chose a sensible name.
By Jackie Mccoy on May 27th, 2008 at 7:26 pm
Claire, a friend of mine gave birth to a baby girl last year and named her Josephine. You’re not alone!
By Dan on May 27th, 2008 at 7:51 pm
Dan, how wonderful! I just love that name. We call her “Joey.” Her little daycare friends call her “Jo Jo.” Someday, she’ll be in the same prediciment as Kate/Catherine…when she grows up and wants to be called “Josephine” rather than by her nick-name. She’ll always be my Joey though! *smile*
By Claire on May 27th, 2008 at 7:57 pm
A young woman I know was Gussie while she was growing up, but has changed to her given name, Augusta, now that she’s in college. Most people are happy to make the adjustment once she tells them what she’d prefer.
By Evelyn on May 27th, 2008 at 8:02 pm
The mugs aren’t wedding mugs, they are to commemorate Prince William receiving his Wings. William and Prince Charles are on one side, and William and Kate are on the other.
They are very nice mugs, I like the handles and the colours, but I did find it strange that Kate is on the mugs with William. Not bad, just strange. John, you know more about these types of things than I could hope to know. Has this ever been done before? Has a girlfriend’s photo ever been placed on a commemorative item next to a member of the Royal Family before? If not, then the mugs are definitely food for thought.
By mapleleaf on May 27th, 2008 at 8:04 pm
i think the engagement will become public once william’s formal military training in completed (cant recall when that is) believe i’ve mentioned before i believe they are already “engaged” and just havent made a public announcement…why else would kate/catherine have attended peter phillips wedding without william…
as far as this kate vs catherine business..perhaps it just depends on who’s addressing her - most people call me coni but there are those who call me “constance” dont think its a big deal…
By coni on May 27th, 2008 at 9:02 pm
As for the name thing, naturally her full given name would be used at the wedding and coronation. If she’s letting it be known that she prefers Catherine, I doubt she’s directing that preference to the press or the public. She knows we’ll call her all sorts of things as time passes, much of it dependent on how much admiration and respect she earns. If the press and/or the public grow to dislike her, they’ll call her worse things than Kate. Just ask Princess Michael, who, we all know, prefers Marie-Christine.
How often have you heard her called anything nearly so kind?
Also, John, I concur with Ash. I remember when Charles and Diana married that it was pointed out clearly that she was not to be called Princess Diana precisely because she was not a Princess in her own right. If such a form were to be used, the accurate title would have been Princess Charles, just as Sarah Ferguson would have been known as Princess Andrew and Sophie would be known as Princess Edward. The conferring of Duke- and Earldoms on married couples (a means of giving the commoner wife a title of her own) avoids the awkwardness of that. Of course, a Prince of Wales can take a bride as his Princess of Wales, but the Wales title is not conferred by birth. The wife of a born Prince, with no title of her own, is stuck with her husband’s name.
Why would Diana have been allowed to use a form that has always been denied the wives of other Princes?
By Dan on May 27th, 2008 at 9:23 pm
Dan, we have two laws over here. The statute law of Parliament, and Convention. Much of our law is contained in the latter.
The Queen Mother was not born to be a Queen, but she retained that title even after the accession of her daughter, because the new Queen wanted her to, and so did everyone else.
Not many countries can operate the Convention system. It requires trust and a homogeneity of purpose. So far, just, Britain has proved that it can.
By John on May 27th, 2008 at 9:46 pm
Forget what to call her for a minute. What on earth is she doing with her backside in that picture? Smoothing out the pleat in her coat I presume?
By Mary on May 27th, 2008 at 9:51 pm
Protecting her back, maybe?
By John on May 27th, 2008 at 9:54 pm
Well, there is convention, and that’s what most people follow (we’re all fairly conventional, after all). But surely there’s Ye Olde Royal Register somewhere that inscribes everyone’s Official Title?
Also, the Queen Mother was not born a Queen, but neither was her husband born a King. both she and her husband were crowned at the same time as King and Queen. Absent that, and having been created the Duchess of York (again, at the same time that her husband was created the Duke), she would have been (gulp!) Princess Albert.
