Talk:Charles, Prince of Wales/Archive 4

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 04: 2005

re proposed move, see bottom of page. FearÉIREANN 01:28, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

2nd marriage - proposal

"These issues were resolved and allowed the Prince to propose to Mrs Parker Bowles."

How do we know who proposed to whom? Has it been announced? Cal T 20:02, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

According to this BBC story it was Charles. — Trilobite (Talk) 06:03, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

1958? A typo for 1968?

Since 1958, he has been known as:

His Royal Highness The Prince of Wales (outside Scotland)

I wonder if that should have said 1968? Michael Hardy 22:46, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I don't believe so - he became "His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales" the moment his mother became queen, which was in 1958. ugen 64 20:37, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

No, you're both wrong. Elizabeth II became queen in 1952. Charles then became automatically "HRH The Duke of Cornwall". But it wasn't until he was specifically created Prince of Wales in 1958 that he became Prince of Wales. The 1968 (or 1969?) date is the date he was invested as Prince of Wales, but this ceremony is not necessary to become PoW, and indeed, the only other modern PoW to be invested was the future Edward VIII. john k 20:59, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Oh, I thought it was the other way around - he is automatically the Prince of Wales, then he is created Duke of Cornwall... right-o. ugen 64 07:59, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

(Over a year later) No, that's not right. He became the Duke of Cornwall the moment Elizabeth became queen. That title belongs to the eldest son of the monarch automatically. The title Prince of Wales is not automatic, but is a matter entirely at the discretion of the monarch. The only person upon whom she could bestow the title is her son the Duke of Cornwall, but whether or not she bestows it on him, and if so, when, are entirely up to her. JackofOz 08:56, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

2nd marriage

" As royals were excluded from the law which legalized civil marriages in England, this particular arrangement is problematic and may need to be altered." Can we have a cite for this? Is it actually a law that they marry in church? Wouldn't they be subject to the same laws (+Royal Marriages Act & Act of Settlement) as everyone else?

No, they are not. As stated, the Royal Family were excluded from the law instituting civil marriages, the Marriage Act of 1836. There has been no law modifying this that would permit a civil marriage in England for a member of the Royal Family. - Nunh-huh 06:46, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Although I do not have a copy of the Marriage Act 1836 (as revised), I am aware that the right to marry is enshrined in Human Rights legislation, and that if there is any conflict between the two, the Human Rights Act will take precedence. Anyway, you need to provide a verifiable modern source interpreting the Marriage Act 1836 (as revised) in the way you seek to. Without one your comments fail the "no original research" requirement, which means they will be removed. Kind regards, jguk 07:29, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Um... The reference is the Marriage Act of 1836. Check it. It's not original research, and is certainly less original than your opinion of what you think might be the interaction between (unspecified) human rights legislation and the various marriage acts and other legislation governing marriages of the Royal Family in the UK. - Nunh-huh 07:44, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

You are implying that any such "marriage" between Charles and Camillia would have no legal validity. You need more to support that than your reading of a 169 year old bit of legislation. Can you reference a legal opinion by leading counsel on the point? Have you considered all other documents and legislation and customs that may be relevant in determining whether any marriage is legal? Absent a 3P opinion, one person's reading of one Act (or even many Acts), comes down as original research, jguk 08:15, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

You are making the implication. I am merely stating the fact that the Royal Family was specifically exempted from the marriage acts which instituted marriage outside the Church of England. The specific theory under which Prince Charles could contract a marriage in England outside of the Church of England has not been specified. By anyone. When that theory is made public, we should certainly add it to the article. - Nunh-huh 08:23, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Making an edit such as yours implies that the point is somehow relevant (if it's irrelevant, it shouldn't be in the article). Since, as far as I am aware, no-one suitably qualified has given a legal opinion that this is in point, I do not see it's relevance. Of course, if you can quote such a source, or that view gets widely reported in the press, then we can re-insert it.

