Talk:Queen Camilla/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

→

Archive 10

camillagate tapes

Is the inclusion of the taped conversations between Charles and Camilla really appropiate for an encyclopedia? It may be of note to state that such a tape exists, but surely the actual conversation should not be listed. This isn't a tabliod column. Astrotrain 19:40, Apr 17, 2005 (UTC)

Agreed. The text of the conversation is not really encyclopaedic in the context.

James F. (talk) 23:30, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

ditto TAS 13:28, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

'Thirded' --Ayrshire--77 14:31, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Formal, Public Request to User:Jguk

Please stop reverting the article back to your opinion. Allow the banner to stay in place until the matter has been resolved here on the talk page. We're rapidly approaching the three revert rule. And, for what it's worth, I have absolutely no opinion on this discussion; I am simply trying to indicate on the main page that the matter is in dispute and is being discussed on the talk page. For you to be consistently removing it is, in my opinion, just flat out rude. Please, knock it off. — WCityMike ^{(T | C)} 22:42, Apr 17, 2005 (UTC)

What you are doing is inserting a formulation of her name that is distinctly pro-republican. This may be inadvertent, but as I noted in the edit summaries, we do not refer to the Royal Family as "Mr and Mrs Mountbatten-Windsor". Doing so is POV, and, as you can see from my user contributions, I have a consistent record in editing against POV statements. I also have a consistent record in editing out dubious and unsourced information - which is what some people (ie the "Princess Charles" lobby) appear to be doing, jguk 06:16, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Agree with JGUK Astrotrain 09:17, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)

I assume that "pro-republican" means something in this argument differently than the American political party, but since I don't know what that would be, you can rest assured any pro-republican formulation of Camilla's name was inadvertent on my part. But I've given up on this, anyway, and I'm not going to check this page any more. The page is protected, so hopefully that'll make all of you come to a peaceful conclusion so you can start editing her again. Life's too short. — WCityMike ^{(T | C)} 12:18, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)

What it means in this case is that the you support the removal of the monarchy and replacement with a president. I presume you don't, or you'd know what it means. TAS 13:27, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Well, on a purely theoretical basis, yeah, such an action sounds good to me on its face, now that you explain what you mean. But that definitely wasn't where I was coming from. — WCityMike ^{(T | C)} 19:08, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)

This edit warring getting quite absurd. I think that it would certainly be advisable to forget about "Princess Charles." It would, I think, also be quite fair to begin the article as follows:

Her Royal Highness The Princess of Wales (Camilla Rosemary Mountbatten-Windsor, formerly Parker Bowles, née Shand) (born 17 July 1947), styled HRH The Duchess of Cornwall

Perhaps others would agree, or would care to make their own alternative proposals. -- Emsworth 23:07, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Strongly oppose. Much as I respect Emsworth, I think he is wrong on this one. We should start the article with her working title, which is DoC, and explain later that technically she is also PoW. Ditto with the Lady Louise Windsor article. It would be grossly misleading to people who don't know the reality to use an unused title and demote the actual used title to second place, especially when it is the working title, not the unused one, that is the name of the article. PoW can be used when stating her full titles later on. But not in the first line or IMHO first paragraph.I think the opening is fine as it is. FearÉIREANN 23:18, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Very well, then. In the interest of ending the constant reverting, I would support the form used for the Lady Louise: that is to say, the first paragraph would begin "Her Royal Highness The Duchess of Cornwall...," while the second paragraph would begin "Though legally Her Royal Highness The Princess of Wales..." I hope that the bolding of "Princess of Wales" will not be objectionable. -- Emsworth 23:54, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

There's no need to over-promote the fact that she is PoW - this is most suited to a discussion of her titles. Of course, once the article has expanded to cover more of her life and what she's done, a completely new second para can be added introducing that, jguk 06:02, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Just wondering if anyone opposed to using her proper title first in favor of her "working title" would explain whether they support changing the intro to Michael Ancram, as well, and, if not, how the two cases are to be distinguished. john k 14:45, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I don't want to go through this argument again on the Michael Ancram page - but yes, I think it would be more appropriate to amend that article too. I do feel that some WPians take the approach that titles and honorifics are more important than the people themselves. This may have been appropriate perhaps even as far as the 1960s, but isn't so now. I think people are more relaxed now - treat people and people - and are happy to respect how they wish to be called. I find it unfortunate that there is a vocal minority on WP who disagree with this.

