Talk:Queen Camilla/Archive 3

Vote
Should the article's lead sentence include the term "Princess Charles, Princess of Wales"? Please consider the debate at Talk:Camilla, Duchess of Cornwall/archive2 before voting.

Yes
 * 1) Emsworth 19:50, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC) (or just "HRH The Princess of Wales")
 * ALoan (Talk) 20:16, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC) (I doubt that Princess Michael of Kent will be changing her name to fit the new rules that people seem to be espousing) Far be it from me to resist the weighty evidence below.
 * 1) john k 20:19, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC) (moderately - it seems to me that this is her official full name, even if it is not ever used. But various other options would also be acceptable.)
 * 2) Princess Charles yes, Princess of Wales no. See Lady Louise Windsor. (Alphaboi867 20:41, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC))
 * 3) With hesitation. POW has to be used. I would perfer however to use it in a second paragraph in bold, like Lady Louise Windsor. I am seriously doubtful about "Princess Charles" though. When I mentioned it to someone in Clarence House as a title he burst out laughing. I've asked him to check it out. So my vote on Princess Charles is a deeply hesitant 'maybe'.  Fear ÉIREANN  21:41, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Yes, as long as we follow it with "styled as HRH the Duchess of Cornwall"AndyL 21:47, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) Yes; if she is legally and technically the Princess of Wales, whatever style she prefers, it should be in the intro sentence or at least in the first paragraph in some manner, for the sake of clarity and accuracy. As for the laughter at Clarence House re "Princess Charles," not everybody everywhere knows the proper protocol or how titles have been traditionally used in the Royal Family. Perhaps it would surprise him to know that the Queen Mother was Princess Albert, Duchess of York, when she married. Most people seem to be, even when the evidence is placed before them, even to the point of refusing to believe it and calling it a mistake. (I'm curious as to why they're so positive. Any ideas? I mean, nobody laughs when Princess Michael of Kent is called Princess Michael.) Mowens35 22:55, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Their understanding, and that in the Palace when I talked about this some time ago for something I was researching, is that the form Princess [husband's name] is only used where the husband has no peerage. Buckingham Palace said categorically that Princess Albert was 100% wrong. It would only have been right if her husband was still Prince Albert, not the Duke of York when they married. As Charles is a peer (and has been since 1952) they said Princess Charles is ridiculous, non-existent and frankly laughable. The person I spoke to checked with others and came back with the same response -'no'. He is however going to check with one of the most senior figures, and will get back to me. But as he said "HRH will be amused". (He didn't say which HRH!!!) Fear ÉIREANN  23:33, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * If Fear's contact can be trusted, then I say we can go with his/her advice on this and would be happy to go through all Wiki entries to ensure that the correct style is used elsewhere. Mowens35 16:24, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * He has an agenda of his own,I think,being sympathetic to modernist interpretations.--Louis E./le@put.com/12.144.5.2 16:29, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, are you accusing James, one of our longest-serving and best contributors, of "having an agenda"? James F. (talk) 20:46, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC) Jtdirl's user page,which you linked to,clearly shows where he's coming from politically.He doesn't come from the same angle as a traditionalist by any means!--Louis E./le@put.com/12.144.5.2 23:19, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * It's certainly never used for husbands with peerages. Whether it's proper to actually have it, I don't really know. john k 00:06, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * if it's "never used," as you state, then why has Debret's and other registers of nobiliary enrollment used statements such as "HRH the Princess Albert, Duchess of York" in period volumes pertaining to the Queen Mother in her early newlywed days. Even the Court Circular called her that in its day. Surely somebody back then had it right. Mowens35 20:07, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * I am rather dubious that the Court Circular did not call her simply "HRH The Duchess of York" or "TRH The Duke and Duchess of York," unless you can present an actual example. john k 18:01, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) Yes. James F. (talk) 15:34, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) Yes. Gabbe 19:59, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)
 * Yes, we should state that it is her correct title but also pointing out that she wants to be called the Duchess of Cornwall. Dabbler 20:18, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC) It turns out Princess Charles is not part of her correct title under any circumstances. Dabbler 19:04, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) Yes, as above. SlimVirgin (talk)  08:10, Apr 15, 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) Yes. There are so many pages in which wives of royal peers are called "HRH Princess ______, Duchess of _________". For example: Diana, Princess of Wales is said to have been "HRH The Princess Charles, Princess of Wales"; Sophie, Countess of Wessex is said to be "HRH The Princess Edward, Countess of Wessex"; Birgitte, Duchess of Gloucester is said to be "HRH Princess Richard, Duchess of Gloucester"; Katharine Worsley is said to have been "HRH Princess Edward, Duchess of Gloucester"; Princess Marina, Duchess of Kent is said to have been "HRH The Princess George, Duchess of Kent" before her widowhood. So, I'd just like to ask... why are we having all these examples and setting Camilla apart, saying she isn't Princess Charles? It makes no sense. Matjlav 01:21, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * 3) Yes. – ugen64 00:54, 13 May 2005 (UTC)
 * 4) Yes. Her Royal Highness The Princess Charles, Princess of Wales (Camilla ...) (born X), styled HRH The Duchess of Rothesay in Scotland and HRH The Duchess of Cornwall elsewhere, etc. Proteus (Talk) 07:30, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