There are other things that have not yet been specified, which may also be relevant here. The timing, 8 April, is right to allow the Prime Minister to announce a general election the following week for 5 May. More speculation, but more relevant to the marriage than what your saying:) jguk 08:45, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

If this was true, then George Windsor, Earl of St Andrews would still be in the Line of succession to the British throne, since he is in the Royal Family and only married a Roman Catholic in a civil ceremony (Leith Register Office, Edinburgh, 9 January 1988); their daughter Lady Amelia Windsor would then be excluded from the succession because in theory her parents were not married. Or is Scotland different? (Similarly with Prince Michael of Kent with a civil ceremony in Austria.) --Henrygb 11:02, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Scotland is indeed different; the laws I refer to apply in England and Wales. - Nunh-huh 11:32, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Aitkins on UseNet: The problem about the validity of a civil ceremony seems to me to be genuine, but the reality of the matter is that if they just go ahead there is precious little chance of the Registrar of Births, Marriages and Deaths for Windsor saying "Sorry, you can't do that". The net result might be that this is legally another 'show or effigy of marriage' like those of Charles' many-greats uncles Prinny and Sussex (and their nephew the 2nd Duke of Cambridge). But as the bride is aged 57, it is unlikely that there will be any offspring to test it by a 'Cornwall Peerage Case'." - Nunh-huh 11:37, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

As you are aware, I am concerned about making statements not supported by third-party references. I did, however, see this in today's Times [http://www.timesonline.co.uk/newspaper/0,,170-1483550,00.html (see the last 3 paragraphs). I am therefore amending the article in line with this source, jguk 20:26, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

See also BBC Panorama. Your concerns that this is not a real issue are misplaced. - Nunh-huh 20:47, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

You mistake the nature of my concern. My concern is about statements being added to articles that are not backed up by reputable sources. This concern is well-founded - see Wikipedia:Signpost for an example where statements not backed up by sources have done Wikipedia some harm. We now have two sources to support the claim, which I welcome. However, if we did not have those sources, the claim would be unjustified. I should be grateful if you would wait until you can cite 3rd party sources before you make such claims in the future. All the best, jguk 21:06, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

As you well know, what I wrote was backed up by the Marriage Act; that you were unfamiliar with this but neverthess sought to expunge it from the article is my concern. - Nunh-huh 21:32, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Nunh-huh, your personal reading of the Marriage Act does not a reliable source make, Bogdanor's and Chetney's does. Therein lies the difference - it is one of proper academic rigour, jguk 06:58, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

It's not a "personal reading", it's what the things say. Which you would know if you bothered to checked the reference instead of simply removing that-with-which-you-are-unfamiliar. - Nunh-huh 08:47, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The Lord Chancellor seems to think it is all right, apparently based on the different wording of the Marriage Act 1949 saying nothing in that act should affect "any law or custom relating to the marriage of memebrs of the royal family" - a change from the opinion of a previous Lord Chancellor [1]. The English constitution is a wonderful thing, and means whatever you want it mean at the time. --Henrygb 19:47, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Man if I were Princess Margaret or the Duke of Windsor I'd be pretty pissed off by all these shenanigans. john k 20:11, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

But you would be dead, so it hardly matters. Henry II of England was married to the divorced Eleanor of Aquitaine (officially "annulled" but having produced two legitimate daughters; the grounds of "anullment" should have prevented her marrying Henry). --Henrygb 00:23, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Hey, if the Pope annuls it, it's freaking annuled. Are you insulting the Pope? john k 06:22, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)

If the Pope said it's annulled, does that mean the marriage isn't, or that it never should have been, or that it never was? The first sounds like divorce, the second suggests that Eleanor should not have been allowed to marry Henry, while the third suggests that the daughters of the first marriage should have been illegitimated which they were not. The Pope's problem, not mine, as I don't care. --Henrygb 11:35, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Second engagement

User Henrygb has removed twice the facts on the objections by rev Paul Williamnson and the nervousness this has created amongst the courtiers according to the Times. The sources for these two are : The Times of March 2nd and another article from the Times of March 2nd. - Tom - 217.136.79.44 07:33, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Indeed I did. Paul Williamson was one of eleven objectors whose objections were rejected. Perhaps if he was the only objector and his objection had been upheld he would be notable, but he was not and it was not. We could name everyone who has ever met the Prince according the Court Circular, but while factually correct it would not add to the article. As for unattributed minor palace gossip reported in a tabloid paper owned by a republican, I see no point at all in mentioning it. They will get married and that is what that bit of the article should say. --Henrygb 21:20, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Charles III?

