Talk:Princess of Wales/Archive 1

Archive 1

Adding Camilla to the list...

I was wondering if Camilla, The Duchess of Cornwall should be added to the list of Princesses of Wales at the beginning of the article. Technically, she is in fact The Princess of Wales by right of her marriage to Charles, Prince of Wales. It seems that leaving her off of the list, merely because she doesn't use the title, is a little POV. Just to add, Camilla is listed in the "Princess of Wales infobox" Wanted to bring it up here and get a consensus before adding it to the article. Any ideas? Prsgoddess187 13:42, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Camilla was on the list, as the number of POVs listed shows (ie, 10). However one anonymous user has been mounting a one-man campaign to delete it. the most recent deletion on March 23 I've reinserted her yet again and made some textual adaptions. If that plonker deletes the name again, revert. They have in the past been blocked for rampant POVing of articles (usually involving attacks on Camilla) despite appeals to stop. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 15:37, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Sounds like a sound plan. Since she is the Princess of Wales, she should be on the list. Prsgoddess187 18:09, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Eleanor de Montfort - Princess of Wales

The amendments to the Princesses of Wales site regarding the Welsh Princesses are, I feel, rather misleading. Gwenllian of Wales (born June 1282) did not have the title Princess of Wales. I agree that she should not be included in the list. But, as the wife of the Prince of Wales, her mother Eleanor de Montfort most definately should be.

Following the wedding ceremony at Worcester on St Edwards Day 1278, Eleanor de Montfort became officially known as Princess of Wales and Lady of Snowdon. (see Calendar of Patent Rolls, 1272-81, 306; CPR, 1281-92, 11; Calendar of Ancient Correspondance, 75-76; Foedera I, ii, 576, 584, 587). Eleanor signed herself as such; her cousin King Edward acknowledged her as such, and that is the title by which she is remembered. BrynLlywelyn 17:15, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Cam2.jpg

Image:Cam2.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 04:27, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

The facts?

I've made some changes to the wording regarding Camilla which I think are fair. It is wrong, I think, to say that she "chooses" not to use the title Princess of Wales. My understanding is that Buckingham Palace made the decision for her. If there is any evidence that it was her decision, by all means let it be cited. Secondly, it is misleading to say that she is the first Princess of Wales not to use the title. We count Anne Neville as a Princess of Wales, but there is no evidence that she ever used the title (as is correctly stated in the article). Deb (talk) 21:49, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Who is the exception?

It was also suggested to King George VI to invest Queen Elizabeth II (when still a princess) as Princess of Wales in her own right when it became evident the King was not going to have a son. The King, however, rejected this suggestion making the point that it was a title held, in all but one case, by the wife of the Prince of Wales and as such would degrade her right as a Princess of the United Kingdom

Who is the Princess of Wales who didn't hold the title by virtue of her marriage to her husband? As far as I was aware they all got it from their husbads.

Queen Mary I was the Princess of Wales who did not hold her title by virtue of marriage i suspect. I did hear speculation that she was the Princess of Wales when it became apparent that she would not superceeded by a son.

Mary I was not created Princess of Wales. Neither was Elizabeth I. They may have been sent to Ludlow Castle (the traditional seat of the Prince of Wales), and may have been treated as Princess of Wales, but they were never actually created or invested with the title. Prsgoddess187 23:36, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Mary I was called the Princess of Wales, and given many of the royal prerogatives of a Prince of Wales, but I don't know if she was ever formally created Princess of Wales.

I suspect that there won't be a Princess of Wales in her own right unless the rules governing the succession are changed to allow absolute primogeniture.

...or if it happens that a Prince of Wales fathers only female children and dies before the king - in that case, the eldest daughter of the monarch's eldest son would be the heir apparent as she couldn't be superceded by the birth of any male. Surtsicna (talk) 20:04, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Roles and responsibilities?