No
 * 1) "Emsworth" invited me to comment.As I see it,the "Princess Charles" is a "buried" title...it is in her most formal and complete style,just as every British Duke is "Most High,Potent,and Noble Prince",but this is always abbreviated to "Most Noble".In any context in which one is not calling her husband Earl of Chester and Carrick and so forth,one would not call her Princess Charles.My main beef with the article's presentation is the use of "Mountbatten-Windsor" rather than Windsor,as I hold to the interpretation of the 1960 Order-in-Council that seems out of vogue,namely that this surname attaches itself only to those who are NOT HRH by right,and serves the specific purpose of identifying those persons.I know Clarence House staff are infected with modernism,but they are therefore mistaken.Note that the marriage register of the Prince of Wales and Diana (nee Spencer) did NOT (and should not) use a surname for him.I don't know about the second marriage,but it shouldn't have either.--Louis E./le@put.com/12.144.5.2 00:51, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Buckingham Palace and Clarence House are unambiguous in stating that the POW's surname is most definitely not Windsor but is Mountbatten-Windsor. That is their legal advice and has been the consistent legal advice they have received. You are entitled to believe whatever you wish. But if the Palace, CH, the Lord Chancellor and successive Attorneys-General say you are wrong then, as far as I am concerned, you are wrong. And wikipedia cannot decide to ignore all the legal heavyweights saying you are wrong just because you disagree with them. Fear ÉIREANN  02:09, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * A copy of the marriage certificate was printed in the Daily Express, it had the Prince's name as His Royal Highness The Prince Charles (& his other middle names), with surname as PRINCE OF WALES. Camilla was Camilla Francis PARKER BOWLES. Therefore his surname is Prince of Wales then? Astrotrain 15:11, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)
 * The Prince of Wales DOES NOT HAVE A SURNAME,and now both of his marriage documents have reflected this fact.He,his advisers,and especially the current Government subscribe to a school of political thought,hostile to traditional monarchism,that wishes he had a surname,and thus encourage interpretations to that effect,heedless of the offense this offers orthodox monarchists.--Louis E./le@put.com/12.144.5.2 16:29, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) Not any more than it should give preference to "High Stewardess of Scotland" or any other of her titles. Clarence House and Buckingham Palace have stressed that her preferred title is Duchess of Cornwall, NOT Princess of Wales.  If their assertion that her preferred title is Duchess and that is how she will be referred to by all Royal publications and the media, then that should be the title under which she is listed.  The vast majority of people on the street in the UK, nevermind anywhere else, will never have heard the title "Princess Charles, Princess of Wales" and, at best, will associate Diana as Princess of Wales.--Ayrshire--77 07:55, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) I think we risk ridicule if it is. I suggest starting with "Camilla, Duchess of Cornwall (born" etc., and then in the second sentence note that her formal title is Princess Charles, Princess of Wales but that she has chosen not to use it. Dbiv 08:39, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * 3) She is not called Princess Charles, Princess of Wales by anyone. She is only legally entitled to the title Princess of Wales, not legally obliged to use it. Astrotrain 08:46, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)