I would add that I am surprised at the controversy that my changes to how the article was introduced on the marriage of the Duchess of Cornwall to the Prince Wales. I was the first one to edit the article after they married, and I, somewhat naïvely thought that by using the name absolutely everyone was using for Her Royal Highness would naturally be the one we would use here. I remain surprised that there are still those who argue differently (and by that I note that I fully agree that the article should note, in passing - as it's not a big deal, that she is the Princess of Wales, but does not use the style). Kind regards, jguk 19:19, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Well, I'm glad you're consistent. But the basic fact of the matter is that the first name given in an article is supposed to be their full proper name, and not the most commonly used name (which is the page title). Michael Ancram is Marquess of Lothian, and on official legal documents he is "The Most Honourable Michael Andrew Foster Jude, Marquess of Lothian". His children bear the surname "Kerr," not Ancram. He, and anybody else, can call himself whatever he wants to, and wikipedia should respect that decision by using the best known name in the article title, by mentioning it in bold early in the article, and by referring to the person by it in later references in the article. However, it has been consistent policy for a long time now for the person's full legal name, including titles, to be used at the beginning of the article. john k 19:50, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Debretts Opinion

I decided to ask Debrett's directly and I quote their expert at peerage@debrett.co.uk

Her title, if she used it, would be HRH The Princess of Wales (not the Princess Charles which would never be used) just like other royal ladies HRH The Countess of Wessex, HRH The Duchess of Gloucester, and HRH The Duchess of Kent. HRH Princess Michael of Kent is so styled as her husband has no territorial title i.e. he is not the Duke of Kent being a younger son. If Prince Edward had no title, his wife would be styled HRH Princess Edward. Dabbler 21:54, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Actually, I'm not quite sure about that. Considering that the email for general inquiries is "people@debretts.co.uk," not "peerage@debrett.co.uk," I'm not sure you're telling the truth.

I sent my original message to people@debretts.co.uk, but it was forwarded to Dr M. L. Bierbrier FSA, Co-Editor who uses the address peerage@debretts.co.uk. The ommission of the "s" in my quote of the e-mail address was a typo on my part. I am sorry that I have to quote chapter and verse in every detail and not make the slightest error to avoid being called a liar by some people here. Dabbler 03:20, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Oops, I'm seriously sorry for the mistake. But you have to admit, not knowing any better, it would sound a bit suspicious. Matjlav 19:47, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

As far as it being incorrect to refer to the Prince of Wales as "Prince Charles": here, I do know of official documents that demonstrate the correctness of "HRH The Prince Charles, Prince of Wales." Examples: the Solicitor General's Salary Order 1997; the Saint Vincent Constitution Order 1979 -- Emsworth 01:18, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Good work, Dabbler. That was always my understanding too. As I wrote above way back in the debate

" . . . the Palace when I talked about this some time ago [said] . . . 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.

I think when you have sources like Buckingham Palace and Debretts saying that, we should change all the articles to follow those rules. FearÉIREANN 22:12, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

One final point to put a nail in the coffin of the Princess Charles rubbish. While in theory a bride of one of a monarch's husbands may be called Princess (husbandname) that can never happen with brides of PoWs. Royal princes lower down the Order of Succession may indeed be given a title on their marriage, or afterwards, in which case Princess (husbandname) maybe right. But POWs always have titles, either Duke of Cornwall (automatic) or Prince of Wales (awarded). So Princesses of Wales never ever need be Princess (husbandname). FearÉIREANN 19:40, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Dabbler is right. I sent one as well for verification, and I got this response:

Dear Sir,

No to your question. The correct form of address is HRH The Duchess of Cornwall, HRH The Countess of Wessex. If Prince Edward had no title except Prince, then his wife would be HRH Princess Edward like Princess Michael of Kent. The Duchess of Cornwall can never be called HRH The Princess Charles. Indeed. it is incorrect to call him Prince Charles. He is HRH The Prince of Wales.

