Talk:Charles, Prince of Wales/Archive 3

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 03: 2004

Contents

Official Title

Where did the "official title" come from?

Minor decorations (eg the Garter) have been put in before the titles of nobility.

Earldom of Chester: isn't this a special case? Is it awarded at the same time as Prince of Wales, or is it linked with the title. Is he in the hierarchy of the peerage Prince of Wales, Duke of Cornwall and Earl of Chester or "Prince of Wales and Earl of Chester, Duke of Cornwall" garryq 13:52, 14 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Burke's calls him "The Prince of Wales, Duke of Cornwall, Duke of Rothesay, Earl of Chester, Earl of Carrick, Baron of Renfrew, Lord of the Isles, Great Steward of Scotland (Charles Philip Arthur George Windsor [sic], KG, KT, GCB, AK, QSO, PC) [HRH The Prince of Wales KG KT GCB PC]". I would think that if all the titles were given together the knighthoods etc should come after the peerages etc rather than before. Proteus 15:17, 14 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Hmm. That would mean that the current text:
The Prince's full title is: His Royal Highness Charles Philip Arthur George, Prince of Wales, Knight of the Garter, Knight of the Thistle, Knight Grand Commander of the Order of the Bath, Member of the Order of Merit, Knight of the Order of Australia, Member of the Queen's Service Order, Privy Counsellor, Aide-de-Campe to Her Majesty, Duke of Cornwall, Duke of Rothesay, Earl of Chester, Earl of Carrick, Baron of Renfrew, Lord of the Isles and Prince and Great Steward of Scotland.
... be changed to something like:
The Prince's full title is: His Royal Highness Charles Philip Arthur George, Prince of Wales, Duke of Cornwall, Duke of Rothesay, Earl of Chester, Earl of Carrick, Baron of Renfrew, Lord of the Isles, Great Steward of Scotland, Knight of the Garter, Knight of the Thistle, Knight Grand Commander of the Order of the Bath, Member of the Order of Merit, Knight of the Order of Australia, Member of the Queen's Service Order, Privy Counsellor, Aide-de-Campe to Her Majesty.
... though I've removed "Prince [...] of Scotland", as, AFAIAA, he's not (?). Is it Aide-de-Camp or Aide-de-Campe (and should the 'c' be capitalised or not)? Furthermore, Burke's seems to miss out OM....
James F. (talk) 16:57, 14 Apr 2004 (UTC)
James part of the title is "Prince and Great Steward of Scotland". The Great Steward is the first born prince of the king. And it is "Aide-de-Camp" no e garryq 18:16, 14 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I've amended the main article so that the official title follows the one given on http://www.princeofwales.gov.uk/about/bio_titles.html.

It seems the Earldom of Chester was a principality by act of parliament. The act was repealed after 8 months but it is still given the higher status by custom.

The knighthoods precede the other titles because he is known day-to-day only as the Prince of Wales, if there is an occasion all his noble titles are used then KG etc follow Prince and Great Steward of Scotland. garryq 18:16, 14 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Mountbatten-Windsor vs Windsor only

Today in the newspaper, the smart ID card of HRH is shown, and his surname is only "Windsor" rather than the long "Mountbatten-Windsor". Which one is more official? -- Tomchiukc 10:35, 28 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Which newspaper was this? Was it an official card or just a mock-up made by the paper? Legally, he doesn't have a surname. His full legal name would be "His Royal Highness Charles Philip Arthur George, Prince of Wales" or some such. (Regardless of the fact that he's a member of the Royal family, who don't use surnames, even on official legal documents, he's a peer, and no peer legally has a surname, as their title takes its place, with "John James Smith, Esquire" being ennobled as "Earl of Blankshire" and legally becoming "The Right Honourable John James, Earl of Blankshire".) As to which is more official, I'd say the version approved by the Palace, which is "Mountbatten-Windsor", but it's not official as such, merely more so than "Windsor". Proteus 14:34, 28 Apr 2004 (UTC)

The reference to Charles becoming George VII when King is not common knowledge. Are there any references for when this was said?