 * 4) Astrotrain, I am curious as to why you insist that such an authority as Debrett's, the standard reference book about nobility and royalty in the United Kingdom, is incorrect re its advice to me re the use of Princess HIS FIRST NAME. What do you know that they do not? Or are you just being contrary? Mowens35 16:12, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * We need to go by the common name for the person, regardless of what some dusty old book has to say on the matter. Camilla is now known as the Duchess of Cornwall. That is how she wishes to be represented, and that is how everyone (ie the media, people she knows, the royals) addresses her. She may be entitled to the title Princess of Wales by her marriage, however she does not use that title. There is no definable law in the UK that says she is Princess of Wales, it is only by tradition that she has this entitlement. In the UK, we may call ourselves whatever we like. Astrotrain 17:29, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)
 * You may indeed call yourself whatever you like (though I think a judge might disagree, given the circumstances) but that doesn't make it accurate or correct, does it? As for that "dusty old book," Debrett's is the standard reference material on this kind of matter, so I believe what it believes/states supercedes whatever you might have to say in the matter. It is the acknowledged expert; you are not. Mowens35 20:10, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) It should not be simply Princess Charles, Princess of Wales as she has clearly expressed that she does not want to be called Princess of Wales. I would sugest we use Princess Charles, Duchess of Cornwall or Princess Charles, Princess of Wales and Duchess of Cornwall Qazsedc 23:06, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * But though "Duchess of Cornwall" is the preferred-to-use reference,the use of "Princess Charles" is appropriate only in the context of references that do NOT leave anything out.Princess Charles,Duchess of Cornwall is mixing fish and fowl;she is Duchess of Cornwall for daily use,and The Princess Charles,Princess of Wales,Duchess of Cornwall and Rothesay,Countess of Chester and Carrick,and so on and so forth,in the most formal of documents.--Louis E./le@put.com/12.144.5.2 23:19, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Yes, but we do have to have and actual name in there somewhere, like we do for the Countess of Wessex and the Duchess of Gloucester. She's not actually "Princess Camilla", she's "Princess Charles." Perhaps Princess Charles, Princess of Wales and Duchess of Cornwall and Rothesay would be best. That way we include her name and the titles she uses, without cluttering it up with myrad subsidiary titles. Qazsedc 01:28, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) Absolutely not. So far no reliable source has been cited to show that she is actually called this in real life. Without such a source - we just look silly. Wikipedia should not stand alone on this. Please provide a reliable source! jguk 16:31, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) Crossing the floor. ALoan (Talk) 20:01, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Entirely neutral, you fight it out among yourselves