When Queen Elizabeth II dies, will this page have to be moved to Charles III of the United Kingdom? — JIP | Talk 06:01, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)

God willing, it won't be for a long time yet - but the answer is maybe. It depends what regnal name he chooses. As the article notes, he has suggested he may choose to be George VII instead. We'll have to see, jguk 06:17, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Changes 31 March/1 April 2005

I changed some of the section titles and moved a few sentences around so that the article reads slightly more chronologically. Specifically, it is the death of the Princess of Wales rather than the formal divorce that marks a significant change in Charles' life. I also hid the bit on the tampon because it is more extensive than is deserving for a comprehensive article on the Prince of Wales and it needs more documentation. Of course, anyone can alter this article further or revert it. -Acjelen 02:23, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Conspiracy Theories R Us

Removed the following paragraph, inserted by Noprince on the 31st March:

"I want to be your tampon" - On 18 December 1989, a telephone conversation between Prince Charles and Camilla Parker Bowles, recorded two days earlier, was rebroadcast on citizen band wavelength. There has been ample speculation as to who was responsible, with MI5 being named most often. - However, late in 1989, a French consortium of companies was competing with a British consortium for a multi-billion pound military contract with Saudi Arabia. The French believed that if they managed to discredit British Royalty in the eyes of the strictly religious Saudis, their chances to obtain the contract would increase. Thus, the French DST (equivalent of MI5), and not the DGSE (MI6 equivalent) as might be expected, recorded and rebroadcast the Charles-Camilla tampon telephone conversation. They failed, the British obtrained the contract. - When Diana was killed in Paris, these events, never made public by the British, became useful, as it enabled Britain to put pressure on the French regarding their investigation of Diana's death. In particular, the French never made public that Diana had been the subject of full-scale MI5 surveillance from within less than one year of her marriage to Prince Charles in the summer of 1981, the real reason she had always felt observed.

Noprince was asked by Acjelen on the 1st April to cite his/her sources. The only response was for Noprince to delete Acjelen's request. In the absence of a aource, this can only be regarded as unwarranted conspiracy theory, with no place in an Encyclopedia. -- Chris j wood 17:04, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Sections

I don't necessarily prefer my recent levelling of the sections, but I don't think the Prince's marriage to Lady Diana Spencer (a marriage which produced heirs to the throne) is on the same level as some of his earlier romances. More importantly, I hope that we will dicuss here how this article should change following the wedding on Saturday

It's not, that's why they are only mentioned very briefly and Diana has two subsections! violet/riga (t) 19:46, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Marriage certificate

Is this image of the marriage certificate of interest?

Apart from anything else, it suggests that the full name of the PoW is "His Royal Highness Prince Charles Philip Arthur George The Prince of Wales" - should our article be thus back at "Prince Charles The Prince of Wales", as it was for a while, though with a comma?

Also, does this mean that commas shouldn't be used? Should be? Maybe be be be?

James F. (talk) 01:15, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

University of Wales

I'm not quite sure what section it should come under, but I think it's worth mentioning that Charles is Chancellor of the University of Wales, replacing his father. He is quite involved with the institution and often visits, for example he opened the library of my own institution, the University of Wales, Lampeter, and also made a visit recently for our 175th anniversary.

George VII

The origin of the "George VII" story seems to be an article in The Sunday Times, 13 February 2000 by Christopher Morgan. It quotes "a royal courtier, who has discussed the matter privately with the prince" as saying that Charles would prefer to "follow in the footsteps of the Georges rather than take on the tarnished name of Charles". No link, sorry - I'm seeing this on a proprietary database. --rbrwr ^± 21:29, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Aide-de-Camp?

On this article it states that Charles is the Aide-de-Camp to the Queen, yet on Prince Andrew's article it states that he is the Aide-de-Camp (as it does so on the Aide-de-Camp article). Can someone clear this up? David.