Does anyone else find this section a little off... Seems to be a tirade against something, and not really a list/paragraph about the roles/responsibilities. Prsgoddess187 11:21, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Current Photo of Diana

I haven't seen any discussion here, (Perhaps it was cleaned up?) as to why there is a picture of Diana rather than the current Princess of Wales on this page? I see that apparently there was a picture of the current Princess of Wales (Yes, I know she uses one of her subsidiary titles) but she *IS* the *LEGAL* Princess of Wales...? Dphilp75 (talk) 22:55, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Current Photo of Diana

I haven't seen any discussion here, (Perhaps it was cleaned up?) as to why there is a picture of Diana rather than the current Princess of Wales on this page? I see that apparently there was a picture of the current Princess of Wales (Yes, I know she uses one of her subsidiary titles) but she *IS* the *LEGAL* Princess of Wales...? Dphilp75 (talk) 22:57, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Changing the Format

Who is in favor of changing this to a wikitable list like Princess of Asturias and Princess of Orange? There will be less info but we can put these as footnotes. --Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 01:03, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Other Titles of the Princesses of Wales

I'm a history channel addict but I must admit that I had never heard of Princesses whose full official titles included their husband's christian names: "...the wife of The Prince of Wales assumes the styles and titles – Her Royal Highness The Princess (husband’s Christian name) of the United Kingdom...". At first I thought this was a typo but then saw the form used on the discussion page by people who seemed to know of which they spoke. I'd be interested to hear any more background on this practice.

Also...there are some parts of the Discussion, particularly at the top of the page, that are tough to read...was an earlier portion of discussion removed? It seems very choppy and to be making reference to previous exchanges that don't seem to be there.PurpleChez (talk) 02:49, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

You've not heard of Princess Michael of Kent? -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 23:42, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Irrelevant discussion about succession to the throne

Under the form of male-preference primogeniture in use in the United Kingdom, while a daughter, sister, or other female relative of a monarch may be heir presumptive, none have ever been heir apparent, since it has always (theoretically) been possible for the monarch to beget or bear a male heir who would displace any female heir, even an older sister. In theory, a woman could become heir apparent if she was the brotherless eldest child of a deceased heir apparent; this situation has, however, never arisen in the history of the United Kingdom.

There are cases where the monarch or his or her spouse is too elderly, or suffers from some other disability which practically prevents the birth of a legitimate heir; in such cases, a woman may be de facto heir apparent, as was the case during the reign of William IV, when his evident heir was his niece Princess Victoria. However, the law admits of no impediment to the potential production of future heirs other than death, and Victoria was legally only heiress presumptive until she succeeded to the throne.

While all that seems to be true, I do not see the relevance of any of it to this article, which is about the Princess of Wales. Nobody has ever suggested Princesses of Wales have any sort of entitlement to the throne, so why is the question of succession to the throne being canvassed here at all? -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 23:48, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

'Princesses of Wales' -D. Fisher

This is an extremely badly written book; the author displays nothing but ignorance of the subject. Definitely not a WP:RS. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.178.245.164 (talk) 10:30, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Incumbent

You cannot have an incumbent to a peerage (either by her own right or through her husband) who is dead. Ergo, Diana is not the current Princess of Wales. By virtue of her marriage to the Prince of Wales in April 2005, Camilla is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.33.83.233 (talk) 15:55, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Husband naming problem

When a title was sought for the future Elizabeth II, the possibility of investing her as Princess of Wales in her own right was raised. This suggestion was rejected, because Princess of Wales is a courtesy title held by the wife of the Prince of Wales. If it were used by Princess Elizabeth, it would have degraded her right as a Princess of the United Kingdom unless Letters Patent or Legislation were introduced to the contrary. Furthermore, if the then Princess Elizabeth had been given the title of Princess of Wales, there would have been the problem of what to call her future husband. Therefore, King George VI decided not to give his elder daughter the title.