Isn't it a wheeze that she's Princess Charles but would be Queen Camilla?Grace Note 05:06, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Reading the above debate, and having been a fan of Star Trek for much of my life, I am beginning to understand why some people look at my fellow fans' fanaticism and feel the urge to tell them to get a life. WCityMike 18:14, Apr 15, 2005 (UTC)

Some comparisons...
In terms of "Princess Charles," it should be noted that, at present, we have

Article: Birgitte, Duchess of Gloucester, First name used: "Her Royal Highness Princess Richard, Duchess of Gloucester"

Article: Katharine, Duchess of Kent, First name used: "Her Royal Highness Princess Edward, Duchess of Kent"

Article: Sophie, Countess of Wessex, First name used: "Her Royal Highness The Princess Edward, Countess of Wessex"

In terms of the "Princess Husband'sname" issue, we should come up with a common policy here. I would be highly amenable to not giving the "Princess Husbandsname" version at all for any of them. But we need to be all or nothing.

Re: Princess of Wales, it seems to me that we often give as the first name a name which the person did not actually go by. On the other hand, we have:

Article: Lady Louise Windsor, First name used: "Lady Louise Windsor"

john k 15:12, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * I always thought that the policy was "HRH The Princess Husbandsname" if husband is still alive, "HRH Princess Husbandsname" if widowed. So, yes, two of those articles need fixing, if we still follow that policy.
 * Note, however, the LLW was changed to the semi-standard of giving the 'correct' name first just yesterday - - but was immediately reverted by Astrotrain.
 * James F. (talk) 15:25, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * The Duke of Gloucester and the Duke of Kent are neither of them "The Prince Firstname," so it stands to reason that their wives are not "The Princess Husbandsfirstname". "The Prince" only goes to sons of the monarch.  Gloucester and Kent are grandsons of the monarch.  At least, I think that's the deal. john k 16:21, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * You are incorrect; the Dukes of Gloucester and Kent are the grandsons of monarchs in the male line and were born princes. Check Debrett's, et cetera. When Prince Richard of Gloucester (who became the Duke of Gloucester in 1974) married in 1972, he was a prince and he remains a prince until he renounces the title or dies. And his new wife became Princess Richard of Gloucester, in the same manner as Princess Michael of Kent. Mowens35 20:19, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * I am certainly not incorrect. I was referring to the distinction between "Prince Richard" and "The Prince Richard."  Only sons of a king get the direct article. john k 05:34, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * What I am confused about is this: Regardless of what the ladies in question wish to be called in public or in print, if Debrett's or another register of nobiliary enrollment that is considered the standard reference book re the aristocracy and royalty states that technically, legally, and traditionally someone is known as "HRH The Princess John, Duchess of Sussex" (made up title here), why can that title not be included in said entry as being the lady's specific though little used FULL designation. Is there anything wrong with including it and explaining it succinctly? It need not be the introductory line, but if it is part of her legal, technical, and historical titular distinction, it should be part of the entry, yes? No one should be offended by that in the slightest, least of all Wiki's contributors. Mowens35 16:09, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Isn't the issue that the Duchess of Cornwall's full designation would be "Her Royal Highness the Princess Charles, Princess of Wales, Duchess of Cornwall and Rothesay, Countess of Chester and Carrick, Baroness of Renfrew, Lady of the Isles, Princess and High Stewardess of Scotland"? Why is "Princess Charles" more relevant than "Baroness of Renfrew," would be the appropriate question. john k 16:21, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Because it's the senior of those titles, so would be used first; the other titles are called subsidiary for a reason. Mowens35 20:19, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * As far as Scotland is concerned the name is used, at least in the heirs principal title thus The Duke of Cornwall, but The Prince Charles, Duke of Rothesay ;;;;


 * Re Princess Richard, Duchess of Gloucester. As any standard reference book will tell you, she was known as Princess Richard of Gloucester when married in 1972, a la Princess Michael of Kent. Then two years later, when her husband inherited the Gloucester title, she became HRH Princess Richard, Duchess of Gloucester. It's in all the standard reference books. She didn't stop being Princess Richard; she merely gained an additional titular distinction. I've just zapped Prince Michael of Kent an email via his website to see if he can or will shed light on our discussion. Mowens35 16:16, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Indeed, but the Duchess is never any longer called "Princess Richard." john k 16:21, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Whatever she is called, she technically remains a princess by marriage. That does not change. Mowens35 20:19, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I reverted LLW because by having Princess Louise of Wessex in the first line of the article contradicts what she is called by her family, and everyone else, and also the article title. Personnally I think we should remove all Princess Edwards and Richards. Astrotrain 17:29, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)


 * That has been made abundantly clear. ;-)
 * James F. (talk) 17:43, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * I agree. I see absolutely no justification for it. Fear ÉIREANN  20:20, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * there looks to be an error later in the article in comparing lady louise to princess anne's children, who are not called by royalty titles because they are not entitled to them, because their father mark phillips did not accept a peerage when they married. this distinguishes her from the other royal grandchildren, who are entitled to be styled princes & princesses because their parents are titled.