Thus, I believe, making sure to put a clear note in the editing field, that we should request an unlocking. Matjlav 20:04, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Before you do - are we agreed that we refer to her as HRH The Duchess of Cornwall? I note that we already refer to her being the "Princess of Wales" under "List of styles". I suggest that, as we only need to mention that point once, that is where we make it, jguk 20:17, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

" I note that we already refer to her being the "Princess of Wales" under "List of styles"."

Technically she is Princess of Wales, as the Lord Chancellor admitted. She chooses to be called the Duchess of Cornwall, which she automatically is also but in all the lists of Princesses of Wales Camilla will automatically feature. So it is correct to list her in lists of Princesses of Wales and would be wrong to leave her out. All we need to make clear is that she chooses not to use that title, but it still is her official title. She could choose tomorrow to use it. If (and Clarence House hopes it will) public opinion changes she might be able to use the PoW title she possesses. Similarly when Charles is king Camilla will have to be listed as a queen consort as she will be that too. Yet again it will simply be a case that she chooses not to use it. FearÉIREANN 00:06, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

What's her style in Scotland? Because my understanding is that Charles's style there is "HRH The Prince Charles, Duke of Rothesay"... john k 00:37, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I find it rather amusing that people are willing to treat as definitive someone who thinks the Countess of Wessex would be called "HRH Princess Edward" were her husband not a Peer, when she'd obviously be called "HRH The Princess Edward". This (rather less than expert) Debrett's chap obviously doesn't know the difference between a style (which in this case is clearly "HRH The Duchess of Cornwall") and a legal name (which is "HRH The Princess Charles, Princess of Wales"). Proteus (Talk) 16:04, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Well, I sent a similar letter, and he did respond saying "HRH The Princess Charles" would be correct. And I made sure to make it very clear that I meant full title. And he said no. Matjlav 21:50, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I would like to know what your qualifications to make that statement or better still what your sources are for that information. Perhaps you could reference them for us. There has been a lot of assertion and name-calling here but only a few hard statements backed with reasonably authoritative sources. Debretts is known to be a reasonbably authoritative source. If you have a more authoritative one, lets us see it. Dabbler 16:39, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Well, he's certainly right that Sophie would have been HRH The Princess Edward, although that's more likely sloppiness on the part of the Debrett's guy. But I would agree that he doesn't seem to know the difference between a style and a legal name. Certainly Camilla's legal name can't be "Her Royal Highness The Duchess of Cornwall." john k 16:57, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

According to the Prince of Wales's staff, his title is HRH The Prince Charles, Duke of Rothesay. The Prince Charles relates exclusively to the heir. I have not heard of any credible source to suggest that there is a 'Princess (husbandname)' naming format in Scotland. AFAIK the Duke's wife's name is simply HRH The Duchess of Rothesay" in all cases. I'll check that out to make sure. FearÉIREANN 23:03, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The Court Circular from 15 April says: The Prince Charles, Duke of Rothesay and The Duchess of Rothesay, this morning opened Ballater Play Park and were received by Her Majesty’s Lord-Lieutenant of the Aberdeenshire (Mr Angus Farquharson), Ballater, Aberdeen., which (dodgy grammar notwithstanding) would seem to confirm your belief. Proteus (Talk) 23:09, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Welsh People

Stongly Object

Has anyone bothered asking the people of Wales? Of course not. Well I, being a Welshman and living in Wales, have no wish to see this lady associated with our historic and proud people. --Emdec 20:56, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Why should they be asked? The position is not elective. The people of Wales no more influences the choice of the Prince of Wales and of who is his wife, than the people of Connacht influenced the identity of who was Duke of Connaught and who was the duchess, or than the people of Ulster had over the naming of one royal as Earl of Ulster. Prince of Wales is the principal title of the Heir Apparent to the British throne. His wife automatically is Princess of Wales. Camilla is the Prince of Wales's wife. So she is Princess of Wales and we must say that here. However she has chosen not to use that title, and we must say that too. FearÉIREANN 23:20, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The opinion of the people of Cornwall, needless to say, is not involved either. john k 00:43, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Democratic opinion doesn't have much place in a monarchy. :)