CoE objections to marriage dropped.

According to The Sun, the Archbishop of Canterbury has dropped his objection to Charles and Camilla marrying -- Jim Regan 21:47, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)

To be slighltly more accurate, the AoC has noted that, as of a few months (?) ago, the legal problems have somewhat abated, and that he would give his personal, err, blessing (sorry) to such a union.
James F. (talk) 22:39, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Circumcision status

I included some information about Charles' circumcision status. It is copied directly from the article on this site on circumcision. I found it to be very interesting. Hope you do too.

  • 209.217.75.162 10:01, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Title

Just out of curiosity: shouldn't it be "Prince Charles of Wales" rather than "Charles, Prince of Wales" ? Sky 13:50, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)

No. Prince (x) of Wales means son of the Prince of Wales. So technically Prince William is Prince William of Wales. But Charles isn't merely Prince Charles of Wales, he is the Prince of Wales. Charles is simply used in the title here for disambigulation. Ditto the children of the Duke of York are Princess Beatrice of York and Princess Eugenie of York. But their father is not and could never be described as Prince Andrew of York - that would indicate a son called Andrew of the Duke of York. Royal nomenclature is complicated but the form Prince/ss (x) of (title) means son/daughter of a royal prince/ss holding that title, not the title holder itself. FearÉIREANN 19:03, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Painter

I have again tken out bthe category British Painters. A look at the category shows it to be for professional rather than hobbyist painters, no matter how good they are.

I see I am not the first to remove the category or to have pigsonthewing re-revert. Cannot see why my change is POV, I describe Wales as a hobby painter, implying professional public servant/heir apparent/Prince. Does pigsonthewing think his roles reversed? --garryq 09:35, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Please explain the difference between "professional" and "hobbyist" painters (with particular refence to the number of paintings sold by van Gough), and show where the definition of the category limits it to the former. Andy Mabbett 22:57, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)
From Wikipedia:Categorization#When_to_use_categories: "If you go to the article from the category, will it be obvious why it's there? Is the category subject prominently discussed in the article?" - The category subject is not discussed at all in the article. Also "Unless it is self-evident and uncontroversial that something belongs in a category, it should not be put into a category." PMcM
Not only have you not answered my question, but your quoting from that page is highly selective. Andy Mabbett 14:26, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)
You can read the entire page if you want, but I thought it inappropriate to quote it all here. The intent of the page is clear. It wasn't me that you asked the question of; but some may possibly argue that Vincent_Van_Gogh (there is no painter called "van Gough") has been a somewhat more influential artist than Prince Charles. (Apologies for forgetting to sign the last one.) PMcM 14:41, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Somewhat more sensible since you added painting info., but still a bit of a shaky leap if you ask me. Also, if you could include the ISBN info in your references in the proper format (i.e., without the colon), then they're a little more useful. Thanks. PMcM 14:54, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Andy, as pointed out I cannot make any reference to van Gough. However I had assumed the professional/hobbyist difference self evident, to a dedication to the art, Vincent Van Gogh may not have sold much, or even made as much as HRH's books, but he did not regard painting as a leisure interest. --garryq 19:04, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)

"Prince Charles, Prince of Wales"

We use "Prince Andrew, Duke of York," "Prince Edward, Earl of Wessex," etc. Thus, to be consistent, one should use "Prince Charles, Prince of Wales." This form is not incorrect; the Prince of Wales's title would probably be: "HRH The Prince Charles [Philip Arthur George], Prince of Wales, Earl of Chester, Duke of Cornwall and Rothesay ..." So "Prince Charles, Prince of Wales" is not incorrect. This form has the additional advantage of recognisability for the uninitiated. -- Emsworth 21:05, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC)