The Queen has many ADCs. It is an honorary position conferred on distinguished military officers, royal and otherwise. Almost every senior British general, for example, will have ADCGen (Aide-de-Camp General) after his name. -- Necrothesp 29 June 2005 23:01 (UTC)

Personal Interests

This section is so POV. He's a "passionate man". He "cares deeply..." Try to be more objective, its bad enough we have to say "His Royal Highness".

Why? Is it POV to use his official title? "His Royal Highness" is as official as using "President" with the name of George Bush. -- Necrothesp 17:55, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

I know, the Royal Highness thing was a joke, that's why I didn't change it. But words like "talented" and "passionate" and "cares deeply" are totally POV. The person that wrote them was sucking up to Prince Charles and it sounds really pathetic. I'm changing it back. -- ShadowyCaballero.

we should recognize people are NOT highnesses, hereditary titles are worthless and meaningless. How ridiculous is it to say someone should be head of state SIMPLY BECAUSE he inherited a title? isn't that discrimination of all other people who would like to be head of state but cant because some loser inherited a title?

No, actually, we shouldn't, because that would not only be egregiously POV, but incorrect. It's not an issue of whether it's discriminatory, but whether it's the true state of affairs. I don't think George W Bush belongs in the White House, either (for assorted reasons), but you won't see me trying to change his listing.

Septegram 22:07, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Camilla, Duchess of Cornwall, IS Princess of Wales

HRH the Duchess of Cornwall, "as she is known", is also Princess of Wales, as the title Princess of Wales belongs to the wife of the Prince of Wales.

Women acquire their titles and status from their husbands. In England, the wife of a king is ALWAYS queen consort. The wife of a prince becomes a princess. The wife of a duke becomes a duchess. Et cetera.

While Camilla and the Royal House are choosing not to use the title Princess of Wales, in order of precedence within the royal household, she is indeed accorded the precedence of the Princess of Wales.

See more about precedence at Burke's Peerage and Gentry online here:

http://www.burkes-peerage.net/Sites/Peerage/SitePages/page62-4.asp

--ScottyFLL 23:13, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

Problems with not reverting deceased consorts to maiden name

Wikipedia's rather clumsy handling of the whole issue of reverting deceased consorts to maiden name is shown clearly in this article. It is wrong to say that his first wife was the late "Diana, Princess of Wales". He married a woman called "Diana Spencer". She became "the Princess of Wales" (never, by the way "Princess Diana" — Diana was never a princess, merely the wife of a prince, as she herself made clear regularly and contrary to what Scotty says. Princess of Wales is not a princess. Earlier princess of Wales were princess because of their own royal status prior to marriage. Diana had no such status because she was not a princess when they married, and so got the title Princess of Wales not the style Princess). "Diana, Princess of Wales" was the name used after their divorce. The reasons why historians use maiden names of deceased consorts is to avoid such faux pas and the complexities of constant name and title changes. Using the maiden name allows the same person to be written about throughout their lives, with a different times, it being made clear that "at this point they became 'x'." "At this point they ceased to be 'y'." Referring to someone by a title they never had in their marriage and which by its very form indicated a non-marital status is a linguistic mess. FearÉIREANNImage:Ireland coa.png\^{(caint) 04:26, 29 August 2005 (UTC)}

She was Diana, Princess of Wales when she died, and given she only died 8 years ago, it is perfectly reasonable to still refer to her by this name. Astrotrain 15:23, August 29, 2005 (UTC)

Actually the publishing and academic standard is 3-5 years or next hardcopy edition. The BBC has begun using Lady Diana Spencer when speaking about her life. FearÉIREANNImage:Ireland coa.png\^{(caint) 20:14, 29 August 2005 (UTC)}

Actually, a search on the BBC News website shows 1,249 references to Diana, Princess of Wales against 11 to Lady Diana Spencer, all of them referring specifically to her life before her wedding, so I don't think that's entirely accurate. I also think you'll find far more references to Queen Mary and Queen Alexandra than to Mary of Teck and Alexandra of Denmark, and how many references to Lady Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon have you seen? She's still The Queen Mother to everyone. That's a slightly different case, possibly, but it still illustrates that common practice is not to revert to a deceased consort's maiden name and hasn't been for a very long time, if it ever was. If another Queen Mary, Queen Alexandra or Diana, Princess of Wales came along then it might be appropriate, but usage before that time smacks of pedantry. Common usage is common usage. -- Necrothesp 22:25, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

