Post by Charani Post by Sharon
Referencing the US news sites? Is that the best you
could do? They have been known to make some serious
blunders when it comes to reporting on the British
Obviously the stupid troll thinks that marriage to the Prince of
Wales confers his title on his wife, but then trolls are well
known for their stupidity. Royal titles are for the Queen to
bestow. The Duchess of Cornwall was not given the title of
Princess of Wales. It's unlikely that she ever will be, given
the affection that Diana, Princess of Wales was held in by many
around the world.
On 6 Jun 2006 15:14:23 -0700, a troll calling itself Aggie
Post by Sharon
I ask, where do the delusions lay?
In your silly litle head!!
The Duchess of Cornwall isn't the Princess of Wales.
You'll find the exit down the corridor just past the gents loo, but
mind the step and the door as it tends to swing back quite hard.
Oops!! You didn't mind either. Oh well, never mind.
Leaving aside her/his distasteful language (inappropriate anywhere and
certainly on a genealogical forum), 'Charani' has cited no sources for
her/his assertions. Citation of sources is always advisable and is standard
practice in genealogy. This is especially relevant given that 'Charani' was
responding to aspersions cast by another poster, 'Sharon', on the source
quoted by poster 'Aggie' (and noting that 'Charani' had ignored a post by
poster 'Jeff' quoting a different - English - source).
Unless 'Charani' is able to quote sources for her/his various assertions
they should be withdrawn.
I suspect (though I cannot guarantee) that there are no sources to be found
in Acts of Parliament (it would be very helpful if anyone could show
otherwise) but that we are probably talking about uncodified 'law' (written
and unwritten) sanctified by centuries of practice.
My understanding (I am open to sourced correction) is that the officially
recognized titles of Charles are His Royal Highness The Prince Charles
Philip Arthur George, Prince of Wales, Duke of Cornwall, Earl of Chester,
Duke of Rothesay, Earl of Carrick, Baron of Renfrew, Lord of the Isles,
Prince and Great Steward of Scotland .
And that he styles himself HRH The Prince of Wales except when in Scotland
where he styles himself HRH The Prince Charles, Duke of Rothesay.
My understanding is that, when Lady Diana Spencer married Charles, she
automatically received - by virtue of her marriage and with no intervention
by the Queen, Parliament or Government - the official courtesy titles of HRH
The Princess of Wales, Duchess of Cornwall, Countess of Chester, Duchess of
Rothesay, Countess of Carrick, Baroness of Renfrew, Princess of Scotland.
And that she usually styled herself HRH The Princess of Wales except when in
Scotland where she styled herself HRH The Duchess of Rothesay (there is a
report that once, when carrying out an engagement in Chester, she styled
herself HRH The Princess of Wales and Countess of Chester). This remained
the position until her divorce.
Similarly, my understanding is that, when Mrs Camilla Parker Bowles married
Charles, she automatically received - by virtue of her marriage and with no
intervention by the Queen, Parliament or Government - the official courtesy
titles of HRH The Princess of Wales, Duchess of Cornwall, Countess of
Chester, Duchess of Rothesay, Countess of Carrick, Baroness of Renfrew,
Princess of Scotland.
And that, although Camilla is legally/technically The Princess of Wales, she
currently styles herself HRH The Duchess of Cornwall except when in Scotland
where she styles herself HRH The Duchess of Rothesay.
My understanding is that, if the current wife of the Prince of Wales chose
to style herself HRH The Princess of Wales, she could do so tomorrow without
let or hindrance (though no doubt the spin doctors would not advise this)
and that it would probably take a formal Act of Parliament to stop her from
so doing if she insisted.
It is, of course, extremely difficult to find out the precise legal
situation (if indeed there is one) - partly, it seems, because the spin
doctors worked (and continue to work) so very hard to obscure it.
Wikipedia has some interesting articles but they cannot be taken as
The whole subject is boring and trivial in the extreme (though having much
more genealogical relevance than so many of the lengthy OT threads on this
list/newsgroup). Nevertheless, accuracy and sources are very important,
especially on a genealogical list/newsgroup.
It is heartening to see that 'Aggie' has remained courteous despite much
provocation - though it would have been preferable IMHO had s/he not started