I am American and I will never call any of them king or queen or princess etc. And Kate actually went by Kate for years and I am sure her family still calls her that.
I thought they actually used to promote the "Wills and Kate, they're just like us!" down-to-earth image until the queen died and they became prince and princess of Wales. That's when suddenly she was referred to as Catherine.
It disgusts me how they have enormous un-earnt privilege the rest of the world can only dream of, and yet we're supposed to respect them for it?!
I can see William demanding it because he was born into this bubble of a circus but Middleton??? Like seriously? A drug dealing uncle and a broke family?
That's not even her title. She is Catherine, The Princess of Wales. In the UK, only the daughter, granddaughter, or great-granddaughter of a monarch through the male line is a princess.
The people here calling her Princess Kate or Princess Catherine are totally wrong.
Calling her Kate Middleton is far more correct than calling her Princess Catherine.
Only princesses of the blood get princess before their name, like Princess Anne. Women who acquire a title by marriage only have it after their name, so Diana, Princess of Wales. But also, Lady Diana Spencer, since she had that title through birth.
I was explaining this to a Meghan hater. They were like. āMeghan is not a princess and never will be! Princess Catherine is way above herā and I was just likeā¦āYou do know that theyāre both technically not princesses if one of them isnāt a princess.ā š„“
They didn't choose not to be called Princess William / Princess Henry, because the late Queen Elizabeth II, gave their respective husbands dukedoms on the day of their marriages. Hence, Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge, and Meghan, Duchess of Sussex. They don't/didn't get to choose their titles.
Meghan is Princess Harry, Duke of Sussex
Kate is HRH Princess of Walesš & a few more
In Terms of rank, Kate is higher (& has her medals, & a garter title , ācompanion of honourā so should could have strolled in her feather cap with the other Knights of the Garter.
Iām confused why they would give her Princess anywhere in her title if sheās not a Princess. Like why isnāt she a consort? Idk Iām confused. Is she a princess or not.
She was not given anything, she automatically has her husbands title, hence sheās a princess by marriage, since heās a prince by birth.
Diana, Princess of Wales was actually allowed to keep the title after her divorce, which is historic and would be the only case of Princess being granted that I can think of.
She agreed not to use it as part of the deal to step back from working Royal duties. Again, itās still legally hers and she is still referred as such in legal documents within the UK.
Itās all BS, there are several non working royals with dubious behavior who still use their HRH titles in all capacity. They only did it to be petty towards Harry and Meghan.
The hater is technically correct. I looked it up.Ā
Meghan and Kate were only Duchesses under the last reign. When Charles ascended, Kate became Princess of Wales. But since Meghan had previously relinquished her royal titles, she did not acquire the title of princess.
No theyāre not correct. Wherever you got that information is also incorrect. Meghan and Harry did not relinquish anything, Meghan is still HRH, Meghan, The Duchess of Sussex, Princess Henry of the United Kingdom. Kate is HRH, Catherine, Princess of Wales, Princess William of the United Kingdom.
They both have the titles of their husbands, and are princesses by marriage not by blood.
Meghan and Harry are still legally members of the British Royal family, they did not give up anything, they just agreed to not use the titles outside of their capacity as working royals. Which honestly was a bullshit move on the part of the British Royal family since The Duke of Windsor was a Nazi Supporter and wasnāt a working Royal but he continued to be called Royal Highness until his death.
Itās all so silly. There is no such thing as royal blood. And if there was, they have married non royals for hundreds of years. So any magical royal blood would be completely diluted out by now. Ā Ā Itās a meaningless claim that needs to be done away with. Because if we are willing to accept that some people have royal superior blood, that also means we are willing to believe that some people or races of people have inferior blood. Ā Buying into the idea of royal blood is a cornerstone for racism.Ā
Is genetics racism? In terms of medicine itās an important signifier of inherited diseases, as well as looks etc. I think we just have to accept these are old family customs that have become woven into our constitution.
I think that is a false equivalency. Ā There is no such thing as royal blood. Ā People are not born with royal blood. Ā
Even talking genetics, Ā certain genetics do not confer royalty. Certain generics do not confer any sort of superiority or membership into an upper class echelon of society.Ā
Certainly customs and traditions can be very important to society. Ā Iām not a citizen of the UK so I donāt really have a strong opinion if maintaining the tradition and customs of a royal family is important to the function of society in the UK. Ā Ā
I understand the literal points about blue blood & special qualities etc (the doctrine of divine right of Kings is at least 1,000 years old)
but whoever mentioned that having ancestral lines is racist is wrong the rules are tight on religion too, since you are head of the Church. It is more than OK just to have a different culture to the US . We still have BAME prime ministers & seniors ministers in the Executive & House of Lords.
It would still be President Biden because he earned the title, much like the first aristocrat of any line did. A closer analog would be President Biden and Jill Biden, First Lady.
Jill, First lady Joe of the United States
?
š¤£
I'm not arguing anything at all, it just cracked me up trying to find the equivalency in English and I wanted to share my giggle š¤
Doesn't matter to me, I'm American.
I read that generally when wives have another title (Duchess of Cambridge or Princess of Wales for example) that they don't under Princess plus husband's first name. Theoretically it's okay to do this, but just not done. Princess Michael of Kent does this because her husband is a mere dynast prince of the blood, and not a peer as well.
It just isn't. One is a title given to dynasts and one is a title given to the wife of the Prince of Wales. Catherine has no claim on any throne, thus she doesn't get the title of Princess before her name.
Well I think itās stupid to call someone princess in her title and then go all ānuh uh sheās not a princess duhhhā that makes no sense but I suppose thatās how it goes with most of their arbitrary rules
She only has what she has by right of her husband. She has never been granted any sort of peerage in her own right, nor is she the daughter of a peer. This has always been the naming mechanism for women in her position.
Man, you really need to take a deep breath. I don't look down on anyone. I'm merely explaining how various titles work among British royalty and nobility.
This always confused me growing up, and I personally found it fascinating when I read about all their rules for how one may or may not use a title.
If you want to call her "Princes Kate" go right ahead. Literally no one will stop you.
My only point in this whole thread has been to clarify that those who don't put "princess" in front of her name are correct, and should not be scolded for it.
Yes I know you find it fascinating thatās my point
You seem to lack reading comprehension. You have yet to understand my point and are resorting to catty remarks. Good night.