This discussion has now given me rather amusing images of a referendum of the people of Norfolk when the Duke of Norfolk wants to get married. Although it'd be considerably more difficult for the Duke of Manchester, and I dread to think what would have to happen if the Dukedom of Albany were ever unsuspended or if someone were created Duke of London. Proteus (Talk) 12:27, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

I had thought that the Dukedom of Manchester was named for a different Manchester than the one in Lancashire. john k 13:11, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

Moving On

As ususal seems to be a lot of people discussing how many angels can dance on the head of a pin to no so sensible purpose.

I believed it preferable to improve the article; removed a lot of irrelevant genealogical detail. If all you have to say about someone is who they are related to, then you have nothing to say about that person. The paragraph beginning "According to genealogist William Addams Reitweisner..." was particularly valuless. I mean really?! Exactly the same thing can be said of any individual randomly selected off the streets of Britain. The information may be correct, but it is valueless.

Are peers in their own right different?

I notice that while we have now agreed to call royal wives HRH The Countess, HRH The Duchess, and HRH The Princess, we still have not changed the male forms. Are we saying it's correct to call the princes "HRH Prince Firstname, Duke of Duchy" but not their wives? I'm just a little confused... Matjlav 20:54, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

• In the UK, there is no legal definition of what a woman can or may call herself after marriage. It is customary for women to take their husband's surname, although some now do not. For royals and peers, the woman will take their husband's highest title, but it is only a curtesy title, and it is not their own. The Princes who get peerages remain princes under letters patent of 1917. The wifes do not become princesses. Some people on her think that as soon as a woman marries, her "legal name" changes to the feminine of her husbands, which is not true, as their is no legal name in the UK, except what is on the birth certificate. Thus Camilla Parker Bowels became HRH The Duchess of Cornwall on her marriage. The HRH is entitilement under the 1917 letters patent, and the Duchess of Cornwall part is due to her choice of curtesey title (ie what titles her husband has). She can also call herself Princess of Wales, but chooses not to.

That's almost completely wrong. Proteus (Talk) 21:53, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

There's no "agreement". Ignorant and foolish people just keep changing things away from the established and correct format, that's all. Proteus (Talk) 21:53, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

• Tell me why you think you are right? Many people think the "Princess Charles, Edward or whatever" is wrong, Debretts and the Royal Households think it is wrong. No where else uses it. Astrotrain 21:59, May 10, 2005 (UTC)

Neither of them have said anything of the sort. One person from Debrett's has said you shouldn't address Lady Wessex as "Princess Edward", which is perfectly true but completely irrelevent to the question of what her legal name is (which is most certainly not "Her Royal Highness The Countess of Wessex", any more than the Duchess of Norfolk's legal name is "Her Grace The Duchess of Norfolk" [it's "The Most Noble Georgina Susan, Duchess of Norfolk"]). And what "many people" think is utterly irrelevant. Proteus (Talk) 22:22, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

• What is your definition of a "legal name"?

What do you mean, "my definition"? There's only one definition - the name that would be used on a formal legal or official document. (Frankly, if you have absolutely no knowledge on this subject (which is obviously the case), you have no business lecturing other people on it. Try reading Debrett's Correct Form for a start, which has a section on legal names.) Proteus (Talk) 22:30, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

Your definition has a slight flaw in that it suggests someone can only have one legal name. I don't believe this is necessarily true, jguk 05:50, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

Please do elaborate. Proteus (Talk) 08:19, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

• Looking at other sources:

Weddingguide.co.uk- Changing name upon marriage UK Deed pool advice website

So, you have a legal name upon birth (what is on the birth certificate). For woman, they have the opinion of changing it upon marriage, the marriage certificate giving proof (this is by custom, not law). For peers, I imagine their letters patent for the title gives their legal name when they gain the peerage. For the rest of us, we need a Deed pool. Astrotrain 11:10, May 11, 2005 (UTC)

I don't see what possible relevance any of that could have. Please address the actual issue. (I really find it hard to believe that I'm being lectured on the law by someone who can't spell "deed poll".) Proteus (Talk) 12:26, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

• I am not lecturing. Someone asked a question and I gave my answer. The issue is do wifes legally take their husbands name on marriage. I say no, and have backed this up with evidence. You have just stated I am wrong, without giving a good reason why. You are just being rude. Astrotrain 13:52, May 11, 2005 (UTC)

Have a look at the following Royal Warrants to see how the Court views the legal name of a woman:

Her Majesty The Queen by Royal Warrant bearing date the fifth day of June 2000, has been graciously pleased to ordain and declare that Barbara Marie-Louise Constance the wife of Alexander Clement Gilmour and Ann Denise the wife of Brian Peter Harvey Orange, the sisters of Richard Gomer Viscount Kemsley, should henceforth have hold and enjoy the same title rank place pre-eminence and precedence as the children of a Viscount which would have been due to them had their father Denis Gomer Berry, Esquire, survived his brother Geoffrey Lionel Viscount Kemsley and Baron Kemsley, and thereby succeeded to the title and dignity of a Viscount.

The QUEEN has been graciously pleased to ordain and declare that Lucy Helen, the wife of Michael Alan Pelham, Katharine Mary, the wife of Franklin Watts, and Alice Marian, the wife of Thomas David Fremantle, shall henceforth have, hold and enjoy the same title, rank, place, pre-eminence and precedence as the daughters of a Duke which would have been due to them had their father, Cyril Reginald Egerton, survived his kinsman, John Sutherland, Duke of Sutherland, and thereby succeeded to the title and dignity of the Duke of Sutherland.

So the legal identity of a married woman is as the wife of her husband. But according to you these women don't take their legal names from their husbands. And for peeresses:

The QUEEN has been graciously pleased by Warrant under Her Royal Signet and Sign Manual to give and grant Her Majesty's Royal Licence and Authority that David John, Baron Herbert, together with his wife Jane Angela, Baroness Herbert, etc.

I still don't see where this is getting us, though. You're still not addressing the actual issue. You're not arguing that Camilla didn't take Charles's titles on marriage, you're arguing that her legal name is somehow "Her Royal Highness The Duchess of Cornwall", which is just complete rubbish. (According to you Lady Herbert's legal name would be "The Right Honourable The Lady Herbert", which, as the above Royal Warrant shows, clearly isn't the case.) Proteus (Talk) 15:05, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

• I am not arguing that Camilla's legal name is "HRH The Duchess of Cornwall". I am arguing that a woman has a legal name at birth (on her birth certificate). On marriage she can choose to keep her maiden name, or assume her husband's surname. This I have backed up with other sources. Thus Camilla Shand became Camilla Parker-Bowels by choice. To prove her change of name (eg on passport), Camilla would have sent the authorities a copy of her marriage certificate. On her marriage to the Prince of Wales, he doesn't have a surname (as you yourself said previously). Therefore it is unclear what her new "legal" name would become. She became HRH on her marriage to a British prince, and then was entitled to use the feminine version of his titles (eg Princess of Wales, Duchess of Cornwall). She choose to use Duchess of Cornwall, and is thus addressed as HRH The Duchess of Cornwall. As for the name she would have in her passport or bank account, I don't know, it could remain Camilla Parker Bowels, or be HRH The Duchess of Cornwall, or some other variant. Astrotrain 15:46, May 11, 2005 (UTC)