When her daughter took the throne, she would not have lost the title of Queen, no matter what. Absent a new title bestowed—Queen Mother was certainly an original choice—she would have officially been Queen Dowager.
By Dan on May 27th, 2008 at 10:07 pm
Actually, the Queen’s father was created Duke of York several years before he married Lady Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon.
Since there is every expectation that Prince William will some day become Prince of Wales, might he sometime before then be given one of his father’s lesser titles? I have no idea which one, or if all of them have always been part of the “Prince of Wales” package. Just a thought and a question.
By Evelyn on May 27th, 2008 at 10:18 pm
Evelyn, Prince Charles is celebrating his 60th birthday in November and I believe the Palace/Clarence House is gearing up for those celebrations. From past experience, we know how Prince Charles reacts when he thinks he’s being upstaged. For that reason, I don’t think we will see Prince William and Kate engaged before Christmas or early in 2009.
By Arthur on May 27th, 2008 at 11:53 pm
Good point, Arthur. But a good question might be: does Charles really want to draw so much attention to his 60th birthday? Didn’t his mother recently celebrate 60 years on the throne? In light of that, merely passing the 60-year line doesn’t seem such an accomplishment.
Let’s be honest. Charles’s greatest accomplishment is William. I think William’s engagement to Kate would be the perfect antidote to an overload of media attempts at fathoming the ultimate significance of Charles’s 60 years as heir-in-waiting.
By Dan on May 28th, 2008 at 1:28 am
I don’t think any of Charles’s lesser titles (Earl of Carrick, Baron Renfrew, or whatnot) would do, since William is already a Prince by birth. Also, lesser titles are not “given” to sons. They are used as courtesy titles. The Earl of Wessex’s new son is called Viscount Severn, but only out of courtesy; The Earl of Wessex is the true Viscount Severn.
William is a Prince by right, and can’t merely be reduced to a Duke or an Earl. God knows, he can’t be the Duke of Cornwall while our Duchess of Cornwall is still running around.
If he marries before Charles takes the throne, he and his wife will have to be made a Duke and Duchess of something else. Duke and Duchess of Clarence and St. Andrews would be an apt choice, not merely because they inhabit Clarence House and both graduated from St. Andrews. The last Duke of Clarence and St. Andrews became King William IV.
True, the last Duke of Clarence (minus the St. Andrews) may have been Jack the Ripper… but these associations are there to be dispelled.
By Dan on May 28th, 2008 at 1:55 am
Prince Albert Victor, (known in the family as “Prince Eddie”), the elder son of The Prince of Wales (later Edward VII) and his wife, Alexandra, actually was given a double title by his Grandmother, Queen Victoria, “Duke of Clarence and Avondale.” Prior to that, I believe the title Duke of Clarence was a title awarded without a second title appended. Since he was the first fiance of Mary of Te
Teck, who became Queen Mary, and since Queen Mary was the Grandmother of the present Queen, I doubt that the title Duke of Clarence will be used for Prince William. But I could be totally wrong.
By Gigi on May 28th, 2008 at 2:38 am
Dan, thanks for explaining courtesy titles for me.
Looking around on the internet, George Windsor, son of Prince Edward, Duke of Kent, is the Earl of St Andrews– a courtesy title until his father dies and he becomes the Duke of Kent. I’m assuming that St Andrews can’t have both an earldom and a dukedom.
The Duke of Clarence was the title given to Queen Victoria’s eldest son’s firstborn, so that has precedence. Unfortunately, Prince Albert Victor (Eddy) died just after his 28th birthday, six weeks before his wedding. But, as you say, associations can be dispelled.
By Evelyn on May 28th, 2008 at 2:49 am
It’s all relative, Dan. While the Queen mother was not born a Queen and was in fact a commoner (although an Earl’s daughter) she was the virtual head of the Royal Family until her death. The Queen would defer to her on most things.
By John on May 28th, 2008 at 9:12 am
i remember reading that the QM was offered the choice of Queen Dowager or Queen Elizabeth the Queen Mother and chose the latter.