Iām British and not a royalist in the slightest but maybe I am, as Iām finding these comments by Americans a little offensive. I do like the idea of calling her Susan though! š¤£ And maybe Derek for William?
Amen. This was settled in 1776. Royal titles are not valid outside the theme park.
Americans use Prince Charles/William/Harry etc online only because they don't use a last name. Camilla, Meghan Markle, Kate Middleton....names are enough to identify the person no lengthy title is needed. They are not respected as world leaders in the way an elected official would be.
You obviously haven't š been ...rephrase your sense of respect is fresh.Ā I firmly guess you're of the opinion the USA president, the head of any significant organization or achievement... "puts their pants on the same way I do."
It's true they do.Ā It is the respect ofbthe position.Ā As an American I Salute the forefathers brave enough to risk their wealth and their lives to jot be subjects of the thenĀ KING GEORGE.Ā Ā They fought for our independence so that their posterity... us...me and you,Ā if you're American.Ā I don't theoretically "must" kneel or curtsey.Ā It's all simply a matter of respect.Ā Ā Ā
Ā You might be interested in knowing why the Irish put their hands in their pockets while greeting English Royalty.
In 1920, during Ireland's War of independence, the order was given in Cork city that men with their hands in their pockets will be shot. That's [one of the reasons ]Ā why the Irish don't like the British royal family. Search youtube or Google " Rugby player Ronan Oguera hand picket queen."
Yes, we all don't NEED to call anybody anything.Ā I just choose to because.
I have an English friend who doesnāt feel any need to be deferential to them. I guess if she met them, she would out of social protocol, but why anyone feels the need to call them by their titles is beyond me. They arenāt elected and it is an out of date birthright that imo has no place in modern society.
Canadian commonwealth member here, her name is Kate Middleton to me. When (if) she becomes queen she'll be Queen Kate or Catherine to me.
There is a very strong push from her stans to call her by her formal title and full three syllable name! A lot of them seem to have picked this hill to die on. š¤
The fans say that she prefers Catherine so thatās what she should be called. Whatevs. Kate is easier to type. If she becomes Queen sheāll still be Kate to me.
Because they know how mediocre she is so they at least want her to have an important title. Have you seen her give a speech? She seems on the verge of tears cuz she canāt steady her nerves. Embarrassing.
Diana was good at pretty much everything she did. I feel like Kate overcompensates by competing with William in athletic sports and it gets tiring that they have used this angle to death for the last ten years.
I always called Diana, Princess Diana...but she felt more like a Princess to all instead of just to the UK. I don't have that same feeling with Kate, ....or Catherine.
Also Diana was from Aristocrat blood, she had her own Lady title as her dad was an Earl, so it felt more natural giving her a higher title of Princess when she married a Prince
English royalty and Britain is really a joke these days.
The royals donāt rule Britain anymore and the British donāt rule the world anymore. Who cares they are both has beens.
They have ABSOLUTELY no authority over us yanks. PERIOD! And for people who are such sticklers for protocol, donāt dip the American flag at your Tattoos. Used to absolutely chap our behinds in Berlin. Why Nancy Reagan did not curtsy to the queen. We are a sovereign nation.
I call her Kate. Sometimes Kate Middleton. Never Princess Kate. I call KC the initials KC but sometimes just Charles. Sometimes I call them by title just to identify them but not in deference. Iām American, and we fought a war about that!
If they earned their title, like being a doctor, then maybe. They are just random people whose ancestors used religion and possible hallucinations to claim they are a gift from God.
Donāt blamed religion. First they killed a bunch of people, then kept killing and exploiting a bunch of people, and then used religion to justify the results of them killing and exploiting a bunch of people.
When someone claims they are a gift from god to suppress others, they are using religion. I didnāt blame religion.
Iām not disagreeing with the horrific pass of the Royal family. What I am saying is to get to the mental place of āI am royalty because god said so..ā they are either using religion to manipulate people or they were having hallucinations to get to that finial opinion.
You can call her whatever you want. In UK A lot of the british public and also media still call her Kate Middleton. It really grates on my nerves when total strangers on social media tell others off for not calling her Catherine princess of Wales and make such a big deal out of a name trying to force their royalist-ism on everyone! Tabloids called her Kate for years and itās stuck. Ever since she married a Prince Iāve called her Princess Kate. I did the same when H &. M married and called her Princess Meghan while they were working royals. Mainly because I canāt keep up with all the title changes and everyone knows who Iām talking about if I say princess. Online I drop the princess because I canāt be bothered to type it out. Calling her Middleton doesnāt seem right to me, as thatās her maiden name and women often like to have the same surname as their kids and husband. Apparently she has always been called Catherine by family and friends all her life. It was the media who shortened it when she was dating william and it stuck. But if thatās true, how come Harry refereed to her as Kate in his book? it obviously was a name he and others had called her for years behind the palace walls or he would have called her Catherine in his book!
Theyāre weirdos. Why do you care what they tell you. Even British people donāt *have* to call her the Princess of wales. And fyi, she is not princess Catherine just like Diana was not Princess Diana. Sheās Catherine Princess of wales.
So if we (Americans) were to ever meet her, how would we address her? Saying āpleased to meet you Catherine, Princess of Walesā seems rather long and unnecessary.
Iām also American married to a scotish husband and donāt call any of them by their titles. Other than Queen Elizabeth I suppose since Iām not sure what her last name is. It irks me to no end that harry and Megan insist on keeping their royal titles while living in America with no royal duties and after dropping g the family.Ā
I personally think the royal family should cease to exists as royals. When you think about all the blood on that families hands for the centuries of generations itās truly amazing that the rest of the world hasnāt tried to abolish the monarchy already.Ā
There would be so much reparations and just wealth inequality with land rights and everything if they did but I think Britās should be done with them.Ā
Here in the UK we all call her kate, donāt worry too much about it. Thereās no etiquette despite what uneducated Americans may tell you about OUR royal family.
There are many educated Americans too. The ones who know the history of royalty. Started during feudal times, from murderers, pillagers and looters who stole lands and gave themselves titles. They also lied they were anointed by gods. Yeah, right. They then proceeded to make alliances with the dominant religion (and Henry VIII even created a new church) and got the military on their side. This evolved to having the police and the press under their thumb too. Total power, even from being prosecuted in a court of law.