As a further note, I will be making the appropriate moves for Princes of Wales since 1714 (this would only apply to The Prince Frederick Louis, Prince of Wales) and for Princesses Royal since 1714. I had tried to discuss this on the naming conventions page, but received no response. -- Emsworth 21:08, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Can I suggest you also fix up the disambiguation page as well? Berek 11:14, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Actually Ems, and I normally have the highest regard for your work, this is a major error. Charles has not been Prince Charles since 1952. I checked that before with Buckingham Palace and his then office in St. James Palace. (The only exception is Scotland, where he is, as his office explained, The Prince Charles, not Prince Charles.) They reckoned that Charles, Prince of Wales though somewhat inaccurate was the least inaccurate way of diffrentating between Princes of Wales. But Prince Charles, Prince of Wales is 100% wrong and has no place in an encyclopaedia. Andrew and the others were written using the Prince reference simply because their titles were less well known and people may not realise that their dukedom or earldom was an royal dukedom or earldom. But no-one on the planet over the age of 7 thinks Prince of Wales is anything other than a royal title. In addition, technically Andrew was Prince Andrew until 1986, Edward Prince Edward until the 1990s. But Charles legally and constitutionally ceased to be Prince Charles fifty-two years ago!
And doing what you did opens up the nightmare prospect of people writing Princess Diana in titles. There never was such a person. There was the Hon. Diana Spencer, Lady Diana Spencer, the Princess of Wales and Diana, Princess of Wales. But there never was a Princess Diana - it was just populist media shorthand and should be explained as such in the article, not appearing in the article title as if a correct title. Moving from necessary inaccuracy to achieve a distinction between office holders to serious inaccuracy with a mythical title risks what happened before on wikipedia, a free-for-all of 'if you can make up a version, so can I' writing. (That's how this page, ludicrously, was once under Charles Windsor!!!)
I think you should change the names back to their accurate, or least inaccurate form from the dubious version here. (As to no response in the debate pages, I haven't been on for a while. If I saw it there I would have challenged it, as would the people who did the initial research that produced the original titles.)
But that doesn't in any way distract from the exceptionally high standard of your other work, which I have long admired. It is work of that usual calibre that makes wikipedia the incredible success it is. :-) FearÉIREANN 16:48, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Whilst I, too, hold the highest opinion of you and your knowledge relating to royalty, I am afraid I must disagree that "Prince Charles, Prince of Wales" is incorrect. I actually looked up the issue on alt.talk.royalty before making the suggestion above. Here is what I found:

  • "HRH The Earl of Wessex" is only an abbreviation for "HRH The Prince Edward,Earl of Wessex",just as "HRH The Prince of Wales" is an abbreviation for "HRH The Prince Charles,Prince of Wales,Duke of Cornwall and Rothesay,Earl of Chester and Carrick". -- Louis Epstein (User:12.144.5.2)

But the above may have been slightly erroneous. For example, from what Peter Tilman tells me, the Earldom of Chester is traditionally mentioned before the ducal titles (as it was formerly regarded as a Principality), but the same is not adhered to above. I therefore looked for confirmation in legal documents.

So, as I interpret it, "The Prince of Wales" is a short form for "The Prince Charles, Prince of Wales." This would also be consistent with "HRH The Prince Charles, Duke of Rothesay."

Now, as to the question of the article title itself: If "HRH The Prince Andrew, Duke of York" is condensed into "Prince Andrew, Duke of York," then it would be equally appropriate to condense "HRH The Prince Charles, Prince of Wales" to "Prince Charles, Prince of Wales." (It might be more appropriate to include the definite article in each instance.)

-- Emsworth 18:32, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)

This is silly. There's no need to say "Prince" twice. Princes of Wales and Princesses Royal already have prince or princess in the title they were given, so there's no need to use it twice. It just looks bad. john k 23:43, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)

To add: if we must be (falsely?) consistent, I'd rather move Prince Andrew to Andrew, Duke of York than have Charles here. john k 23:45, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)

But HRH The Prince of Wales is not "Prince Charles" by virtue of the Principality of Wales. "Prince Charles, Prince of Wales" acknowledges, firstly, that he is a Prince under letters patent I believe to have been issued in 1917, and secondly that he is the Prince of Wales. The same goes for HRH The Duke of York and others. Furthermore, these styles have the advantage of indicating to the uninitiated that "Prince Charles" is the subject of the article; "Charles, Prince of Wales" is not as recognisable. So I don't think that the form "Prince X, [Title] of Y" necessarily looks inappropriate. -- Emsworth 01:02, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Yes, I understand that. The problem is that it is awkward. Article titles shouldn't be designed primarily to be didactic - they should also try to be as elegant as possible, and two princes in a row is deeply unpleasant to look out, with few corresponding advantages. It has been at "Charles, Prince of Wales" for at least a year now with no notable complaints from the relatively ignorant. john k 03:39, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Divorcé or widower?