I think most people still think of Diana as Princess of Wales, rather than Lady Diana Spencer. However, I think that most people would know the maiden name anyway, given her continuing fame (another Diana story in the Daily Express front cover today.....). So I wouldn't be too fussed either way. Astrotrain 20:35, August 29, 2005 (UTC)

Duke of Cornwall

I've heard Prince Charles is known as Duke of Cornwall in Cornwall - anyone who lives there confirm this?

Well, as far as I known he's always known as the Prince of Wales, even in Cornwall. As a Cornishman, I've never heard him specifically referred to as Duke of Cornwall except in context. -- Necrothesp 17:04, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

In the Court Circular, when they want to draw attention to the fact that he is the Duke of Cornwall (when he's doing something in Cornwall or to do with the Duchy of Cornwall), they call him "The Prince of Wales, Duke of Cornwall". This is in contrast to the situation with his Scottish style, which completely replaces the Principality of Wales in Scottish matters (he's "The Prince Charles, Duke of Rothesay", not "The Prince of Wales, Duke of Rothesay" or some such). So it's not really on the same level as the Dukedom of Rothesay. Proteus (Talk) 17:50, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

PRINCE OF SCOTLAND

Whats the title "Prince of Scotland"?? Is it on a par with Prince of Wales? Is he ever titled HRH The Prince of Scotland? Am confused!

No, he's not Prince of Scotland. He's Prince of Wales and a Prince of the United Kingdom. -- Necrothesp 17:06, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

He is Prince and High Steward of Scotland. It is one of the subsidiary titles associated with the Dukedom of Rothesay. It is not like Prince of Wales, because Wales was a Principality (or, more accurately, part of Wales comprised the Principality of Wales), while Scotland was a Kingdom. john k 17:07, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

I still dont understand though - surely a kingdom is higher than a principality? And surely being a prince is higher than being a duke, earl or baron?? Does it mean he's prince THREE times over - The Prince Charles, Prince of Wales, Prince of Scotland? What does Prince of Scotland actually MEAN?

There's some interesting information about it here. In short, it seems it once was used in much the same way as "Prince of Wales" is today, but that it has fallen out of use. Proteus (Talk) 17:56, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

(through conflict) :It is an old title for the heir to the throne of Scotland, but was not the main title, which was Duke of Rothesay. As to prince being higher than a duke, that is true in a sense, but doesn't change the fact that royal dukes are referred to by their ducal titles, and not by their princely one. As to Prince of Wales vs. Prince of Scotland, the word Prince is being used in two different senses. The Prince of Wales is a Prince in the meaning of a sovereign ruler of a principality (German Fürst), although the Principality of Wales is, of course, no longer a sovereign principality, if it can even be said to exist. The title Prince of Scotland, although held by only one person, is just a generic prince (German Prinz). It is an arcane title, kind of like how the members of Russia's Imperial Family held the title Heir of Norway, or the Wettins all got to be Duke of Saxony. john k 17:58, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

I propose a separate article be made for Prince of Scotland - it's the only one of his titles that doesnt have one. The info Proteus gave is very useful - how on earth did you find it?!

"surely a kingdom is higher than a principality?" Yes, but Scotland is NOT a kingdom. It used to be, but now it is a constituent part of the United Kingdom. The Queen is not Queen of England and Scotland, but Queen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Wales is still referred to as a Principality (probably incorrectly), but Scotland is not referred to as a Kingdom. -- Necrothesp 22:20, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Yes but it was a seperate kingdom until the reign of Queen Anne, which I'm referrng to as well. - ie BEFORE Scotland became iaugragated into the UK, why was Prince of Wales used in preference to Prince of Scotland when Wales was a principality and Scotland a kingdom before it was united? I dont think it is incorrect to refer to Wales as a principality - it still has a prince, although its designation is titular rather than administrative sovereignity.