Firstly, as she hasn't chosen to remain CPB, the whole "does she necessarily take her husband's name" thing is irrelevant. Secondly, it isn't at all unclear what the feminine version of Charles's titles is. She can't be "HRH The Duchess of Cornwall" or "HRH The Princess of Wales" because it's not clear enough - legal documents have to make it absolutely clear who they are talking about, and in ten years time HM could be dead, Charles could be King and William could be PoW and married, and so his wife would be "HRH The Princess of Wales" and "HRH The Duchess of Cornwall" - this is why first names are used. The Duchess of Norfolk has to be specified as "Georgina Susan, Duchess of Norfolk" because the legal document she is named in could last for decades, and in the future she could be a widow in which case her son's wife would be "Her Grace The Duchess of Norfolk". The only possible options are "Her Royal Highness Camilla Rosemary, Princess of Wales" and "Her Royal Highness The Princess Charles, Princess of Wales". As Her Royal Highness Princess Michael of Kent (not "Her Royal Highness Marie-Christine" or similar) shows, wives of Princes are Princess Hisname. The fact that Camilla is a peeress means she is not styled like this, but that doesn't stop her being it. (The Debrett's person is just confused, and clearly thought someone wanted to write a letter to Lady Wessex as "HRH The Princess Edward" or what not, which, clearly, no one actually wants to do. The fact that you wouldn't address a letter to "The Most Noble Georgina Susan, Duchess of Norfolk" doesn't stop it being her legal name.) You'll note that when the 1st Duke of Gloucester died, his widow could have chosen between "Her Royal Highness The Dowager Duchess of Gloucester" or "Her Royal Highness The Princess Henry, Duchess of Gloucester". The fact that she wanted her own name used meant she had to be "Her Royal Highness Princess Alice, Duchess of Gloucester", and get HM's permission for that. If she'd been "Her Royal Highness Alice Christabel, Duchess of Gloucester", she could easily have become "Her Royal Highness Alice, Duchess of Gloucester" without any fuss and without HM's permission. The point was (and is) that Royal titles don't work like that. You can't just stick "Her Royal Highness" in front of someone's forenames if they're married to a Royal Prince. She had to be "Princess Alice" because "Her Royal Highness <First Names>" is a completely unprecedented format. Thus if Camilla can't be "Her Royal Highness Camilla Rosemary, Princess of Wales" and can't be "Her Royal Highness The Princess of Wales", there's only one thing left for her to be - "Her Royal Highness The Princess Charles, Princess of Wales". (By the way, passports and bank accounts don't have legal names on them.) Proteus (Talk) 16:11, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

• I see your line of argument. However, if you are saying The Duchess of Norfolk's legal name is "Georgina Susan, Duchess of Norfolk" then surley Camilla would be "Her Royal Highness Camilla Frances, Duchess of Cornwall". BTW if you do not use your legal name on your passport or bank account, where the hell do you use it???? Astrotrain 22:14, May 11, 2005 (UTC)

From what I can gather, Camilla has a legal name and a legal title, but that in Britain while a person holds it the legal title can be treated as legal name for the duration of their title. Camilla has chosen to take her husband's name as her legal name so she is Camilla Mountbatten-Windsor and nothing else for her legal name. Her legal title (in law) is The Princess of Wales, (in usage) The Duchess of Cornwall. If her husband had not a peerage her legal title would be The Princess Charles but that name is an impossibility in English law because the male heir to the throne automatically has a title and is never without it from the moment their parent becomes monarch. So Princess <husbandname> does not and never has had a validity and existence in English law. Where the wife of the heir to the throne is herself a princess prior to marriage, there is a third option, Princess <name> as in Princess Mary, Princess Alexandra. But as neither of the current Prince of Wales's wives were princesses before marriage, that option is out for them.