There was talk on earlier threads that the Duke of Cambridge would be suitable for Prince William but I think there is already one. I read an article in the Sunday Times a few weeks/months back about a Scottish Duke who is anti hunting and one of his titles is Duke of Cambridge so I don’t think that is a runner.
By Eliza on May 28th, 2008 at 10:25 am
The info I’m seeing is that the title Duke of Cambridge was last used in 1904. Cambridge was also used for a Marquessate, but the last holder died without any male heirs in 1981.
By Evelyn on May 28th, 2008 at 12:54 pm
Maybe you are right Evelyn, I just saw the name in the article and it struck me because of what had previously been said here.
The writer might have got it wrong.
The more I know about a particular subject the more I realise that papers get so much of the detail wrong.
By Eliza on May 28th, 2008 at 1:33 pm
Actually the QM took the title Queen Mother because at the time Queen Mary was still alive and she was the Dowager. Queen Mary died a year after her son the King.
I think we need to look at the picture here. Kate will marry William but those who are accusing her of statements or getting above herself are probably just jealous and are trying to make trouble Kate is smart about the media and I for one have never seen an article where she has given an interview despite the interest in her. The only thing Kate does is smile for the photogs and keeps silent. Also there is not the hoopla that surrounded Diana with everyone camping and out right asking for comments.
Why not give the girl a break if she prefers to be called Catherine which is her given name why should it be such a big deal.
By Trudie on May 28th, 2008 at 3:27 pm
One of the reasons the title for the Queen Mother was unusual was that in that instance, the reigning Queen Elizabeth II and the former Queen Consort, her Mother, shared the same Christian name. Further, as Trudie rightly says, Queen Mary was still alive and was, in fact, the Queen Dowager, although she did not like to be known as that and was always referred to as Queen Mary. The problem was solved brilliantly by Queen Elizabeth II granting her Mother the title Queen Elizabeth the Queen Mother, and even after Queen Mary died, she was always known by that title.
Regarding Prince William, I have no doubt that Queen Elizabeth II will grant him a Dukedom when he marries and that it will be one of sufficient distinction which he will carry until he becomes Prince of Wales. The Dukedoms which are traditionally given to Royal Princes are York (reserved in recent times for the second son of the reigning sovereign), Kent, Gloucester, Clarence, and Edinburgh. York is the Dukedom of Prince Andrew at present and there is some thought that it will be earmarked for Prince Harry after the death of Prince Andrew, since he has no sons and since he is the second son of Charles, who will be King. Kent is held by the Duke of Kent, a cousin of the Queen, as is Gloucester. Clarence is vacant at present, and Edinburgh, so we are told, is earmarked for the Earl of Wessex after the death of his Father, Prince Philip, but this will hinge on Charles, the heir, granting this title to his younger brother. If all goes according to plan, as is supposed, upon the deaths of Queen Elizabeth II and Prince Philip, Charles will be King, Prince William will be Prince of Wales, Prince Harry will hold whatever title the Queen grants him upon his marriage until the Duke of York title is vacant, and the Earl and Countess of Wessex will become the Duke and Duchess of Edinburgh. Princess Anne will hold the title Princess Royal until her death, when the title will not pass to Zara, but will be granted to the eldest daughter of the reigning sovereign. Charles has no daughter, but if Prince William and his wife have a daughter, she will be granted the title Princess Royal at some point after the death of Princess Anne.
By Gigi on May 28th, 2008 at 4:22 pm
The Press Association is reporting that Harry will join charity work in Africa with some of his fellow soldiers. The “mission” will last 3 weeks. I think that’s a great idea.
“The prince, a lieutenant in the Household Cavalry’s Blues and Royals, will travel to the Kingdom of Lesotho later this summer with military colleagues to help build care facilities and repair infrastructure for projects supported by his organisation.”
Why could William not do something similar if he isn’t allowed to go into combat?
By Isana on May 28th, 2008 at 4:38 pm
Perhaps if Prince Harry’s expedition goes well and is received well by the majority of the UK public, Prince William may have an opportunity to do something similar.
I remember hearing about a month ago that Prince William wanted to serve out his military time in the UK rescue missions (I forget exactly what it was called), which would be a good way to serve, though perhaps more risky.