I have created a separate Prince of Scotland page. Please, anyone feel free to contribute about this little known title! (jayboy2005 30 Aug 2005)

using of styles

I removed the style from the introduction to bring the article in line with the current Wikipedia consensus (see Wikipedia:Manual of Style (biographies)) Gugganij 21:58, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Why were the list of all his formal titles removed? I wanted to look them up.

You can find the link List of Titles and Honours of Charles, Prince of Wales in the section Principal title in use. Gugganij 10:08, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

The List of Titles and Honours of Charles, Prince of Wales doesn't mention Charles's following current Honorary Military Ranks in the British Armed Forces: Vice Admiral, Lieutenant General & Air Marshall. Mightberight/wrong 19:30, 29 October 2005. (UTC)

Prince Charles' Reported Conversion to Islam

I put into the article on Prince Charles the following two sentences (and an external link to back it up):

"The Grand Mufti of Cyprus has reportedly revealed that the Prince converted to Islam in Turkey. Ronni L. Gordon and David M. Stillman in 1997 revealed this as part of the results of their investigation."

Someone removed it and called it speculation. It doesn't seem like speculation to me. It sounds like a fact that Prince Charles is hiding because it would mean that he would forfeit his right to ascend to the throne, since one cannot be both a concommittant member of the Church of England and a muslim at the same time.

Here is a quote from the Grand Mufti of Cyprus that I left out of my edit of the article on the Prince:

"This claim was put forward by no less a personage than the grand mufti of Cyprus: 'Did you know that Prince Charles has converted to Islam. Yes, yes. He is a Muslim. I can't say more. But it happened in Turkey. Oh, yes, he converted all right. When you get home check on how often he travels to Turkey. You'll find that your future king is a Muslim.'"

My source: http://www.faithfreedom.org/oped/sina51103.htm (It links to the original source that Gordon & Stillman wrote).

I think this is highly important information that informs greatly about Prince Charles as much as anything else and ought to be included in this article.

Am I wrong? If so, why am I wrong?

If the Grand Mufti of Cyprus's report is true but Charles is keeping the fact secret, must we wait here at Wikipedia for him to 'fess up before we include the information? I think I couched my wording of the two sentences I added as carefully as possible, but am happy if the wording could be improved. What I'm not happy about is the removal of both sentences and the referral source simply being removed after being judged as speculative. Even if what I wrote is speculative, is this just cause for removal. Are there not equally "speculative" statements in other articles in Wikipedia?

If the Grand Mufti of Cyprus's report is true but Charles is keeping the fact secret, must we wait here at Wikipedia for him to 'fess up before we include the information? Yes, most definitely. Why? Well I for one don't believe the Grand Mufti, and his statement is too extreme for a mainstream encyclopedia like wikipedia. Were it true it would cause a constitutional crisis (if only) but until that day this info is too on the edge and minority to be included in this article, SqueakBox 16:32, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Camilla, the Duchess of Cornwall and Diana, Princess of Wales

I am quite agitated by the fact that Camilla is referred to on this website as Camilla, Duchess of Cornwall in much the same fashion as Diana, Princess of Wales and Sarah, Duchess of York. Camilla is HRH The Duchess of Cornwall and can be referred to as Camillia, the Duchess of Cornwall. She is NOT Camilla, Duchess of Cornwall as she is not divorced. In theory you are also suggesting that Diana is still married to the Prince of Wales as she was also theoretically Diana, Duchess of Cornwall because she was the divorced wife of the Duke of Cornwall.