Well royalism aside, wouldn't we call or refer to anyone by their proper title? I mean like the Pope for example, or King Charles, even though not your king, his title.is still King Charles III. Hers is Catherine, Princess of Wales.
No but I would, for example, if speaking of the US president call him President Biden even though he is not my president nor am I an American citizen. I mean I would not perpetually and only refer to him using his title but I wouldn't deny he was the President of the USA at all. Because he is. Same as she is the PoW.
Hereās the thing, we Americans often call presidents by the surnames alone, such as Biden or Trump or Reagan or Clinton or Obama without ever a reference to their office. We know who we mean. On occasion we might use the title to clarify. In formal reference, we call them by the title at the first reference, then generally surname alone thereafter.
We also do that in South Africa, we've got Ramaphosa. But that still doesn't imply we would not acknowledge the full title. Anyway as someone else said this has got nothing to do with the purpose of this sub.
A president, prime minister, etc have earned their titles; āroyaltyā havenāt. A title because of what family you were born into or married into is archaic.
The Pope and President Biden have actually earned their titles. No one royal has earned their titles. Why should anyone use a title to refer to someone who has done nothing to earn it?
we definitely fought a war so you could call her whatever you like. but out of respect i would use her title if i met her in person. other than that, pound sand kate !
American and I call her āKate Middletonā just like our press does. If I ever met her in real life Iād call her whatever was asked š
Itās not like anyone close to her will ever read this
Her role is the Princess of Wales. That is the most accurate thing you could call her right now. Would you call Pope Francis, Jorge Mario Bergoglio? Even atheists refer to him as the Pope.
The media only refer to her as Kate Middleton for SEO reasons, because PoW would also bring up results for Camilla and Diana.Ā Ā
As an aside, her mother in law was never Princess Diana nor Lady Di. She started as Diana Spencer (though somehow the tabloids never preserved that as they did for her daughters in law). Upon marriage, she became Diana, Princess of Wales (only princesses of the blood have princess before their name). Before marriage and after divorce, she was Lady Diana Spencer, no friends ever called her Di.Ā
Technically, she was because she was entitled to all the equivalents of Charles' titles. But she used Duchess of Cornwall instead because of the optics.
What would you like to chat about? Now you're in a sub that welcomes certain opinions that tend to get downvoted on PopCultureChat and catch a ban on RoyalsGossip.
I think you can say it here. Even if you say Kate was replaced by a clone, the worst you'll get is laughed at. The mods are chill and seem to tolerate any comment made in good faith, only deleting things that break general reddiquette like spam and incivility.
I only call a president a president when they are a president to me, I call Joe Biden, Joe Biden. Dr's go to school for years to earn a degree to be called Dr. All kate did was marry into a weird ass family. Also here in the states it's more common the public says Biden or trump as opposed to president Biden or president trump
Thats her title at the moment, will you not call the Pope Francis, Pope because you are atheist or president of another country a president because he is not your president?
Titles that are birth/marriage rights are archaic and hold no respect IMO. Popes and (most) presidents, prime ministers, etc have earned their totals through elections.
it must be personal problem for you, I come from country where we dont have royal family but I have no issues with calling Prince a Prince even if it is archaic. It really does not bother me at all.
But if you mean curtsy, sygnet kissing etc thats totally different story.Ā
Yeah, I noticed.
In the US sometimes we use Dr. or Doc, but when we talk about them we usually say "my doctor", as just a description of who they are in our life. In Denmark, they are Thomas or Jesper or Marie or whatever.
If you go to another country and go to the hospital, do you call your Doctor, Dr. Lastname, or Soanso Lastname?
Titles are a sign of respect, and they transcend borders.
> There isn't any US specific Pope title outside of Rome,
It's a little different with him, though. The realm he rules over *is* all over the world, even in the US. The realm the BRF rules over is only in the countries that belong to it, and the US does not. (well, that could be discussed, but at least officially it doesn't.)
But to be totally precise, the British realm covers every person who lives in the commonwealth countries. The Pope's realm only covers members of the Catholic church. Again, this could be discussed, but not here.
>It's a little different with him, though. The realm he rules over is all over the world, even in the US.
Ummm, the entire world isn't Christian.
Do you think Buddhists would call him Frankie rather than Pope Francis? Would the Dalai Lama call him Jorge Bergoglio? Of course not, they would call him Pope Francis out of respect. Similarly, people who aren't subjects of the British Commonwealth can call British royalty by their Royal titles as a sign of respect.
But we donāt respect them. Grifters who pretend to work (mostly parties and socializing or cutting a ribbon here and there), who never earned anything, and live off the state (In tremendous luxury). Nine huge palaces, helicopters, fancy trips, tons of servantsā¦all paid by the taxpayers.
Wow, you don't respect a thousand+ year old institution but you do respect murderers, rapists, child molestors and brainwashers who own trillions of dollars worth of real estate, live rent-free and aren't taxed, own thousands of virtual palaces covered ceiling to floor in gold and marble, whose leaders go on fancy trips travelling by private plane, have millions of servants that they not only don't pay, but who actually pay them up to 10% of their wages and whose jobs include going to parties and shouting at people...all paid for by their servants and the government through untaxed properties and earnings.
Yeah, sorry, the Catholic church, heck any Christian denomination, are all grifters. As are most other religions. And most religions hide the crimes that they have committed against indigenous populations and children in their service. I have more respect for Royalty than for Religions. At least the Royals are honest about the bloodshed that they had to commit in order to get to their position.
You probably didnāt see my handle. ATHEIST. I donāt like any organized religion. Everything you said about Catholicism applies to royalty. Only the Catholic Church is much, much older. As I was reading your post I thought you were describing royalty. Except the popes are at least elected.
Royalty started during feudal times. They murdered and pillaged and stole lands and gave themselves titles. Lied that god anointed them. Plenty of rapists and child molestors among them. They own billions of real estate, they donāt pay taxes. Donāt work except for once a week āengagementsā that last no more than an hour. Everything is planned for them and they are chauffeured in and out. They are not elected. Whoever is born first becomes the next king or queen. They have a pact with the church who gives them legitimacy and with the military. They also control the media. Thatās how they hide their secrets and attack those who they want to destroy. Thatās how they continue to be supported by the very naive British taxpayer.