In countries (eg, France) where the use of titles as titles is prohibited, usage usually combined name and title to create what is technically a name. But in the UK that is not the case. BTW as the wife of a royal prince Camilla will have a diplomatic passport. Charles's passport calls him The Prince of Wales. Hers will probably call her The Duchess of Cornwall or maybe even The Princess of Wales. But the name Camilla will not appear on it, as the form Camilla, Princess of Wales denotes an ex-Princess of Wales separated from the Prince either by his death or their divorce, while Princess Camilla of Wales would indicate the daughter of a Prince of Wales. The only option is to use Camilla Mountbatten-Windsor as name on the passport and rank as HRH The POW/DoC. But most likely going by precedent she will simply be The Duchess of Cornwall on her passport, with no other information. (In contrast, as an ordinary peer I understand the Earl of Rosse's passport calls him simply Brendan Parsons, but it mentions that he is the Earl of Rosse elsewhere.)FearÉIREANN^(talk) 22:40, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

• Given the confusion, surley saying HRH The Duchess of Cornwall or HRH The Countess of Wessex is the best option? Astrotrain 22:49, May 11, 2005 (UTC)

But by that reasoning, the Duchess of Norfolk's legal name at the moment would be "the Duchess of Norfolk", which (as I've pointed out) it isn't. (And as I've said, passports don't use legal names. A peer's passport has "The Rt Hon. The Earl of Somewhere, KG, PC" under "surname" and "John Henry William" under "forenames". Camilla's passport would most likely say "Her Royal Highness The Princess of Wales" and "Camilla Rosemary" (and "Princess of the Royal House" where mine would say "British Citizen" [if I had a British passport, which I don't]). This is all from Correct Form, by the way, it's not just me making it up. (-: )

And in reply to Astrotrain above: If Camilla's legal name were "HRH Camilla Rosemary, Princess of Wales" (it wouldn't be "Duchess of Cornwall" as it would use what she actually is rather that what she uses), then what is Princess Michael of Kent's? "HRH Marie-Christine"? "HRH Marie-Christine, Princess Michael of Kent" (which would suggest her husband is "HRH Michael George Charles Franklin, Prince Michael of Kent", which looks absurd)? Much more likely that she's legally "HRH Princess Michael of Kent". As to why this is the case, I'd imagine that it's because HRH is not treated in the same was as "The Rt Hon.", "The Most Noble", etc., as it's so closely attached to the title of "Prince" or "Princess" that it would be odd to use one without the other. And, as to Jtdirl's point about "Prince Charles" (and therefore "Princess Charles") being impossible, I've seen legal documents naming Charles as "HRH The Prince Charles, Prince of Wales".

As to what legal documents are, they're the sort of things that solicitors would draw up. Deeds of all kinds, wills, things like that.

And if I've come across as rude, I apologise. I've got exams coming up and I'm a little stressed at the moment. Proteus (Talk) 23:08, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

I think I mostly agree with Proteus here. I will ask the question of what about the Duke of Edinburgh, who was made an HRH in 1947, but not a prince of the UK until 1957 (and was not considered any longer to be Prince of Greece and Denmark, either). This would suggest that his legal name between 1947 and 1957 was "His Royal Highness Philip, Duke of Edinburgh." john k 13:20, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

I looked at the Regency Act 1953, a copy of the said Act is at [1]. The act lists him as His Royal Highness the Duke of Edinburgh. Suggesting thus that this is his legal name. Astrotrain 20:22, May 12, 2005 (UTC)

I think that is because he was not a Prince of the United Kingdom at the time. So, his legal name became His Royal Highness The Duke of Edinburgh, and nothing else. Matjlav 12:52, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

Philip's definitely an exception. For a time (a very short time, granted), he was actually "Lieutenant His Royal Highness Sir Philip Mountbatten, KG, RN". But his very peculiar status makes it rather risky to extrapolate to other members of the Royal Family.

There's also this, which makes matters rather more complicated:

Whitehall, November 9, 1948.

The KING has been pleased by Letters Patent under the Great Seal of the Realm bearing date the 22nd ultimo to define and fix the style and title by which the children of the marriage solemnized between Her Royal Highness The Princess Elizabeth, Duchess of Edinburgh and His Royal Highness Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh, shall be designated. It is declared by the Letters Patent that the children of the aforesaid marriage shall have and at all times hold and enjoy the style title or attribute of Royal Highness and the titular dignity of Prince or Princess prefixed to their respective Christian names in addition to any other appellations and titles of honour which may belong to them hereafter.

Proteus (Talk) 21:06, 12 May 2005 (UTC)