Husbands of princesses, queens, and peeresses and dames in their own right, do not acquire any title by virtue of their marriage. Husbands of princesses and queens are often given a separate title, completely unrelated to the title held by their wife (e.g. Duke of Edinburgh, Earl of Snowdon), but this is far from a universal practice (e.g. Mark Phillips, Timothy Laurence). So, what is this "problem" of what to call Elizabeth's husband? Citation, please. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 23:48, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

What it means is that the husband could not have been called "Prince of Wales" as would appear logical to many lay persons. There is a kind of analogy in the situation of Catherine of Aragon after the death of her first husband. The future Henry VIII - who was then Duke of York - was hastily made Prince of Wales, partly in order that their titles would tally when they married (since she still held the title of Princess of Wales) - only in the end they didn't marry until after he came to the throne. I think there is a reference to the reasons for George VI's decision in contemporary records but I'd have to check. Deb (talk) 14:10, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

It's true that her husband could not have been called "Prince of Wales", but more important, I would think, would be the possibility that King George VI could have had a son who would himself have been heir apparent and the candidate to become "Prince of Wales" instead. Even assuming then-Queen Elizabeth (the future Queen Mother) was past childbearing years, there remained the possibility that she might have died, and the king might have remarried, and had a son from the later marriage who would have been heir ahead of then-Princess Elizabeth. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 17:22, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Diana Spencer (Loss of title in 1996 is incorrect)

When Diana Spencer divorced the Prince of Wales in 1996 she did not lose her title, Princess of Wales. She merely lost the prefix HRH; thus assuming the title Diana, Princess of Wales. Had Diana subsequently remarried then she would no longer have been entitled to use even this title. The situation is similar with Sarah, Duchess of York. Sarah Ferguson remained (and remains so to this day) the Duchess of York upon her divorce from the Duke of York; again she lost only the HRH prefix. However, were Sarah Ferguson to remarry she would lose her title. Accordingly, I have removed references to Diana losing her Princess of Wales title in 1996, as this is constitutionally incorrect.

The above is wrong. Diana DID lose her HRH AND her title of "Princess of Wales" upon her divorce, her new style was based on precedents of divorced peeresses. Upon her divorce, Diana was no longer The Princess Of Wales, and became instead Diana, Princess of Wales - it is important to note here that "Princess of Wales" acted as her surname, NOT as any Royal title - this is why she would have ceased becoming Diana, Princess of Wales upon remarriage, since her surname would have changed. The Princess of Wales is, by definition, the wife of the Prince of Wales. Diana lost the title Princess of Wales because she ceased to be married to the Prince of Wales - moreover, had Diana still been alive & the prince remarried, his NEW wife would have been The Princess of Wales. The same here is true of Sarah, Duchess of York - she is not The Duchess of York, that title goes only to the wife of the Duke of York - Sarah would NOT be addressed as "Your Grace" as she is not a duchess, just as Diana was not a princess after divorce - all titles she acquired from her husband and she gave them up on divorce. Accordingly, have reversed changed made by above user.

I agree with the above. While Diana was styled "Diana, Princess of Wales" after her divorce, she was no longer THE Princess of Wales as she was not married to the Prince of Wales. As such, the article should list her tenure as the Princess of Wales ending on 28 August 1996, not on 31 August 1997. Akwdb (talk) 17:11, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Queen Anne as heir apparent.

The article says that there´s never been a Princess of Wales in her own right because there´s never been a female heir apparent to the throne, but Queen Anne was between Mary II´s death until her own accesion to the throne, so why wasn´t she invested like so?