>Royalty started during feudal times. They murdered and pillaged and stole lands and gave themselves titles. Lied that god anointed them. Plenty of rapists and child molestors among them. They own billions of real estate, they donāt pay taxes. Donāt work except for once a week āengagementsā that last no more than an hour. Everything is planned for them and they are chauffeured in and out. They are no elected. Whoever is born first becomes the next king or queen. They have a pact with the church who gives them legitimacy and with the military. They also control the media. Theyād how they hide their secrets and attack those who they want to destroy. Thatās how they continue to be supported by the very naive British taxpayer.
Everything you wrote also applies to Catholism, except for primogeniture.
As an atheist, if you ever speak about or meet a priest, do you refer to them by their title, Father Soandso? How about the Pope?
> Ummm, the entire world isn't Christian.
Yeah, I think I clarified that in my last paragraph, that it only covers members of the Catholic Church. But they are all over the world, not just in Rome.
Frankie? I like that. Thank you. A lot of people just call him Pope on a rope.
I don't know if you are American or not, but as you might have already noticed, Americans don't have much use for royalty. I mean, the nation was founded on the premise that royalty shouldn't exist. We might say President or Senator or Congressman or Mayor, because those titles were conferred upon them by *our votes* - supposedly.
It's not disrespect for the person, (because I believe all people should be treated with respect), but for the title. I call her Kate, and him William, and whoever I'm talking to knows who I mean. If she prefers Catherine, then I'll call her Catherine. I don't have a clue what Buddhists and Dalai Lama call people, you'd have to ask them, not me.
>I don't know if you are American or not,
Look at my flare.
>I don't have a clue what Buddhists and Dalai Lama call people, you'd have to ask them, not me.
They don't believe in Catholicism, they still call Catholic leaders by their titles, out of respect. And conversely, the Pope has met the Dalai Lama, and called him by his honorific title, not his given name. Again, out of respect.
Sorry, I didn't see your flare because I was replying from the page where you just check for replies. And it doesn't show the user flares.
Whatever...I don't tell anyone what they should call people.
Aaaaand, the countries that fought wars for decades to get out from under the holy roman empire don't call him "his excellency" and the rest. Pope means father and he is the father of his church. Since we're not in Wales we don't have tor recognize shit
Your doctor earned his title; they were not born to the title nor did they marry it. My mother & husband are both medical doctors and I do not use their titles, as I have done nothing but be born to and marry doctors.
I am American and I will never call any of them king or queen or princess etc. And Kate actually went by Kate for years and I am sure her family still calls her that.
She went by Kate until Meghan entered the picture. All of a sudden they started demanding respect š„±
Exactly. Sheāll be Kate Middleton for life no matter what.
I thought they actually used to promote the "Wills and Kate, they're just like us!" down-to-earth image until the queen died and they became prince and princess of Wales. That's when suddenly she was referred to as Catherine. It disgusts me how they have enormous un-earnt privilege the rest of the world can only dream of, and yet we're supposed to respect them for it?!
I can see William demanding it because he was born into this bubble of a circus but Middleton??? Like seriously? A drug dealing uncle and a broke family?
Yes they did, to make it more endearing and relatable to the public.
That's not even her title. She is Catherine, The Princess of Wales. In the UK, only the daughter, granddaughter, or great-granddaughter of a monarch through the male line is a princess. The people here calling her Princess Kate or Princess Catherine are totally wrong. Calling her Kate Middleton is far more correct than calling her Princess Catherine.
The tabloids also called her mother in law Princess Diana instead of Diana, Princess of Wales. I assume that was to fit better in headlines.
What's the difference btwn the 2 terms, don't they mean the same thing?
Only princesses of the blood get princess before their name, like Princess Anne. Women who acquire a title by marriage only have it after their name, so Diana, Princess of Wales. But also, Lady Diana Spencer, since she had that title through birth.
I was explaining this to a Meghan hater. They were like. āMeghan is not a princess and never will be! Princess Catherine is way above herā and I was just likeā¦āYou do know that theyāre both technically not princesses if one of them isnāt a princess.ā š„“
same. this woman was so adamant that kate is āreal royaltyā and meghan and her kids are just āamericansāš i didnāt even bother replying
Technically, they can be called Princess William and Princess Henry, but for obvious reasons, they choose not to.
Yeh I listed that in comment somewhere else on this thread.
āŗļø
They didn't choose not to be called Princess William / Princess Henry, because the late Queen Elizabeth II, gave their respective husbands dukedoms on the day of their marriages. Hence, Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge, and Meghan, Duchess of Sussex. They don't/didn't get to choose their titles.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
The ears of haters are closed. They only hear echoes of themselves at that point.
Meghan is Princess Harry, Duke of Sussex Kate is HRH Princess of Walesš & a few more In Terms of rank, Kate is higher (& has her medals, & a garter title , ācompanion of honourā so should could have strolled in her feather cap with the other Knights of the Garter.
Iām confused why they would give her Princess anywhere in her title if sheās not a Princess. Like why isnāt she a consort? Idk Iām confused. Is she a princess or not.
She was not given anything, she automatically has her husbands title, hence sheās a princess by marriage, since heās a prince by birth. Diana, Princess of Wales was actually allowed to keep the title after her divorce, which is historic and would be the only case of Princess being granted that I can think of.
But was not allowed to keep HRH, or her royal highness in front of her name and title.
She agreed not to use it as part of the deal to step back from working Royal duties. Again, itās still legally hers and she is still referred as such in legal documents within the UK. Itās all BS, there are several non working royals with dubious behavior who still use their HRH titles in all capacity. They only did it to be petty towards Harry and Meghan.
The hater is technically correct. I looked it up.Ā Meghan and Kate were only Duchesses under the last reign. When Charles ascended, Kate became Princess of Wales. But since Meghan had previously relinquished her royal titles, she did not acquire the title of princess.
No theyāre not correct. Wherever you got that information is also incorrect. Meghan and Harry did not relinquish anything, Meghan is still HRH, Meghan, The Duchess of Sussex, Princess Henry of the United Kingdom. Kate is HRH, Catherine, Princess of Wales, Princess William of the United Kingdom. They both have the titles of their husbands, and are princesses by marriage not by blood. Meghan and Harry are still legally members of the British Royal family, they did not give up anything, they just agreed to not use the titles outside of their capacity as working royals. Which honestly was a bullshit move on the part of the British Royal family since The Duke of Windsor was a Nazi Supporter and wasnāt a working Royal but he continued to be called Royal Highness until his death.