 * Should Elizabeth II be "Her Royal Highness" The Princess Philip, Duchess of Edinburgh, styled HM The Queen ???? Astrotrain 20:27, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)


 * The analogy is a false one. If The Queen were not Queen, then the style proposed would be accurate. However, her monarchial dignity is higher than her station as wife of a Duke, so your point is not applicable. -- Emsworth 20:47, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Indeed. john k 05:34, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Actually, it would not be correct, considering she used her own royal title, being HRH The Princess Elizabeth, Duchess of Edinburgh. Also, HRH The Princess Philip would be incorrect regardless, considering he was not given the definite article in his title.

My view, worth exactly 2c, is that so long as we note her full title in the article, it actually doesn't matter what we call her. This is one of those arguments where all parties are entirely correct. Yes, she is properly Princess Charles. If we were inviting her to luncheon, I daresay we would write our invitation to their Royal Highnesses The Prince and Princess Charles. But she is actually Camilla, Duchess of Cornwall. Consider Bangkok. It has a very ornate name, which we give in the article. It also has a Thai name, which we (rather foolishly, I think) put in boldface. But the article is about Bangkok and rightly so. It is what it is called.Grace Note 12:02, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Um,no...if you were sending them an invitation you would send it to Their Royal Highnesses the Prince and Princess "of Wales",not "Charles".--Louis E./le@put.com/12.144.5.2 16:11, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Most likely, you'd write it to "HRH The Prince of Wales and HRH The Duchess of Cornwall". (Or would it be "TRH The Prince of Wales and the Duchess of Cornwall"?) john k 18:07, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * I don't think that you'd single them out as of different levels writing them both an invitation.TRH the Duke and Duchess,or Prince and Princess.--Louis E./12.144.5.2 23:32, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Help!
Someone stuck a "number" tag on my comment above to count it as a "no" vote.My browser's line-length limit won't let me remove that tag,but I don't count my comment as a no vote!--Louis E./le@put.com/12.144.5.2 16:34, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Is it a "yes" vote, then, or just a neutral comment? -- ALoan (Talk) 19:00, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I've reformatted; happy? James F. (talk) 20:47, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Marriage certificate
See copy of their marriage certificate at BBC News.

This shows Prince Charles' surname as PRINCE OF WALES and not MOUNTBATTEN WINDSOR or WINDSOR Astrotrain 21:00, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)
 * That is his title, not his surname. Peers do not have surnames. -- Emsworth 21:11, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * That last statement is manifestly untrue. Peers do have surnames. I suggest that you look up the following peers and tell me that they don't have surnames. Dabbler 21:39, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Edward Fitzalan-Howard, 18th Duke of Norfolk
 * Alexander Thynn, 7th Marquess of Bath
 * John Montagu, 4th Earl of Sandwich
 * Peers, Dabbler, still do not have legal surnames; that is to say, no surname would appear on an official document. The title replaces the surname. Thus, the individuals you refer to are properly known as "Edward, Duke of Norfolk," "Alexander, Marquess of Bath," and "John, Earl of Sandwich." It is conventional, however, to use surnames in encyclopedias and other reference works. -- Emsworth 23:34, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * I believe you have the situation slightly off.The most formal documents will include a peer's surname,but they are not legally required for ordinary use.--Louis E./le@put.com/12.144.5.2 00:26, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * A surname is merely a legal family name and dukes, earls etc. etc. have legal family names which are used by other members of their families., Lord Randolph Churchill, Winston's father, was a younger son of the Duke of Marlborough who was descended from John Churchill, the first Duke of Marlborough. However, the common usage when addressing the peer is not to use the family name but merely the title. What about someone like Viscount Montgomery of Alamein. He was called Bernard Montgomery before he became a peer. I would draw your atention to BURKE'S PEERAGE, BARONETAGE & KNIGHTAGE, one of whose sections is entitled "Surnames of Peerage Families".Dabbler 01:03, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Actually, re Lord Bath ... I once went to Longleat and conducted an extensive interview with him for an American magazine, and believe me, he is quite aware of his surname and its legality, et cetera, to the point of dropping the traditional final "e" (Thynne) because he believes that it is nonhistorical and basically an error of spelling that has held firm over the centuries. Peers do use their surnames on occasions. But, yes, it is common and indeed usual for a peer to couple his first name with his title ie Alexander Bath, when he becomes the title holder. But that does not negate a surname that nearly everyone else in his family uses daily. Mowens35 08:56, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

We don't vote on facts
The "vote" above is somewhat misguided and premature. Before any result can take effect we should discuss whether it is in fact true that she is "Princess Charles". My understanding is the Debrett's Correct Form says no - a Princess of Wales is never referred to in this way. Certainly, I never remember seeing Diana referred to in this way. Before her, there was Queen Alexandra, but was she really called - "Princess Edward" - again, I remain to be convinced.


