Why Kate Middleton Never Looks Bad in Photos

originally posted by: WarminIndy
Is William's last name Windsor or the Greek one?

The answer someone gave a couple of posts below your question has increased the confusion a little.
In fact the Windsors and the Mountbattens are two different lines, which came together in the marriage of the Queen and Prince Philip.
The Windsors descend from Victoria and Albert. Albert belonged to the ruling dynasty of Saxe-Coburg, descended from the ancient house of Wettin, and they changed the name to Windsor in the first world war.
The Mountbattens are descended from Prince Louis of Battenburg, who again changed his name during the first world war. Until he was forced to resign, for the crime of having German ancestors, he had been helping to run the Royal Navy under Winston Churchill.

According to the stories, Lord Mountbatten always used to argue that the royal dynasty had become "Mountbatten" as a result of the marriage. He was right by the usual conventions of history. On the other hand, I've seen the counter-argument that the Act of Parliament which changed the name to Windsor made the name permanent, so that the royal family is "Windsor" by legal definition, however many marriages they go through.
I've read that the younger generations of the family favour the compromise surname "Mountbatten-Windsor", and apparently Prince Charles signed the marriage register in that name.

So what should the newspapers call her? I take the point that the formal title won't do for headline purposes, but they could surely use something like "Duchess Kate"?
Incidentally, there was a time in the not-so-distant past when she could have been given the title "Princess William". This used to be the convention (and we still have a "Princess Michael of Kent"), in line with the custom of referring to John Smith's wife as "Mrs. John Smith". Princess Diana nearly became "Princess Charles", but the Palace backed off from the idea, recognising that the public could no longer cope with it.

a reply to: DISRAELI

But is it like here where a wife doesn't necessarily take her husband's name legally? Could she opt out of taking the surname?

I remember the flack over Diana, but she was born Lady Diana and that's how she was entitled to be called Princess upon marriage. Kate wasn't born with a title, but will she be called Princess one day?

I am not sure how those laws work, but I remember that about Diana, how they said she would be called that because she was born titled.

a reply to: WarminIndy
I suppose she could have opted not to take her husband's surname, but I don't think she did. I think the use of "Kate Middleton" is just headline-writers' laziness.
The real problem is that royal families did not historically need surnames, because their title and their territory was enough to identify them. Therefore they did not adopt them. Even great names like "Bourbon" and "Hapsburg" were not real surnames, but the names of the territories they originally ruled.
Because of that, they fit rather awkwardly into a surname-using system.

Diana became a princess by marriage to the Prince of Wales. Her previous title would not have made her one.
It seems likely that Kate would become Princess of Wales in the same way, in the normal course of events.

originally posted by: DISRAELI
a reply to: WarminIndy
I suppose she could have opted not to take her husband's surname, but I don't think she did. I think the use of "Kate Middleton" is just headline-writers' laziness.
The real problem is that royal families did not historically need surnames, because their title and their territory was enough to identify them. Therefore they did not adopt them. Even great names like "Bourbon" and "Hapsburg" were not real surnames, but the names of the territories they originally ruled.
Because of that, they fit rather awkwardly into a surname-using system.

Diana became a princess by marriage to the Prince of Wales. Her previous title would not have made her one.
It seems likely that Kate would become Princess of Wales in the same way, in the normal course of events.

True.

I think it will take time for us to get used to calling her Duchess Kate. By the time that happens, we will then call her Princess Kate.

But it has a nice ring, King William and Princess Catherine, would we have to call her that, or still can we say Kate? Which reminds me of other women who married kings. Anne Boleyn was never Queen Anne, but what was her title? Which of his wives were titled as Princess? Catherine of Aragon, I think, was the only one called Queen. Wasn't a Matilda called Queen but then a Stephen took it from her, so his wife Matilda could be Princess?

Lady Jane Grey became nine day Queen. Too bad for her, killed by Princess Mary who became Queen.

The history of the monarchy is confusing.

a reply to: WarminIndy
If William becomes King, then Kate will become his Queen.
Similarly all of Henry VIII's wives were queens, in their turn, because they were married to the king.
I can quote you the authority of Shakespeare; "Katherine, queen of England, come into the court".
That's one of the meanings of the word. The King's wife is Queen, just as a Duke's wife is a Duchess, a Lord's wife is a Lady, and an Earl's wife is ... well, she's a Countess, but let's not go into that complication.
If Charles becomes king, then Camilla is automatically his queen, by the same logic, though the absurd prejudice of some people wants to deny her the title.