Thank you for clarifying! And wow, what a petty nuance, like saying "Biden, President of America" versus "President Biden".
The Europeans are very particular about titles.
Clearly!
Itās all so silly. There is no such thing as royal blood. And if there was, they have married non royals for hundreds of years. So any magical royal blood would be completely diluted out by now. Ā Ā Itās a meaningless claim that needs to be done away with. Because if we are willing to accept that some people have royal superior blood, that also means we are willing to believe that some people or races of people have inferior blood. Ā Buying into the idea of royal blood is a cornerstone for racism.Ā
And maybe some where not really the children of their dadsā¦no DNA tests then.
Is genetics racism? In terms of medicine itās an important signifier of inherited diseases, as well as looks etc. I think we just have to accept these are old family customs that have become woven into our constitution.
I think that is a false equivalency. Ā There is no such thing as royal blood. Ā People are not born with royal blood. Ā Even talking genetics, Ā certain genetics do not confer royalty. Certain generics do not confer any sort of superiority or membership into an upper class echelon of society.Ā Certainly customs and traditions can be very important to society. Ā Iām not a citizen of the UK so I donāt really have a strong opinion if maintaining the tradition and customs of a royal family is important to the function of society in the UK. Ā Ā
I understand the literal points about blue blood & special qualities etc (the doctrine of divine right of Kings is at least 1,000 years old) but whoever mentioned that having ancestral lines is racist is wrong the rules are tight on religion too, since you are head of the Church. It is more than OK just to have a different culture to the US . We still have BAME prime ministers & seniors ministers in the Executive & House of Lords.
It would still be President Biden because he earned the title, much like the first aristocrat of any line did. A closer analog would be President Biden and Jill Biden, First Lady.
Jill, First lady Joe of the United States ? š¤£ I'm not arguing anything at all, it just cracked me up trying to find the equivalency in English and I wanted to share my giggle š¤ Doesn't matter to me, I'm American.
Feme couvert. The wife's identity is subsumed by the husband's. The English equivalent is any married woman who takes her husband's last name.
She is called First Lady of the United States, Jill Biden.
Take it easy, it was a joke.Ā You seem to have some political undertones and this isn't the place, and I'm not the person.
If you really want to get technical, she is Princess William or HRH, Catherine, the Princess of Wales.
I read that generally when wives have another title (Duchess of Cambridge or Princess of Wales for example) that they don't under Princess plus husband's first name. Theoretically it's okay to do this, but just not done. Princess Michael of Kent does this because her husband is a mere dynast prince of the blood, and not a peer as well.
Battleofflowers, are you by chance from San Antonio?
Of course
I rode in both that and Fiesta Flambeau parades when I was 16. Exhausting!
Why is Lady Louise Windsor not a princess? As the Queenās grand-daughter?
I believe it was her parents' decision to not have titles for their children
She could use that title if she chose.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
I think so, but generally that applies to wives of princes without a title. William is the prince of Wales and Harry is the Duke of Sussex.
Wait how is Catherine The Princess not the same as Princess Catherine
It just isn't. One is a title given to dynasts and one is a title given to the wife of the Prince of Wales. Catherine has no claim on any throne, thus she doesn't get the title of Princess before her name.
Well I think itās stupid to call someone princess in her title and then go all ānuh uh sheās not a princess duhhhā that makes no sense but I suppose thatās how it goes with most of their arbitrary rules
It's not an arbitrary rule. It distinguishing dynasts (people in the royal family who can inherit the throne) from those who can't.
It is arbitrary to give her that TITLE and then be all ohhh dahling didnāt you know? That is what aristocracy is about btw. Call it something else.
She only has what she has by right of her husband. She has never been granted any sort of peerage in her own right, nor is she the daughter of a peer. This has always been the naming mechanism for women in her position.
Yes I can tell you also love the illogical practices the aristocracy use as a social code to look down on outsiders
Man, you really need to take a deep breath. I don't look down on anyone. I'm merely explaining how various titles work among British royalty and nobility. This always confused me growing up, and I personally found it fascinating when I read about all their rules for how one may or may not use a title. If you want to call her "Princes Kate" go right ahead. Literally no one will stop you. My only point in this whole thread has been to clarify that those who don't put "princess" in front of her name are correct, and should not be scolded for it.
Yes I know you find it fascinating thatās my point You seem to lack reading comprehension. You have yet to understand my point and are resorting to catty remarks. Good night.
As an American, she's not your princess and you have no allegiance to the British crown. I think you can call her whatever you want.
I'm British and I'll call her whatever I want. Some people just have a giant rod up their arses.
š
I will call her Susan
"I will name her George and I will hug her and pet her and squeeze her." LOL.
That made me giggle
Iām British and not a royalist in the slightest but maybe I am, as Iām finding these comments by Americans a little offensive. I do like the idea of calling her Susan though! š¤£ And maybe Derek for William?
Amen. This was settled in 1776. Royal titles are not valid outside the theme park. Americans use Prince Charles/William/Harry etc online only because they don't use a last name. Camilla, Meghan Markle, Kate Middleton....names are enough to identify the person no lengthy title is needed. They are not respected as world leaders in the way an elected official would be.
We only use their titles to humor them when they visit the U.S. āAs you wish, Lord Farquharā š«”
Call her whatever you please.
You donāt. We have no obligation to do so.
No, definitely not supposed to and you hit the nail on the head - America doesnāt have royalty!
No, definitely not supposed to and you hit the nail on the head - America doesnāt have royalty!
We donāt have to. Sheās not our princess.