 * There was Queen Mary (Princess George?) and Alexandra would have been "Princess Albert Edward." john k 19:17, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I await a reputable source to say that "Princess Charles" is even an option. Where does it come from? It's certainly contradictory to what our own article on "British princesses" says. Absent a reputable source, we cannot use the term - full stop! jguk 19:05, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * By denying that she is Princess Charles, we are saying what is contradictory to several articles on wives of royal peers on this website as well... including the article on Diana, Princess of Wales, which is totally analagous to this case. Matjlav 01:25, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * I am not convinced of this either. john k 19:17, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * John, I'm not being difficult, merely asking for a reputable source for a statement that I dispute (namely that she is "Princess Charles). My understanding of Wikipedia practice is that, absent a reputable source, a disputed phrase should not be inserted (or remain) in an article. Of course, if a reputable source for the statement were found, that would be a different matter. At present, the statement is unsourced, so cannot go into the article, jguk 19:24, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * I agree 100%. I suggest the so-called Princess Charles name be deleted until it is established beyond reasonable doubt that such a form of address


 * legally exists
 * is or ever can be used
 * From what I understand it is a complete fiction. As I said the Palace itself burst out laughing when they were told of it. They think it is ludicrous fiction. So do I. Fear ÉIREANN  21:35, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Jguk asks "where does it come from," referring to the style in dispute. It comes from her husband's style, "HRH The Prince Charles, Prince of Wales," which is used in legal documents, including Acts of Parliament and Statutory Instruments. See, for example, the Solicitor General's Salary Order 1997 ("His Royal Highness The Prince Charles, Prince of Wales, and His Royal Highness The Prince Andrew, Duke of York"), the Saint Vincent Constitution Order 1979 ("His Royal Highness The Prince Charles, Prince of Wales"), and the The European Communities (Designation) (No. 3) Order 1991 ("His Royal Highness The Prince Andrew, Duke of York"). There can be no doubt, then, that princes who are peers are known as "HRH The Prince [Forename], [Rank] of [Title]." There are, of course, no acts, letters patent, or royal warrants that define the style and title of wives of members of the royalty. Nowhere in such documents is it stated that, for example, the wives of princes are princesses. However, it is conventional to give wives styles equivalent to those of their husbands: hence Mrs John Smith, Princess Michael of Kent, and Princess Charles, Princess of Wales. -- Emsworth 22:47, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * for the wives of royal princes without peerages, maybe, but where is the evidence that it has ever been used for the wives of royal peers. Fear ÉIREANN  23:25, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Our Princess Diana article currently says "Upon her marriage, Diana became Her Royal Highness The Princess Charles, Princess of Wales" which seems hard to reconcile with John Kenney's interpretation of Debrett's that "a Princess of Wales is never referred to in this way". --Tony Sidaway|Talk 22:06, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * No doubt put in my the same people who insist Camilla is supposedly Princess Charles. All it takes is one person to believe something on wikipedia and they can plonk claims like that all over wikipedia and if they are wrong make wikipedia look a right ass. Fear ÉIREANN  23:25, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Of course "Princess Charles" is accurate (if not wholly useful), in much the same way that "Mrs. David Beckham" is accurate. It may be that in these post-feminist times it is confusing to some as such forms of references to wives of people are rare, their being now normally refered to as "Mrs. own first name husband's surname".
 * James F. (talk) 22:58, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * You could say Camilla is Mrs Charles Mountbatten-Windsor but that doesn't mean that the same applies to royal titles. Fear ÉIREANN  23:25, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Proposed compromise
I wonder if the users involved would be interested in a compromise under which "The Princess Charles" would not be used in the introduction. However, the article would begin with "Her Royal Highness  The Princess of Wales." Beginning with "HRH The Princess of Wales" would not be inconsistent with WP practice; on the contrary, it would be consonant with it. Many other articles begin by first listing the official name, and then the common name; see, for example, Tony Blair: "The Right Honourable Anthony Charles Lynton Blair (born 6 May 1953), commonly called Tony Blair..." (Other examples of articles that use this format for the lead sentence include Voltaire, Mark Twain, Tony Benn, and Viv Richards.) This compromise would, I hope, satisfy (a) those who argue that there is no basis for "Princess Charles" and (b) the WP convention on royalty that states that articles should begin with the official style or title. -- Emsworth 01:23, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * I too would like to see an end to this dispute. It seems we spend all the time arguing on what to call her, rather than actually expanding this somewhat short biography of her.