So, is Charles a "widower, not a divorcé"? Lots of different sources have suggested the former... perhaps it is one of those oddities of Church law? Or a significant spreading of misinformation designed to make Mr. Parker-Bowles worried for his life. ;-)
James F. (talk) 16:26, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Charles is a widower. Even when the Church of England was applying its strictest rules against remarriage of divorcees, a divorcee was allowed to remarry after their spouse was dead. There would be nothing in CofE rules to prevent him marrying again if he so chose. Marrying a divorcee might be another matter. DJ Clayworth 16:33, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)
No, he's not a widower. He's allowed to remarry, but he was divorced from his wife when she died. That makes him a divorcé, not a widower. A widower is a man who has lost his wife through death. - Nunh-huh 00:11, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Those are dictionary definitions and so it is possible (and knowing of British laws, CoE laws especially, probable) that the legal ones are... somewhat different.
Perhaps some references, one way or another, would be beneficial?
James F. (talk) 00:36, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

What is the Church of England rule on divorce? Was Charles divorced in accordance with the rules of the Church of England, or just civilly? If he was not divorced in the eyes of the Church of England, then he is now a widower in the eyes of the Church of England, right? I know this can happen with the Catholic Church. (I was writing this at the sametime as Mr. Forrester, and I fully agree with him - someone needs to figure out what the exact CofE status is, here. john k 00:38, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

The Church of England as an established church is a creature of the state. The Church of England has no choice but to recognize the legality of divorce; the laws of the UK are its laws: the Church cannot marry people except in accord with law. There's no separate ecclesiastical law on marriage in the UK: marriages, divorces and annulments are civil matters: CoE marriages are governed by the 1949 Marriage Act. The impediment to marriage of a person with a living ex-spouse is codified in the Matrimonial Causes Act 1965, s.8, which calls that person a "divorcée". Further, any CoE priest is free to either perform or not perform a marriage ceremony for that person: the Church cannot prevent this. That the CoE calls such persons "divorcees" may be seen here. - Nunh-huh 00:55, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)
According to Blackstone, a divorce a vinculo matrimonii is a "total" divorce—in modern terms, an annulment—which renders the marriage void ab initio. A divorce a mensa et thoro is referred to as a "partial" divorce by Blackstone; it supposedly only separates the party "from bed and board," but does not completely dissolve the marriage—hence, the prohibition on remarriage. But, in any event, the union must be dissolved upon the death of one party—hence, HRH The Prince of Wales may remarry. -- Emsworth 22:17, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Yes. But he's still not a widower, he's a divorcé. - Nunh-huh 02:53, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Curious Reader: I agree , he's not a widower. Charles & Diana were divorced (Aug.28th ,1996) ,at that momment on ,Charles was no longer Diana's husband.