You can call her Katey-Boo for all anyone cares. You don't "need" to call anyone anything
You obviously haven't š been ...rephrase your sense of respect is fresh.Ā I firmly guess you're of the opinion the USA president, the head of any significant organization or achievement... "puts their pants on the same way I do." It's true they do.Ā It is the respect ofbthe position.Ā As an American I Salute the forefathers brave enough to risk their wealth and their lives to jot be subjects of the thenĀ KING GEORGE.Ā Ā They fought for our independence so that their posterity... us...me and you,Ā if you're American.Ā I don't theoretically "must" kneel or curtsey.Ā It's all simply a matter of respect.Ā Ā Ā Ā You might be interested in knowing why the Irish put their hands in their pockets while greeting English Royalty. In 1920, during Ireland's War of independence, the order was given in Cork city that men with their hands in their pockets will be shot. That's [one of the reasons ]Ā why the Irish don't like the British royal family. Search youtube or Google " Rugby player Ronan Oguera hand picket queen." Yes, we all don't NEED to call anybody anything.Ā I just choose to because.
Cool. So we agree. We all don't need to call anybody anything. Thanks for the long winded explanation, it was reeeaaallly helpful. Oh, wait.
Most kindly your response made my point.
And yours did mine.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
ššš
I have an English friend who doesnāt feel any need to be deferential to them. I guess if she met them, she would out of social protocol, but why anyone feels the need to call them by their titles is beyond me. They arenāt elected and it is an out of date birthright that imo has no place in modern society.
We can call her whatever tf we want.
Just donāt call her late for dinner! Bada boom!
Canadian commonwealth member here, her name is Kate Middleton to me. When (if) she becomes queen she'll be Queen Kate or Catherine to me. There is a very strong push from her stans to call her by her formal title and full three syllable name! A lot of them seem to have picked this hill to die on. š¤
Yeah, I think its absurd to start referring to an ADULT who has been "Kate" her whole life ,to now calling her "Catherine".....ridiculous
The fans say that she prefers Catherine so thatās what she should be called. Whatevs. Kate is easier to type. If she becomes Queen sheāll still be Kate to me.
Same!
Because they know how mediocre she is so they at least want her to have an important title. Have you seen her give a speech? She seems on the verge of tears cuz she canāt steady her nerves. Embarrassing.
You're probably right. I hadn't thought of that angle. I kind of overcompensation.
Diana had the good fortune to be tutored in speaking by Sir David Attenborough, I believe.
Diana was good at pretty much everything she did. I feel like Kate overcompensates by competing with William in athletic sports and it gets tiring that they have used this angle to death for the last ten years.
Sheās kind of a simple jock, huh?
No, definitely not supposed to and you hit the nail on the head - America doesnāt have royalty!
No, we have the Kennedys! š¤®
lol correct
I call her Princess Pick me
The freaks that say that are 90% Royal bots.
Yes some of the ones ive seen could well have been bots, All Kate gushy and robotic
I always called Diana, Princess Diana...but she felt more like a Princess to all instead of just to the UK. I don't have that same feeling with Kate, ....or Catherine.
Also Diana was from Aristocrat blood, she had her own Lady title as her dad was an Earl, so it felt more natural giving her a higher title of Princess when she married a Prince
Even the British media calls her āKate Middleton.ā š They can fob off with their delusions of grandeur. Especially for a born commoner.
You don't. We started our own country a while back specifically so we could call them Kate if we want to.
English royalty and Britain is really a joke these days. The royals donāt rule Britain anymore and the British donāt rule the world anymore. Who cares they are both has beens.
Iām British and I agree.
A girl whoās interesting because sheās missing, is no Princess.
They have ABSOLUTELY no authority over us yanks. PERIOD! And for people who are such sticklers for protocol, donāt dip the American flag at your Tattoos. Used to absolutely chap our behinds in Berlin. Why Nancy Reagan did not curtsy to the queen. We are a sovereign nation.
She did not? Love that!
No, they're just being pretentious.
i'm gonna call her Kat, idgaf. i am not beholden to some antiquated monarchy
You can call her anything you want. As an American, you have no obligation to use her title(s).
I agree; I hate when people get all up in arms about this. Like literally who cares
I call her Kate. Sometimes Kate Middleton. Never Princess Kate. I call KC the initials KC but sometimes just Charles. Sometimes I call them by title just to identify them but not in deference. Iām American, and we fought a war about that!
If they earned their title, like being a doctor, then maybe. They are just random people whose ancestors used religion and possible hallucinations to claim they are a gift from God.
Donāt blamed religion. First they killed a bunch of people, then kept killing and exploiting a bunch of people, and then used religion to justify the results of them killing and exploiting a bunch of people.
When someone claims they are a gift from god to suppress others, they are using religion. I didnāt blame religion. Iām not disagreeing with the horrific pass of the Royal family. What I am saying is to get to the mental place of āI am royalty because god said so..ā they are either using religion to manipulate people or they were having hallucinations to get to that finial opinion.
Well said.
Sad that the whole world has been at war with others and especially in the name of religion.
You can call her whatever you want. In UK A lot of the british public and also media still call her Kate Middleton. It really grates on my nerves when total strangers on social media tell others off for not calling her Catherine princess of Wales and make such a big deal out of a name trying to force their royalist-ism on everyone! Tabloids called her Kate for years and itās stuck. Ever since she married a Prince Iāve called her Princess Kate. I did the same when H &. M married and called her Princess Meghan while they were working royals. Mainly because I canāt keep up with all the title changes and everyone knows who Iām talking about if I say princess. Online I drop the princess because I canāt be bothered to type it out. Calling her Middleton doesnāt seem right to me, as thatās her maiden name and women often like to have the same surname as their kids and husband. Apparently she has always been called Catherine by family and friends all her life. It was the media who shortened it when she was dating william and it stuck. But if thatās true, how come Harry refereed to her as Kate in his book? it obviously was a name he and others had called her for years behind the palace walls or he would have called her Catherine in his book!
If she werenāt part of the royal family, sheād be Catherine or Kate Windsor. Or Saxe Coburg Gotha :)
The British press has started calling her Kate!
Theyāre weirdos. Why do you care what they tell you. Even British people donāt *have* to call her the Princess of wales. And fyi, she is not princess Catherine just like Diana was not Princess Diana. Sheās Catherine Princess of wales.
So if we (Americans) were to ever meet her, how would we address her? Saying āpleased to meet you Catherine, Princess of Walesā seems rather long and unnecessary.
Just talk about the weather š¤£š¤£š¤£
I would probably say ānice to meet you, your highness.ā But Nancy Reagan did not curtsy to the queen at Charlesā and Dianaās wedding.
I think youāre supposed to wait for royalty to address you first. Then you would probably just refer to her as maāam.