 * First, the objection to "Princess Charles" is that it is not a correct formation - as noted by Debrett's Correct Form, FearEireann's telephone discussions (which, as they are unverifiable, do not constitute a source), and the complete lack of anyone using that formation. Indeed, no source (not even a non-reputable one!) has been cited in support of the formation. I feel there can be no compromise on the facts, which means that the "Princess Charles" formation must not be referred to in the article.


 * Second, I think it is important to note that etiquette says that her official title is "The Duchess of Cornwall". She could, of course, have chosen to be styled "Princess of Wales", but she has chosen not to be. Her correct style is the one she has chosen, which is the one that is commonly used. I would ask those who think "Princess of Wales" is "technically correct" to consider that it would be a great social gaffe to, say, send a letter or an invitation to her addressed to the "Princess of Wales" - and even worse to persist on calling her that to her face. The styles that are "correct" in etiquette-land are "Duchess of Cornwall" and "Duchess of Rothesay".


 * It is true, of course, that she is the Princess of Wales, and could have chosen to be styled as such. This should be mentioned - it takes only one short sentence to do so, and there are plenty of sources to support the fact, such as Hansard. But this isn't a big deal - it's of passing interest, no more - and the article should treat the info accordingly, jguk 07:13, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I think as a matter of principle we must start the article with the form of address we use in the title. Blair is different, to be honest. We say Blair in the title and in appears in the long name. But saying Camilla, Duchess of Cornwall in the title and then Princess of Wales in the text would IMHO be wrong. I would suggest

HRH The Duchess of Cornwall, (Camilla . . . . ) is the second wife of HRH. . . As the wife of the Prince of Wales she is officially styled HRH The Princess of Wales (inset Hansard link), however she has decided to use as her working style that of Duchess of Cornwall. (inset link to Clarence House statement) Her full official titles are '''HRH The Princess of Wales, Duchess of Cornwall. . . '''etc.

That way we Fear ÉIREANN  07:23, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * keep consistency with between the opening line and the article name
 * explain what she officially is and what she calls herself
 * then can move on without any more complications.


 * Just one note. She is officially called the "Duchess of Cornwall" or the "Duchess of Rothesay", as noted on the Royal Family website, Court Circular, etc.. It's more a point that she is the Princess of Wales, although she has chosen not to be (officially) styled as such, jguk 07:35, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * A fair point. One other suggestion. We should include as one of those hidden notes an explanation that wikipedia on advice and after research has concluded that Princess Charles should not be used. That might deter some others from continually re-inserting it. We should similarly insert a hidden note to that effect in the text of Diana, P of W's article for the same reason. It might just stop the Princess Charles brigade for continually adding in that nonsense.  Fear ÉIREANN  07:45, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * My main point seems to have been missed. HRH The Princess of Wales is her official title. She may choose to be called the Duchess of Cornwall, but that does not change her official title; she is the Princess of Wales. Above, I have provided numerous sources that indicate that this is indeed her official title. I have also provided examples of articles that begin with a name that is not the title of the article. Therefore, my proposed compromise is still: Her Royal Highness The Princess of Wales (Camilla Rosemary Mountbatten-Windsor), styled HRH The Duchess of Cornwall, ... I would also note that a majority above are in favour of beginning the lead sentence with Pss of Wales. -- Emsworth 14:01, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * I'm puzzled as to how you are interpreting "official" here. To me, "official" means "used by officials" or "used in an official context" - which in this case gives the conclusion that the "official" title or "official" style is "Duchess of Cornwall" or "Duchess of Rothesay". She is the Princess of Wales, but that style is not used officially, jguk 19:19, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * I am not talking about what she is called. I am talking about what she is. Legally, she is the Princess of Wales: nothing she says or wants changes this fact. -- Emsworth 19:23, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * She may be legally entitled to be Princess of Wales, but there is no law to she actually is the Princess of Wales. And since niether she, or anyone else uses it, it is silly for Wikipedia to do so. Astrotrain 19:42, Apr 17, 2005 (UTC)