By Evelyn on May 28th, 2008 at 4:58 pm
This is clearly a military alternative for Harry, who can’t now be sent to the front line. Harry is nominally a full-time soldier, although he has said he may leave if he can’t serve in danger zones. This project seems a good way for him to serve out his time.
William is leaving the Armed Forces in January to become a full-time Royal. He will work in a newspaper office for a while and take over the Wardenship of Windsor Great Park from Prince Philip. He may also marry and settle into a more domestic form of life.
By John on May 28th, 2008 at 5:05 pm
So far, so good, John.
Things are working out splendidly! Regarding the engagement announcement, however, I have stopped holding my breath, as I was turning a ghastly shade of blue. (Not Royal Blue, regretably.) 
By the way, since I and a number of our dear RA clan are living in a time zone 6 hours behind, across the Pond, I shall wish to be alerted when the engagement is announced, even if it is in the middle of the night in the USA! Blow the pipes, fire rockets, light fireworks, ring the church bells, whatever it takes to wake me up! 
By Gigi on May 28th, 2008 at 5:32 pm
Gigi, we are working on an RA hotline system for our readers which will involve installing a claxon horn in their bedrooms. When the engagement is announced a signal will be emitted around the world and all the horns will go off at once.
It’s a bit Heath Robinson at the moment.
By John on May 28th, 2008 at 5:42 pm
Gigi, if John’s expectations are fulfilled (time-wise), we’ll hear somewhere between 11am and noon our time (you’re in the same time zone as me). So… check before lunch every day!
John, thanks for reminding us of what we’ve heard Prince William will be involved in after his time with the military.
I’ve heard Anne, Andrew, and Edward have apartments at Buckingham Palace. I’ve no idea what Windsor Castle is like; any possibility that Prince William and his bride might have an apartment at Windsor? With William becoming the next Warden, being “on location” there might be helpful.
By Evelyn on May 28th, 2008 at 5:51 pm
The Dukedoms of Sussex and Cambridge are also available, last used for the (respectively) 6th and 7th sons of George III. Wikipedia has a great section for research on Dukedoms—that is, if any of it is correct!
When Prince Philip dies, Charles will become the Duke of Edinburgh, although with all his other titles it may not be much used. Unless the Edinburgh title would outrank Charles’s other title in Scotland, the Duke of Rothsay?
By Dan on May 28th, 2008 at 6:27 pm
Evelyn, with these events you never know until they happen.
By John on May 28th, 2008 at 6:28 pm
Dan, it’s well known that Edward will take on the Duke of Edinburgh Award Scheme and the title. That’s why he is currently just an Earl for a made up location which hasn’t existed for centuries.
By John on May 28th, 2008 at 6:30 pm
Awesome Evelyn you have my email address and I am on PST so if anything exciting happens tommorrow (which I doubt) feel free to email me as you are two hours ahead of me. I obsessively check my email. I guess this is a trial run so to speak for December. Do we have an end date John for his Navy secondment? Or will that come closer to the time?
By Jackie Mccoy on May 28th, 2008 at 6:36 pm
John, it is true that Edward is planned to take the title eventually, but he can’t until Charles assumes the throne. Dukedoms go from father to eldest son, not youngest. Assuming Philip dies first, Charles will be Duke of Edinburgh until his mother dies, at which point he takes the throne and all his current titles merge with the crown. At that point, William can become the Prince of Wales, and King Charles III can create his younger brother the Duke of Edinburgh.
By Dan on May 28th, 2008 at 6:41 pm
Dan, if Charles has already renounced his claim to the title in favour of Edward, game over.
By John on May 28th, 2008 at 7:12 pm
Hmm. That would make things easier. Although Andrew would have to do the same. Do you think Edward and Sophie will take the HRH along with it? And would baby James keep the Severn courtesy title, or take up the subsidiary Edinburgh title Earl Merioneth?
You can tell I’m occupying myself with other pressing issues while we wait for the engagement announcement…
By Dan on May 28th, 2008 at 7:27 pm
Well, John, checking the Royal website, it says on Edward’s bio page that “the Earl would inherit the title ‘Duke of Edinburgh’ when that title reverts back to the throne.” It won’t do that until Charles becomes King.