The other kind of Queen, less common, is the woman who becomes ruler in her own right, rather than being married to the ruler. So Victoria, and the present Queen. Matilda could have been styled "Queen" by the people who supported her, though in practice she is commonly labelled "the Empress Matilda" (because she was the widow of an Emperor).

originally posted by: DISRAELI
a reply to: WarminIndy
If William becomes King, then Kate will become his Queen.
Similarly all of Henry VIII's wives were queens, in their turn, because they were married to the king.
I can quote you the authority of Shakespeare; "Katherine, queen of England, come into the court".
That's one of the meanings of the word. The King's wife is Queen, just as a Duke's wife is a Duchess, a Lord's wife is a Lady, and an Earl's wife is ... well, she's a Countess, but let's not go into that complication.
If Charles becomes king, then Camilla is automatically his queen, by the same logic, though the absurd prejudice of some people wants to deny her the title.

The other kind of Queen, less common, is the woman who becomes ruler in her own right, rather than being married to the ruler. So Victoria, and the present Queen. Matilda could have been styled "Queen" by the people who supported her, though in practice she is commonly labelled "the Empress Matilda" (because she was the widow of an Emperor).

That is nice, she will be called Queen one day. But her son George, if she is still alive when he becomes King, how would she be referred? King Mother?

originally posted by: WarminIndy
That is nice, she will be called Queen one day. But her son George, if she is still alive when he becomes King, how would she be referred? King Mother?

Aargh!
In that event, she OUGHT to be called "Queen Mother".
But there's a definite possibility that the English might have grown ignorant enough about their own language and history to call her "King Mother" instead.

It's partly the present Queen's fault. For more than fifty years, from 1952, she and the late Queen Mother were living side by side, and between them they apparently convinced three or four British generations that the phrase "Queen Mother" means "mother of the Queen". IT DOES NOT!

In all previous history, for at least a thousand years, the mother of a king who succeeded his father is normally styled "Queen Mother"- at least that's what the historians call them. The logic is that she was "Queen" as long as her husband was reigning. After his death, she was still an honorary "Queen", and the word "Mother" is added to distinguish her from the new king's wife.
She was a queen, and mother of the monarch. So "Queen Mother".

Half a century of the two Elizabeths was enough to make people forget all that (especially when schools stopped teaching about kings and queens and began teaching "what people used to cook and wear" instead).
So in Diana's time, newspaper speculation was already inventing the barbaric phrase "king mother" to describe her possible future role.
If there's any sign of this ignorance being made official, lovers of the English language will have to launch a counter-attack.

a reply to: DISRAELI

LOL.

That's really confusing....

So really, we should just get used to calling her Princess Kate now, that way when she becomes Queen, we will be accustomed to it.

400 years of Colonial American ancestry to me, I can only look at it with wonder. But whenever it finally does happen, I am sure she will be good at that role. I'm not comparing her to Diana, definitely two different women in two different times. But Diana is worthy of being remembered by history as a good Princess, in my opinion.

a reply to: WarminIndy

First your link is not to yahoo but Foxnews Style/Beauty section so yea in that section this IS news!


I think she is just photogenic and very pretty myself. I love her style and she seems very down to earth and I like her. I could be wrong but all I have are pics and what the media puts out but she is just naturally pretty. I think she is more cute girl next door than anything.

People criticize others far too much today. Wow.

originally posted by: mblahnikluver
a reply to: WarminIndy

First your link is not to yahoo but Foxnews Style/Beauty section so yea in that section this IS news!


I think she is just photogenic and very pretty myself. I love her style and she seems very down to earth and I like her. I could be wrong but all I have are pics and what the media puts out but she is just naturally pretty. I think she is more cute girl next door than anything.

People criticize others far too much today. Wow.

I saw it on the Yahoo main page.

Criticize her for what? She hasn't done anything like Sarah Ferguson did, but then again, Sarah Ferguson wasn't married to the next in line.

a reply to: WarminIndy

Oh she is criticized! I read gossip celebrity sites as a guilty pleasure and they are harsh on her. I wasn't saying you were criticizing her

originally posted by: mblahnikluver
a reply to: WarminIndy

Oh she is criticized! I read gossip celebrity sites as a guilty pleasure and they are harsh on her. I wasn't saying you were criticizing her

I suppose some people aren't happy with things, no matter how little there is to be upset about.

Duchess Kate seems a nice enough person and I think she and William make a very nice couple. What really makes me think how much they love each other is just the way they are with each other, those little things they do.

When George was born and they left the hospital the first time and he showed George off to the public, I think it showed the most when he gently turned to her and so softly took him from her. The way he did it was just so tender. There seemed to be such a unity between them.

Prince William also never always wears a suit jacket and has his sleeves rolled up. He seems more down to earth that way.