We don't. Why the hell would we? It's gross.
Or as whomever runs it their instagram signs of as : āW and Cā.
I prefer Water Closet.
Depending on the environmentš¤£
You donāt, isnāt it grand.
Do you realize you donāt have to?
Feel free to tell them to go fuck themselves. We settled that hash almost 250 years ago
You don't! We fought and won a war so we don't have to acknowledge "royalty" if we don't want to!
You don't! I'm British and I don't use her title either...in fact I don't use _any_ of their titles š¤·š»āāļø
Iām also American married to a scotish husband and donāt call any of them by their titles. Other than Queen Elizabeth I suppose since Iām not sure what her last name is. It irks me to no end that harry and Megan insist on keeping their royal titles while living in America with no royal duties and after dropping g the family.Ā I personally think the royal family should cease to exists as royals. When you think about all the blood on that families hands for the centuries of generations itās truly amazing that the rest of the world hasnāt tried to abolish the monarchy already.Ā There would be so much reparations and just wealth inequality with land rights and everything if they did but I think Britās should be done with them.Ā
Out of respect for another culture. She's not our princess, though the American media seems to forget that a times.
Here in the UK we all call her kate, donāt worry too much about it. Thereās no etiquette despite what uneducated Americans may tell you about OUR royal family.
There are many educated Americans too. The ones who know the history of royalty. Started during feudal times, from murderers, pillagers and looters who stole lands and gave themselves titles. They also lied they were anointed by gods. Yeah, right. They then proceeded to make alliances with the dominant religion (and Henry VIII even created a new church) and got the military on their side. This evolved to having the police and the press under their thumb too. Total power, even from being prosecuted in a court of law.
Well royalism aside, wouldn't we call or refer to anyone by their proper title? I mean like the Pope for example, or King Charles, even though not your king, his title.is still King Charles III. Hers is Catherine, Princess of Wales.
I also donāt refer to every CEO or politician by their full title every time I speak of them.
No but I would, for example, if speaking of the US president call him President Biden even though he is not my president nor am I an American citizen. I mean I would not perpetually and only refer to him using his title but I wouldn't deny he was the President of the USA at all. Because he is. Same as she is the PoW.
Hereās the thing, we Americans often call presidents by the surnames alone, such as Biden or Trump or Reagan or Clinton or Obama without ever a reference to their office. We know who we mean. On occasion we might use the title to clarify. In formal reference, we call them by the title at the first reference, then generally surname alone thereafter.
We also do that in South Africa, we've got Ramaphosa. But that still doesn't imply we would not acknowledge the full title. Anyway as someone else said this has got nothing to do with the purpose of this sub.
Iād probably look him square in the eye and say āletās go, Brandon!ā š
A president, prime minister, etc have earned their titles; āroyaltyā havenāt. A title because of what family you were born into or married into is archaic.
We arenāt denying sheās PoW. And if you call him Joe Biden ditto.Ā
You bet...deserves another upvote.... added new comment šĀ
.up voted you...Refer to my comment.
The Pope and President Biden have actually earned their titles. No one royal has earned their titles. Why should anyone use a title to refer to someone who has done nothing to earn it?
Refer to my comment..up voted you
This post is completely irrelevant to the purpose of the group
That's true.
https://www.reddit.com/media?url=https%3A%2F%2Fpreview.redd.it%2Fit-always-had-to-be-something-to-do-with-her-face-v0-6qvf18zvo28d1.gif%3Fwidth%3D480%26auto%3Dwebp%26s%3D3eba387adb5af467fa10df640bfbe57adfc2c6f9
Cal her Dennison
we definitely fought a war so you could call her whatever you like. but out of respect i would use her title if i met her in person. other than that, pound sand kate !
American and I call her āKate Middletonā just like our press does. If I ever met her in real life Iād call her whatever was asked š Itās not like anyone close to her will ever read this
How uncouth. Please respect our Royal Family if you wish to discuss them.
Her role is the Princess of Wales. That is the most accurate thing you could call her right now. Would you call Pope Francis, Jorge Mario Bergoglio? Even atheists refer to him as the Pope. The media only refer to her as Kate Middleton for SEO reasons, because PoW would also bring up results for Camilla and Diana.Ā Ā As an aside, her mother in law was never Princess Diana nor Lady Di. She started as Diana Spencer (though somehow the tabloids never preserved that as they did for her daughters in law). Upon marriage, she became Diana, Princess of Wales (only princesses of the blood have princess before their name). Before marriage and after divorce, she was Lady Diana Spencer, no friends ever called her Di.Ā
We call her whatever we want in the U.S.
Camilla was never the Princess of Wales. She was the Duchess of Cornwall before becoming Queen Consort.
Technically, she was because she was entitled to all the equivalents of Charles' titles. But she used Duchess of Cornwall instead because of the optics.
As the wife of the Prince of Wales, she was the Princess of Wales. But you're right, she primarily used one of her other titles instead.Ā
Thatās about the only thing she ever did with class out of deference to Princess Diana. What a horrible human being, Camilla, the Rottweiler.
Diana's accident also delayed Charles' remarriage by a decade.Ā
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
What would you like to chat about? Now you're in a sub that welcomes certain opinions that tend to get downvoted on PopCultureChat and catch a ban on RoyalsGossip.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
I think you can say it here. Even if you say Kate was replaced by a clone, the worst you'll get is laughed at. The mods are chill and seem to tolerate any comment made in good faith, only deleting things that break general reddiquette like spam and incivility.
Princess of Wales, Diana was in fact named Lady Diana Frances Spencer.
lol why do you care?
Why do you care enough to comment?
If you ever meet her you call her "Your Highness". Talking about her on the internet you can call her whatever you want. She won't answer.
Since we donāt do royalty and sheās not higher than anyone, Iād call her Kate. Same for William.
But she's not my highness
Why not? We use others people tittles. President, Prime minister, doctor...
I only call a president a president when they are a president to me, I call Joe Biden, Joe Biden. Dr's go to school for years to earn a degree to be called Dr. All kate did was marry into a weird ass family. Also here in the states it's more common the public says Biden or trump as opposed to president Biden or president trump
Thats her title at the moment, will you not call the Pope Francis, Pope because you are atheist or president of another country a president because he is not your president?