It sounds like they are going to do the thing by the book. One assumes that Charles is on board with the plan.
By Dan on May 28th, 2008 at 7:34 pm
I’m so confused
By dally on May 28th, 2008 at 8:04 pm
I don’t think Charles can afford to be difficult over plans that his parents have already announced. Relations within the family would become very strained, possibly leading to visible difficulties in advance of his coronation.
By Evelyn on May 28th, 2008 at 8:05 pm
One never hears much about Charles’s relations with his younger brothers.
By Dan on May 28th, 2008 at 8:13 pm
I think the row resulting from Charles not passing the Edinburgh title to Edward would extend through the Royal Family (albeit perhaps privately), through the media (quite publicly), and through much of the UK.
By Evelyn on May 28th, 2008 at 8:29 pm
I imagine the deal would have been settled between the boys before the intention was posted on the Royal site. I wonder if the HRH will go along with the title. Edward and Sophie seemed determined not to take it for themselves or their children, although that may not have been entirely their choice.
Whatever happens, it could be years away. It will be interesting to see if HM lives as long as her mother did and stays on the throne. It could be another 20 years!
By Dan on May 28th, 2008 at 8:40 pm
Looking on the official website (royal.gov.uk), Edward and Sophie are styled HRH; it’s maybe just their children who won’t be styled that way.
By Evelyn on May 28th, 2008 at 9:24 pm
If you do set up a phone tree, please let me know. I’d like to sign up. I think that it is a great idea. I’ll enjoy following all of the coverage.
By kat on May 28th, 2008 at 9:33 pm
By George, you’re right. My mistake.
Legally, Louise and James are Princess and Prince as grandchildren of the sovereign, and once of a certain age they could claim their proper titles if they chose. Of course, James will also one day be Duke of Edinburgh.
Looks like the future of all the traditional Dukedoms for royal children is sewn up, except York. Kent, Gloucester, and Edinburgh all have sons waiting in the wings. For Kent and Gloucester, the next generation will not bear the HRH, however. That doesn’t pass to great-grandchildren of sovereigns.
By Dan on May 28th, 2008 at 9:42 pm
So the options for Royal Dukedoms (as we understand it now) are:
Clarence
Cambridge
Sussex
If anyone finds any others, please report them!
By Evelyn on May 28th, 2008 at 9:53 pm
I’ve always thought Buckingham was an appropriate title, although it’s never been used for a sovereign’s son or grandson. And the first Duke of Buckingham was allegedly the gay lover of James I. But as I said before, these associations are there to be dispelled…
By Dan on May 28th, 2008 at 10:02 pm
Excellent scheme, John!
I have always said that my husband could sleep through WWIII beginning in our bedroom, so the claxon horn shall be the test of my assertion. 
By Gigi on May 28th, 2008 at 10:03 pm
My dear Evelyn, I shall be checking the RA site with hilarious frequency all day long, I assure you!
By Gigi on May 28th, 2008 at 10:05 pm
Well, if Prince William becomes the Duke of Buckingham, then he and his duchess certainly should have an apartment at the Palace!
By Evelyn on May 28th, 2008 at 10:07 pm
It’s a good thing Queen Elizabeth is not paranoid. If I had all these relatives waiting in the wings for me to die, in order for them to assume bigger and better titles, I’d have a food taster checking all my meals before eating. Do we know if there is a Mistress of the Meals who samples the Queen’s food and drink before Her Majesty sits down to dine?
By Arthur on May 28th, 2008 at 10:19 pm
I wonder if the Queen will create her grandsons as anything. There is after all a move afoot to downsize the Royal family. And why create William anything new, when the new title will only become secondary to the title of Prince of Wales once someone offs his grandmother and his father takes the throne? (No Arthur, there is no Mistress of the Meals. Not yet…)
If no new Dukedom is in the cards, William and his bride might take one of Charles’s subsidiaries as a courtesy title: Earl and Countess of Chester (sub. of the Prince of Wales) or Earl and Countess of Carrick (sub. of the Duke of Cornwall).