Silly question on surname

It's stated above that Royals have no surname. But if Charles, or someone on his behalf, were filling out a standard form requiring a first and surname what would the name on the form be? I can't see many online sites accepting a first name and titles! Timrollpickering 22:29, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Mountbatten-Windsor, AIUI.
James F. (talk) 23:35, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I can't see His Royal Highness having much need for filling out a form, but if necessary he'd probably use "Wales" or "Prince of Wales". Proteus (Talk) 08:08, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Yes, but if a lackey feels there should be a surname, he'll fill one in. When Charles's sister Anne was married, she signed only Anne, but a helpful lackey tucked her in the register as Mountbatten-Windsor. Yet there has never been a clear legal statement of any last name for either Charles or Anne.
In 1917 George V proclaimed "that all the descendants in the male line of Our said Grandmother Queen Victoria who are subjects of these Realms, other than female descendants who may marry or may have married, shall bear the said Name of Windsor": this of course, applies neither to Charles or Anne as they are not in the male line of Queen Victoria.
In 1952 Queen Elizabeth II proclaimed "that She and Her Children shall be styled and known as the House and Family of Windsor, and that Her descendants other than female descendants who marry and their descendants shall bear the name of Windsor. This would indicate that CHarles and Anne should be surnamed "Windsor"
But Queen Elizabeth II in 1960 ordered: "while I and my children will continue to be styled and known as the House and Family of Windsor, my descendants, other than descendants enjoying the style, title or attributes of Royal Highness and the titular dignity of Prince or Princess, and female descendants who marry and their descendants, shall bear the name Mountbatten-Windsor."
But this does not apply to either Charles or Anne, as they both have the style and dignity of RH and Prince or Princess, and thus if one goes by law, they should be surnamed Windsor. However, the actual practice seems to be that they are called "Mountbatten-Windsor" and in things British what is done is often more important than what is written. -- Nunh-huh 08:43, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)
See: British Royalty FAQs
The horrendously worded warrants of HM The Queen have no bearing on this issue, for legally, peers (one of whom is HRH The Prince of Wales) do not have surnames. The proper form would seem to be "Forename, Rank of Title," as in "Charles Philip Arthur George, Prince of Wales." -- Emsworth 01:52, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I believe that these are letters patent, rather than royal warrants. About this peers having no surnames thing...from where do the peer's children acquire their surnames? If their father does not have a surname, how does this work? Surely this (frequently repeated) statement is not quite right? john k 02:35, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Their family retains its surname, but the peer (or peers) of that family do not use it, instead using their title name as a surname where convenient. HRH The Prince of Wales used the name 'Charles Wales' during his military days, and the Rt Hon Richard [Bridgeman], Earl of Bradford sometimes uses the name 'Richard Bradford'. Courtesy peers use the same form. Younger children of peers use the family surname, since they are not themselves peers.


The surnames presumably exist somewhere in the ether, hanging around to reappear on the birth of a child, but legally a peer is, for example, "The Most Honourable Alexander George, Marquess of Aberdeen and Temair", with no room for a surname. The surnames are written in square brackets in Cracroft's Peerage, for this reason (so it describes Lord Aberdeen as "Alexander George [Gordon], 7th Marquess of Aberdeen and Temair"). Proteus (Talk) 09:01, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Diana, Princes of Wales always signed her name as "Wales".

This BBC News story disagrees. Proteus (Talk) 18:48, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The wedding banns form published in several British newspapers today show a box for "first name, surname". PARKER BOWLES is in capitals for Camilla, whilst for Charles the full entry is "His Royal Highness Prince Charles THE PRINCE OF WALES". So that would make "THE PRINCE OF WALES" his "surname" for such purposes. Timrollpickering 21:05, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Marriage by publication of wedding banns is part of one of the four methods of being married within the Church of England. It's not a requirement for civil marriages; for civil marriages one "gives notice" rather than have banns read. Are they trying to make the marriage look like a CoE wedding, or just covering all bases in case the civil thing turns out not to be legal? - Nunh-huh 21:33, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Not really sure as I saw the banns on the front page and the story further in. I suspect "banns" has been used as a general term for formally announcing a wedding. Timrollpickering 22:01, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for that! I have a feeling we'll see more interesting developments<g>. - Nunh-huh 23:55, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

About his official residence

I would like to edit it to say: "his partners, his two sons (when they are about) and their extensive.....".

This would be my first edit in Wikipedia. I would appreciate some feedback from someone who has some experience editing this page.

Welcome! I think that perhaps something like "his immediate family" rather than explicitly mentioning CPB and the Princes, though I'm not sure on that, either. "When they are about" seems a bit too informal, though...
If you have any questions, please feel free to bring them to me (via my talk page). And be bold!
James F. (talk) 01:31, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)