P.D: I´m sorry if I make any mistake, I´m not from an English speaking country. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.43.112.104 (talk) 16:50, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Answer: When a sibling takes the throne their next in-line sibling is not named the Prince of Wales just because the ruling sibling doesn't have any children. George VI was not suddenly Prince of Wales when his brother, who at the time was unmarried and without issue, became King at their father's death, even though at the time he was heir apparent and did indeed ascend the throne when his brother abdicated (and even then Elizabeth II wasn't called Princess of Wales). William IV didn't become Prince of Wales when his older brother had ascended the throne and the brother in between them was dead, even though they were all in their 60s at this point and unlikely to have any more legitimate children making William next in line, it was suspected that Victoria would eventually inherit by this point, but she also was not styled Princess of Wales because her father (the fourth son) had not been the Prince of Wales or King, instead she inherited the throne from her uncle. A niece or nephew of the King has never been Prince of Wales if their own father did not rule. But as the son of the Queen, Victoria's son, Edward VII, was Prince of Wales. Mary II was only in her 30s at the time of her death (even if it seemed very unlikely she would have any more children, she was not yet passed the possible age of child baring). A younger son only becomes Prince of Wales if his older brother (the previous Prince of Wales) dies before the father (i.e. dies before becoming King). A brother of the King has never been given the title of Prince of Wales, only the son of the current ruling King or Queen has been given this title, whether or not an older brother had it before them. Some examples of brothers who both held the title were Arthur Tudor and his younger brother Henry VIII, Henry Stewart and his younger brother Charles I, and more examples). Plus since William III and II (Mary II's husband) was a grandchild of Charles I like his wife Mary and her sister Anne, and since Mary and William had been offered the crown jointly, it was not out of the realm of possibility that William might remarry and that any issue from that marriage would likely rule before/instead of/after Anne. Anne and Mary's younger half-brother had been Prince of Wales, but when their father was disposed no one took that title again until George II (who held it before he was king). This was because George II's father was King George I, however George I never held this title because he was his (distant) cousin Anne's heir, but not Anne's son, if Anne's son, William, had not died before Anne was crowned, he might have indeed become Prince of Wales, for his mother was Queen. In the same way James I (who inherited the English throne from his grandfather's first cousin, Elizabeth I) was never Prince of Wales even though it was plain that Elizabeth would never have any children by the end of her reign and he was her heir, but James I's sons (his eldest son predeceased him) held the title because their father was King and they were next in line. Edward IV was also not Prince of Wales but held the throne at two different times during the War of the Roses and his son and heir Edward V was Prince of Wales. It is never a title passed from a ruler to their sibling (or sister-in-law/cousin), only from a ruler to their son or grandson (ex. Richard II became Prince of Wales when his father, who was Prince of Wales at the time of his death, predeceased Richard II's grandfather King Edward III). In fact the title does not even have to be passed between people, as previously stated some rulers who have not been Prince of Wales before ruling have had sons who were Prince of Wales. It is not even a title that is always passed down, the Prince of Wales is not an unbroken line, while the King/Queen is-more or less. There have been far more Kings/Queens of the UK/England than there have been Princes of Wales, not every Prince of Wales has inherited the throne (Anne and Mary's brother did not, and Henry VI's sons, who were both Prince of Wales during parts of their father's rule never ruled as their father was depose-they also both predeceased their father, but Edward of Westminster ceased to be Prince of Wales before his own death, because his father was deposed again). Not every British monarch has been Prince of Wales first, even when they were the undisputed heir apparent. Therefore Anne would not have been Princess of Wales.

Thank you for answering. But I must point out that although Anne wasn´t William III´S daughter, according to the Bill of Rights she would become Queen of England after his death, whether if he had children or not. So her status wasn´t exactly the same as Sophia´s or James I´s, for example. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.10.152.209 (talk) 11:09, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

But it was the same as say James's situation, because Elizabeth was not married and past child baring years, and as I stated before it is a title reserved for the son or grandson (if next in line because his father, the previous Prince of Wales has predeceased his father/the King is dead) of the current King or Queen, even if there is no doubt that the crown will be passed to a niece, brother, distant cousin, etc. the title is still not used (see for example William IV). The title is not a term used synonymously for the person next in line to the throne. All Princes of Wales are next in line to the throne, but all individuals first in line to the throne are not Princes of Wales, even when they are male.