If neither of those, the question of whether to call her Kate or Catherine may be moot. She’ll be (gasp!)….
Princess William of Wales!!!
If you think that’s bad, imagine Chelsy’s lot: Princess Henry!
Perish the thought. There had better be Dukedoms in the cards!
By Dan on May 29th, 2008 at 12:31 am
Dan my head is spinning and somewhere the Queen is shaking in her boots with all this talk of succession.
By jackie Mccoy on May 29th, 2008 at 1:26 am
We’ve talked about W&K memorabilia. The Daily Mail is reporting that Woolworths will not be producing the wedding collectibles they’d planned in late 2006:
“Plans to release a range of souvenirs to mark the ‘engagement’ of Prince William and Kate Middleton have been scrapped by Woolworths, which claims the market for them has ‘moved on’.”
The designer who had been working on that project also has left the company.
By Evelyn on May 29th, 2008 at 2:56 am
We’re getting a bit off track here.
Edward, as the Queen’s son and a Prince, has always been an HRH. The slightly Hollywood Earldom he took on his marriage is just a holding name until he takes over Edinburgh.
We won’t know the titles of William and Kate after marriage until it happens. There was some talk of Cambridge a couple of years ago. The matter may well be settled though, as all these topics will have been discussed in the Way Forward Group, a regular gathering of senior Royals to settle issues pending. William was present for the first time at the last one — if my memory is correct.
If Woolworth’s has dropped the commemorative china for William and Kate, it’s probably a good move. The big moment passed more than a year ago. The public does not like being disappointed or waiting around with only false information to think about.
When they do announce their engagement, many people will think — as with Edward and Sophie — “Weren’t they married ages ago”.
I fear it will only be us here in the RA bubble who will get excited about it.
By John on May 29th, 2008 at 11:14 am
Thanks for the info, John. I had not heard of the “Way Forward Group” before.
I’m kind of vague on who exactly the senior royals are:
Queen Elizabeth II
Prince Philip
Prince Charles
Princess Anne
Prince Andrew
Prince Edward
Prince William?
Since you mention William specifically, I assume it does not (yet) include Prince Harry. Are there others? Thanks for any info.
By Evelyn on May 29th, 2008 at 3:42 pm
Evelyn, it certainly includes HM, Philip, Charles and now William. I’m less sure about Anne, Andrew and Edward, although Anne would be an asset.
It’s a small tight circle as far as I can gather. It may include close advisers, like the Queen’s Private secretary too.
By John on May 29th, 2008 at 4:03 pm
Thanks, John. It’s a smaller group than I would have expected.
Are Anne, Andrew, and Edward considered senior royals? I’m not sure where the line is drawn between senior and junior.
By Evelyn on May 29th, 2008 at 4:13 pm
They are, Evelyn, but are not considered part of the direct line of the Monarchy — unless something drastic happened, of course.
Prince Charles is known to want to limit the core Royal Family to those who, in normal circumstances, would be involved in the succession.
By John on May 29th, 2008 at 5:13 pm
Hence the recent inclusion of Prince William. Since, in the normal order of events, we expect Catherine will become Queen, would she at some point be included in such conversations? Any idea if Princess Diana was ever included? Is Camilla currently included? Since Prince Philip is included, that would be precedent for including spouses.
Thanks again, John.
By Evelyn on May 29th, 2008 at 5:24 pm
Can someone explain to me the prestige behind being named a Duke or Earl? Does it entail anything special to that person (besides the name)? Why go through all this hard work, when Prince of Wales is always going to be better than some Duke of Someplace? What are the duties of a Duke or Earl? Thanks
By American Cousin on May 29th, 2008 at 5:48 pm
Evelyn, I’m sure Camilla isn’t included. It’s not a place for spouses. As for Diana, it wasn’t set up when she was around. It’s a fairly recent innovation.
By John on May 30th, 2008 at 9:12 am
American Cousin, the system is very hierarchical, so there’s always someone above you, unless you’re the Monarch.
Dukedoms and Earldoms are hereditary. A Royal Dukedom comes with an HRH, an “ordinary” one with His Grace. There aren’t many of them, but they usually have a stately home and vast lands attached.