 * Except that numerous legal authorities have said that "she actually is the Princess of Wales." john k 19:56, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

There are numerous articles where someone is referred otherwise than how their first reference calls them. We have the article Robert Stewart, Viscount Castlereagh, which begins "Robert Stewart, 3rd Marquess of Londonderry (1769-1822), known until 1821 by his courtesy title Viscount Castlereagh," and then call him Castlereagh throughout the article. Michael Ancram begins with "Michael Andrew Foster Jude Kerr, 13th Marquess of Lothian, PC (born 7 July 1945), known as Michael Ancram." I think Emsworth's suggestion looks good to me - the analogy with Ancram, in fact, seems quite proper, in that in that case nobody is denying that he is Marquess of Lothian, even though he doesn't use the title, in much the same way that Camilla doesn't use the title of Princess of Wales. john k 14:30, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I've made a couple of minor but I believe important changes to follow encyclopaedic standards.
 * It is clear legally that Camilla is the POW. That wasn't spelt out clearly. I've made it clear in the second paragraph that legally she is POW (which I've bolded) and will be queen, but has decided to use a different title.
 * It is rather grating to call Camilla a mistress. It is an old-fashioned term of abuse indicating that she is not co-equal in a relationship. I have stated instead that prior to their marriage she had been his longterm partner, which is far less offensive. (In terms of balance, if we called Camilla mistress what would be call Diana's many lovers during her marriage (and she had many, though not all their names are in the public domain. It is even suggested by friends of the couple that one of her lovers is a king of another country. What word should we call James Hewitt if we call Camilla a mistress? I think it is far more objective and accurate to call her simply Charles's long term partner. Fear ÉIREANN  00:15, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Once again your prejudice against the "old-fashioned" shows.I know I have my own views here (I thought Charles should not have married Diana,I thought he should have chosen any woman in the whole world other than Camilla for a second wife because his history with Camilla would taint the relationship)...but adultery is adultery and in the case of any cheating spouse the terms used should be negatively-judgemental.--Louis E./le@put.com/12.144.5.2 03:15, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Whatever your personal views on the matter, Louis, they don't comport with wikipedia policy of NPOV. john k 03:24, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Terminology chosen to evade describing an extramarital relationship as extramarital is inappropriate.Saying the side of the street someone was driving down is appropriate even if it was the wrong side;obfuscating isn't useful.--Louis E./12.144.5.2 03:58, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * FearEireann's new second paragraph looks okay. I think it would go better down the article under the list of styles, though, rather than the second paragraph - as it really gives us no information on the Duchess of Cornwall's life. Also, the article needs boosting up significantly - she must have done more in her life than what we have in the few paragraphs we've already got, jguk 18:12, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately, she hasn't "done more in her life" thus far. Some people just don't do anything considered publicly significant, ever. We'll have to see what she does from now on. She rides, she used to hunt, and she is a patron of an osteoporosis organization, at least one, I think. That's about it. Mowens35 07:30, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Her being Patron and later President of the National Osteoporosis Society - and what she has done in those roles, is certainly worth a mention (and is currently not referred to in the article). The Royal Family website says she is also Patron of St John's, Smith Square, Trustee of the Wiltshire Van Bobby Trust and Patron of New Queen's Hall Orchestra. There must be something to write on these roles too, jguk 17:54, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)