Camilla IS the current princess od Wales

And again ... some hater changed that article not accepting the fact, that Camilla IS the Princess of Wales since the Day she married the prince of wales - she just dont use the title ... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.34.73.88 (talk) 15:49, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Princess Charlotte of Wales

Princess Charlotte, daughter of George IV and granddaughter of George III, is called Princess Charlotte of Wales. Why isn't she on the list? She was the only legitimate grandchild of George III at the time of her death. I know that at the time of her death, her father was still Prince of Wales as her Grandfather did not predecease her, but then why is she given that title? And if she had not died as a result of giving birth, would she have been princess of Wales and made the list when her father ascended the throne? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.59.115.4 (talk) 16:57, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

This is a very late answer, but I just wanted to clarify that Princess Charlotte isn't on the list because she herself was not The Princess of Wales, nor would she likely have been granted the title, instead becoming The Princess Charlotte. The "Wales" designation in her title came from her father, as it is common practice for children of British Royal Dukes (and the Prince of Wales), etc. to carry their father's territorial designation as their pseudo-surname. The current Queen was born "Princess Elizabeth of York," as her father was then Duke of York, becoming simply The Princess Elizabeth once her father became King. Similarly, Beatrice and Eugenie are "Princess Beatrice of York" and Princess Eugenie of York," as their father Andrew is the current Duke of York. Prince William, now Duke of Cambridge, was previously styled as "Prince William of Wales" and Harry is still officially styled as "Prince Henry of Wales" (as he has yet to marry and be granted titles of his own), as they are both sons of The Prince of Wales. In fact, just as with then-Princess Elizabeth, if the current Prince of Wales ascends to the throne before Harry is granted his own titles, his title will cease to be Prince Henry of Wales and become simply The Prince Harry, though unlike Elizabeth, he would presumably subsequently be granted his own Royal Dukedom at the time of his marriage. In contrast, upon her own marriage, Elizabeth actually became The Princess Elizabeth, Duchess of Edinburgh, as her title as royal princess was superior to the Dukedom of Edinburgh, but as the wife of the Duke of Edinburgh she could indeed claim it as a secondary title. Until Princess Elizabeth became Queen and Prince William became Duke of Cambridge, none of these royals held titles beyond Prince or Princess *in their own right*, so simply used the territorial designations of their parents as part of their titles. Metheglyn (talk) 15:03, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, that makes sense. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.52.211.166 (talk) 23:27, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Infobox with Camilla

I do not feel it is appropriate to head this article with an infobox highlighting a person who does not use the title. Seems to me her being listed as no more than a nominal holder of the title should suffice and be less confusing. She is not in any way or form even an acting princess of Wales. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 16:57, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

She is not in any way or form even an acting princess of Wales What is this suppose to mean, The Duchess as I can tell is doing very well in her role(For the past ten years have you heard any issues unlike some...? and she is princess of wales whether she uses it or not. If you going to remove it, give a better explanation, instead of an insult, it makes your reason easier (Monkelese (talk) 23:21, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

A person who acts in a certain capacity, office, position, uses the title of that capacity, office, position, and, in using that title, is known to act as such. That's all I meant and it's consistent with normal English. An acting President of the United States or King of Norway can be said to temporarily take on the title to act in that capacity. Camilla's "role" (quoting you) is not as Princess of Wales. It's as simple as that. That means nothing against all the good work she does as a British princess and as Duchess of Cornwall. I have no idea what you are getting so huffy about, nor why you are accusing me of insulting anyone. Your accusation is insulting. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 22:14, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