Proposed move

I've removed the proposed move link. This should be discussed centrally at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (names and titles) so that a Wikipedia-wide policy could be agreed. It would be a mess, and chaotic, to try to discuss the issue individually on a host of single pages, each of which could decide theoretically on a different contradictory policy. FearÉIREANN 01:28, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Someone has misspelled

the word "Duchess" as "Dutchess"

Just go ahead and correct it. The spelling may have been copied from the Washington Post, or a San Francisco paper I forget which, that had this as a caption for one photo. garryq 20:23, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Father

The PoW's marriage certificate shows his father as HRH The Prince Philip, with the rank or profession of Duke of Edinburgh. Shouldn't his father's name be HRH The Prince Philip, DUKE OF EDINBURGH. with the rank or profession of Prince of the United Kingdom? The certificate is shown in question 26 above. garryq 12:34, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Almost certainly. It was probably, however, drawn up by someone not familiar with such matters. We should perhaps be grateful it doesn't give his name as "Philip Mountbatten". Proteus (Talk) 15:57, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Princely titles

If Charles is (a) a prince by virtue of being the son of a monarch (b)created Prince of Wales and (c) Prince of Scotland, does this mean he is a prince three times over? Ive heard he is never "HRH The Prince Charles" - is this true? Or is he legally titled so but just not styled so? And why is he never styled as a Prince of Scotland except in the full string of titles? Why are any of the other titles (Earl of Chester/Carrick, Baron of Renfrew) not used ever?

He is not a Prince three times over, just a prince (I think, feel free to correct). Technically, he is HRH The Prince Charles, Prince of Wales and Earl of Chester, Duke of Cornwall, Duke of Rothesay, Earl of Carrick, Baron of Renfrew, Lord of the Isles, Prince of Scotland. But for a shorthand title (imagine signing that on a check!), he goes by HRH The Prince of Wales. I think that the "Prince of Scotland" is superceded by "Prince of the UK". And the subsidiary titles are not used because they are superceded by "Prince of Wales". Prsgoddess187 13:14, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Earldoms

I don't understand why the earldoms of Chester and Carrick weren't made dukedoms - why would the highest ranking peer in the realm bother with holding (lesser) earldoms when he could just as easily be a duke five times over (Duke of Cornwall, Chester, Carrick, Rothesay & Renfrew). Also, why is he not styled "HRH The Prince of Wales and Scotland"? And why were there no Irish titles associated with the heir to the throne - he had English, Scottish and Welsh ones? And in the days of the British Empire, why did the Prince not have an Imperial title like "Prince Imperial"? I know the prince is not outranked by anybody, but it does seem a bit strange that other peers hold equal or more dukedoms than him.

To take your points in order: (a) It's just tradition, really. Carrick is an Earldom because the Scots Act of Parliament assigning it to the eldest son and Heir Apparent made it so, and so one has ever thought of changing it, and Chester's an Earldom because "Prince of Wales and Earl of Chester" has been the traditional creation for centuries. Also, the traditions date to a time when double titles weren't really used, so if the Heir Apparent to the Scottish Throne had been Duke of Rothesay and Duke of Carrick, he probably would still have been known simply as the Duke of Rothesay, so there'd be very little point in upgrading the second title. The Royal Family generally regard tradition as very important, and would prefer to hold a traditional but technically "lesser" title than a newer "superior" one. (b) There's no reason why he couldn't be, and some have called for such a style to be used (see the link at the bottom of Prince of Scotland). It's also a possibility that he could be "HRH The Prince of Scotland" in Scotland and "HRH The Prince of Wales" elsewhere, but unless someone decides that the current situation looks like it's here to stay. (c) It would seem that this was an anomalous situation noticed in Victorian times, when (in 1850) Albert Edward, Prince of Wales, was created Earl of Dublin, but this didn't seem to stick, and I suspect the powers that be now consider the matter closed by the departure of most of Ireland from the United Kingdom. (d) In the days of the Empire, Britain was considered more important than the rest of the Empire — note that the letters after the monarch's signature were "RI", not "IR". Thus any kind of "Imperial" title would have been viewed with less honour than the British ones he already held, thus making very little point in a new creation. (e) The Royal Family have always felt quite secure in their importance without huge numbers of peerages to demonstrate it (unlikes certain Scottish Dukes, who seem to collect them). Royal Dukes in recent times, for instance, have always been "Duke of X, Earl of Y, Baron Z", when they could quite easily have one peerage of each rank. The Prince of Wales is just another facet of this — he's Prince of Wales, which obviously puts him above everyone else, and as far as he's concerned that seems to be more than enough. Hope this helps. Proteus (Talk) 12:09, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Categories: Talk archives