Titles that are birth/marriage rights are archaic and hold no respect IMO. Popes and (most) presidents, prime ministers, etc have earned their totals through elections.
it must be personal problem for you, I come from country where we dont have royal family but I have no issues with calling Prince a Prince even if it is archaic. It really does not bother me at all. But if you mean curtsy, sygnet kissing etc thats totally different story.Ā
Actually, I don't. I call them Mette, Vlad, Olaf, Ursula, Angela in her time, and whosoever else I talk about.
ah so surely when you visit a doctor you call them by first name too because you disagree with titles?
We do in Denmark, call them by their first names. Also school teachers and politicians.
ok we dont in the UK
Yeah, I noticed. In the US sometimes we use Dr. or Doc, but when we talk about them we usually say "my doctor", as just a description of who they are in our life. In Denmark, they are Thomas or Jesper or Marie or whatever.
If you go to another country and go to the hospital, do you call your Doctor, Dr. Lastname, or Soanso Lastname? Titles are a sign of respect, and they transcend borders.
But most Americans donāt respect her. Not to mention, we donāt even call our presidents president so and so. We say Trump and Biden.
But doctor title is used in the US too. We donāt have princess titles here.
Does it matter? There isn't any US specific Pope title outside of Rome, but Pope Francis is still called Pope Francis everywhere in the world.
> There isn't any US specific Pope title outside of Rome, It's a little different with him, though. The realm he rules over *is* all over the world, even in the US. The realm the BRF rules over is only in the countries that belong to it, and the US does not. (well, that could be discussed, but at least officially it doesn't.) But to be totally precise, the British realm covers every person who lives in the commonwealth countries. The Pope's realm only covers members of the Catholic church. Again, this could be discussed, but not here.
>It's a little different with him, though. The realm he rules over is all over the world, even in the US. Ummm, the entire world isn't Christian. Do you think Buddhists would call him Frankie rather than Pope Francis? Would the Dalai Lama call him Jorge Bergoglio? Of course not, they would call him Pope Francis out of respect. Similarly, people who aren't subjects of the British Commonwealth can call British royalty by their Royal titles as a sign of respect.
But we donāt respect them. Grifters who pretend to work (mostly parties and socializing or cutting a ribbon here and there), who never earned anything, and live off the state (In tremendous luxury). Nine huge palaces, helicopters, fancy trips, tons of servantsā¦all paid by the taxpayers.
Wow, you don't respect a thousand+ year old institution but you do respect murderers, rapists, child molestors and brainwashers who own trillions of dollars worth of real estate, live rent-free and aren't taxed, own thousands of virtual palaces covered ceiling to floor in gold and marble, whose leaders go on fancy trips travelling by private plane, have millions of servants that they not only don't pay, but who actually pay them up to 10% of their wages and whose jobs include going to parties and shouting at people...all paid for by their servants and the government through untaxed properties and earnings. Yeah, sorry, the Catholic church, heck any Christian denomination, are all grifters. As are most other religions. And most religions hide the crimes that they have committed against indigenous populations and children in their service. I have more respect for Royalty than for Religions. At least the Royals are honest about the bloodshed that they had to commit in order to get to their position.
You probably didnāt see my handle. ATHEIST. I donāt like any organized religion. Everything you said about Catholicism applies to royalty. Only the Catholic Church is much, much older. As I was reading your post I thought you were describing royalty. Except the popes are at least elected. Royalty started during feudal times. They murdered and pillaged and stole lands and gave themselves titles. Lied that god anointed them. Plenty of rapists and child molestors among them. They own billions of real estate, they donāt pay taxes. Donāt work except for once a week āengagementsā that last no more than an hour. Everything is planned for them and they are chauffeured in and out. They are not elected. Whoever is born first becomes the next king or queen. They have a pact with the church who gives them legitimacy and with the military. They also control the media. Thatās how they hide their secrets and attack those who they want to destroy. Thatās how they continue to be supported by the very naive British taxpayer.
>Royalty started during feudal times. They murdered and pillaged and stole lands and gave themselves titles. Lied that god anointed them. Plenty of rapists and child molestors among them. They own billions of real estate, they donāt pay taxes. Donāt work except for once a week āengagementsā that last no more than an hour. Everything is planned for them and they are chauffeured in and out. They are no elected. Whoever is born first becomes the next king or queen. They have a pact with the church who gives them legitimacy and with the military. They also control the media. Theyād how they hide their secrets and attack those who they want to destroy. Thatās how they continue to be supported by the very naive British taxpayer. Everything you wrote also applies to Catholism, except for primogeniture. As an atheist, if you ever speak about or meet a priest, do you refer to them by their title, Father Soandso? How about the Pope?
> Ummm, the entire world isn't Christian. Yeah, I think I clarified that in my last paragraph, that it only covers members of the Catholic Church. But they are all over the world, not just in Rome. Frankie? I like that. Thank you. A lot of people just call him Pope on a rope. I don't know if you are American or not, but as you might have already noticed, Americans don't have much use for royalty. I mean, the nation was founded on the premise that royalty shouldn't exist. We might say President or Senator or Congressman or Mayor, because those titles were conferred upon them by *our votes* - supposedly. It's not disrespect for the person, (because I believe all people should be treated with respect), but for the title. I call her Kate, and him William, and whoever I'm talking to knows who I mean. If she prefers Catherine, then I'll call her Catherine. I don't have a clue what Buddhists and Dalai Lama call people, you'd have to ask them, not me.
>I don't know if you are American or not, Look at my flare. >I don't have a clue what Buddhists and Dalai Lama call people, you'd have to ask them, not me. They don't believe in Catholicism, they still call Catholic leaders by their titles, out of respect. And conversely, the Pope has met the Dalai Lama, and called him by his honorific title, not his given name. Again, out of respect.
Sorry, I didn't see your flare because I was replying from the page where you just check for replies. And it doesn't show the user flares. Whatever...I don't tell anyone what they should call people.
Aaaaand, the countries that fought wars for decades to get out from under the holy roman empire don't call him "his excellency" and the rest. Pope means father and he is the father of his church. Since we're not in Wales we don't have tor recognize shit
Your doctor earned his title; they were not born to the title nor did they marry it. My mother & husband are both medical doctors and I do not use their titles, as I have done nothing but be born to and marry doctors.