I agree, Camilla should not be even mentioned in the article. She is the Duchss of Cornwall and Duchess of Rothesay, not the Princess of Wales. That her current husband is the Prince of Wales is neither here nor there. Mjroots (talk) 20:35, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Correction, she is Princess of Wales according to law, that fact being duly acknowledged where the law requires, but eschews use of the title for all other purposes; not in any way does she or, more importantly, the Crown claim, acknowledge or expect that it be attributed to her, nor does she appear, function, speak or do anything else to indicate that she is to be construed as holder of the title "Princess of Wales". So why would Wikipedia put her in that box -- literally? 01:40, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Thank you (you forgot to sign), you've understood exactly what I mean. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 14:36, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

RE:Changing the Format

A while back (25 February 2010) User:Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy suggested changing the format of list in this article (see above- Talk:Princess of Wales#Changing the Format). In a belated response to her suggestion and order to consolidate two lists covering virtually the same information, I have "been bold" and reformatted the listing of Princesses of Wales.Drdpw (talk) 06:43, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Camilla

I see Camilla's status has been discussed ad nauseam on this Talk page, but there isn't (or is no longer) anything about it in the article. There needs to be a clear and referenced statement saying that she is de jure Princess of Wales, but chooses not to use the title. Surely someone can come up with a reliable source for that? Eric Pode lives (talk) 09:45, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

I've added notation in list, the citation for which is above in the article's info box where Camilla is listed as the incumbent title holder. Thanks for your input. Drdpw (talk) 22:16, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Sorting in category 'Princesses_of_Wales'

See discussion at Talk:Isabella de Braose on how the members of Category:Princesses_of_Wales should be sorted. Alekksandr (talk) 15:40, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Comment

It is stated in this article that Diana, Princess of Wales was the first non-Princess to hold the title Princess of Wales.. forgive me if i'm wrong but what about Joan of Kent or Anne Neville. They too were not Princesses (or were they? i'm not sure). huw

adding maintenance comment to get this section to archive (no datestamp, no archiving) CapnZapp (talk) 10:01, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Queen Elizabeth II - First Princess of Wales in Her Own Right?

"When a title was sought for the future Queen Elizabeth II, the possibility of investing her as Princess of Wales in her own right was raised. This suggestion was rejected, because Princess of Wales is a courtesy title held by the wife of the Prince of Wales. If it were used by Princess Elizabeth, it would have degraded her right as a Princess of the United Kingdom unless Letters Patent or Legislation were introduced to the contrary."

I question the validity of the above statement. If, as she was then, Princess Elizabeth was created Princess of Wales in her own right, it may have been interpreted that she had taken on the rank of a spouse of a Prince, but this would not have degraded her title, as the spouse of a Prince is of higher rank than a Princess in her own right. For example, although HRH The Countess of Wessex is not a Princess in her own right, but through marriage, she is ranked higher than HRH The Princess Royal as the Countess takes on her husbands rank which is higher than that of the Princess Royal.

adding maintenance comment to get this section to archive (no datestamp, no archiving) CapnZapp (talk) 10:02, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

courtesy title to wife of prince

In my opinion, this characterisation of the title is outdated.

Not only does this presume male-preference primogeniture, which no longer applies, but the article itself discusses the possibility of Princess Elizabeth getting the title, obviously without her being "wife of prince".

I suggest we change the lead to use the past tense when talking about the article subject as a courtesy title for wives. CapnZapp (talk) 13:57, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Elizabeth did not get the title precisely because it is the courtesy title to wife of prince. We have no indication that this will change. Will the Duchy of Cornwall still be enjoyed by the firstborn son even if he is not the heir? Will it belong to his older sister? Or to nobody at all? We have no sources. The wording is still accurate. Surtsicna (talk) 15:10, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Why Elizabeth didn't get the title is a discussion for another time. Here and now I would like to draw your attention the following two snippets from the Prince of Wales page:

No woman has yet held the title Princess of Wales in her own right. (in the context of altering the primogeniture to absolute cognatic)

The title of Princess of Wales has always been held by the Prince's wife in her capacity as spouse of the heir apparent and therefore future queen consort.