Earls are lesser versions of Dukes.
By John on May 30th, 2008 at 9:17 am
Has ayone established if there was wedding in Kenya on the same day as Peter Phillip’s wedding.
Lots of reporters are said to be checking story without result but is that becuse there seems to be a news blackout on PW’s actual movement around that time.
Does anyone think that he is saying and doing anything to avoid contact with kate because even the holiday in mustique seems a little bit false also
Has anyone got any real idea of exactly what is going on
By ked on May 31st, 2008 at 3:10 pm
Ked, the Mustique holiday was genuine and so, I believe, was the Craig wedding story. The Times suggested Hello! mag may have bought that too, hence the lack of reportage.
Given the fury over its coverage of the Phillips wedding, Hello! may be lying low with it for a few weeks before publishing pictures.
By John on June 2nd, 2008 at 12:52 pm
John, I have been reading the exerpts of the book written by Lord Snowdon, and I must say that I was stunned at the content. It does seem to me that Lord Snowden’s timing is appalling and that he appears to be less than a gentleman for writing such a book after the death of Princess Margaret, who cannot defend herself from her current residence in Heaven. What are your own views?
By Gigi on June 2nd, 2008 at 3:21 pm
Gigi, I haven’t got round to the Snowdon book yet, but you make it sound intriguing.
By John on June 2nd, 2008 at 3:25 pm
Gigi, I have also been reading the excerpts from Lord Snowden’s book and it makes me wonder if there was more then a grain of truth in the recent blackmail case against a “close member of the Queen’s family.” After all, the apple doesn’t fall far from the tree and it would explain why Viscount and Viscountess Linley looked so glum at the Phillips’ wedding.
By Arthur on June 2nd, 2008 at 6:38 pm
I must say, dear Arthur, that it gave me pause also. I must also say that people cannot help what they are. I do not care what people do in the privacy of their own boudoirs, as long as they break no laws and do not abuse the rights of others. However, it is quite another thing to write a tell-all book after the death of one’s spouse, revealing very private details of their life together, and to make things public that should be kept private. Further, to do this when the other person most concerned is deceased and cannot offer rebuttal is outrageous. I am greatly offended that Lord Snowdon, who owes his title, the life in the spotlight he so enjoyed and the beautiful upbringing of his children to the Queen and Princess Margaret, would so betray them by publishing such a vile book, and at a time when the elderly Queen has somewhat recently lost her sister and her mother and does not need to hear of past piccadillos. I am seriously displeased about this. What has become of the gratitude and the loyalty Lord Snowdon owes to the mother of his children and to the Queen? Does he not care about the feelings of his son, daughter and grandchildren? How are such revelations remotely helpful to anyone except perhaps to line Lord Snowdon’s pockets with pounds sterling? There is a name for a man who will do anything for money and I believe that word is cad.
By Gigi on June 2nd, 2008 at 9:16 pm
Gigi, I agree with you 100%. Lord Snowden’s book does nothing but embarrass the Queen, Lord Snowden’s children and dare I say Lord Snowden himself. If I had lived such a sordid life, I would want to keep it quiet, not put it out there for all to see.
What can Lord Snowden possibly gain from revealing all these intimate details? We already know Lord Snowden and Princess Margaret had a turbulent marriage and Roddy Llewellyn is no mystery to anyone, so let Princess Margaret rest in peace. It doesn’t take very much courage to write trash about someone who is no longer here to defend herself.
If Lord Snowden wanted to write about his troubled upbringing and his relationship with his mother, fine, that’s his business. However, the publishers knew very few individuals would buy a book about Anthony Armstrong-Jones’ childhood. It might make a good character study for a psychology course, but that’s all. In order to rake in the pounds/dollars, a book like Lord Snowden’s must be filled with titillating details and Lord Snowden gives us those details in abundance.
By Arthur on June 3rd, 2008 at 12:38 am
Perhaps the Linleys were glum because they knew that his father’s book was about to be published, and didn’t want the family’s dirty laundry aired once again.
By Evelyn on June 3rd, 2008 at 3:51 am