The impression I as a reader am getting is that this isn't set in stone and could change in the future. Note the use of "yet" in the first quote. Note the use of "has [] been" in the second, instead of "is". My point is that we could confer this impression here too. We don't have to have a source, because we don't have to speculate (indeed we should not). The question is not "is the current wording accurate?" (it unquestionably is) - the question is whether we could use a bit of nuance in our wording. CapnZapp (talk) 15:58, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

CapnZapp, the answer to your question will probably come after we are all dead. The next Prince of Wales is likely William, and the next Prince of Wales after him is likely George. If George's first-born child is a son, this answer will get delayed even further. OCNative (talk) 07:56, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Princess of Wales vs Duchess of York

In that case we should all have referred to Diana as The Princess Charles, Princess of Wales because she would still have been The Princess Charles as well as Duchess of Cornwall and Duchess of Rothesay, Countess of Chester, Countess of Carrick, Baroness Renfrew, Princess of Scotland and Lady of the Isle. She was not the Princess of Wales at the time of her death. Buckingham Palace clearly explained that she would retain the STYLE of Princess of Wales and would not be THE Princess of Wales for that is the title of the wife of the Prince of Wales (which is now Camilla). Her actual style was arguably Lady Diana, Princess of Wales because she was the daughter of an Earl. She was still recognized as a member of the Royal family but was NOT the Princess of Wales or held the style of 'Royal Highness' or 'Grace'. She would not have been Queen on Charles's accession because she was divorced! Wallis Simpson was denied the title 'Royal Highness' but was NEVER Wallis, Duchess of Windsor. She was always and only Her Grace The Princess Edward, the Duchess of Windsor or simply Her Grace The Duchess of Windsor. Sarah, Duchess of York however is simply Sarah, Duchess of York

Diana, Princess of Wales was still The Princess of Wales at the time of her death. Please look the British offcial webpage [[1]] where is very clear that Diana was still a Princess. She did not loose her title beacuse she was the Mother of the future King. And in this Case was not applied "for ex-wives of peers" beacuse Charles is a ROYAL PRINCE. The title Princess of Wales is take at the time of the Anglican Marriage not Civil Marriage so when Diana, died she was still the wife (in Anglican Terms) of The Prince of Wales. So When Diana Spencer divorced the Prince of Wales in 1996 she did not lose her title, Princess of Wales. She merely lost the prefix HRH; thus assuming the title Diana, Princess of Wales. Was the same case when The Duchess of Windsor was prevented of the using of the Royal Highness Style. She was officially syled Wallis, Duchess of Windsor and with that name she was buired. offcourse she never divorced from the Prince Edward. At the time of her dead Diana, Princess of Wales was still The Princess of Wales and she was also a Member of the British Royal Family, she continued living at Kensington Palace and had her office there. Is the same case of Sarah, Duchess of York. She is still The Duchess of York. In history there are three women who where prevented of the using of royal highness style and they continued to have there titles as the divorce statlement.

The Princess of Wales, Diana,Princess of Wales The Duchess of York, Sarah, Duchess of York The Duchess of Windsor, Wallis, Duchess of Windsor.

through this article and although it was of much interest to me, I realized it did not have a corresponding Duchesses of York article. As so many Princesses of Wales had initially been Duchesses of York or even that many senior royals had been Duchesses of York, I thought it only appropriate to make that corresponding Duchess of York article. You might like to look at it. --User:huwwilson650 23:55, 23 August 2006 (GMT)

If "a female heir to the throne is not known by the title of Princess of Wales", does she have any Wales-related title before becoming queen regnant?

No, she doesnt. The title for the eldest dau of a monarch (heiress or not) is Princess Royal BUT if thats already taken by another individual (eg eldest dau of the previous monarch) then they dont have any title as such apart from that they were born with, unless a new title were to be created for them or they married into one. Wales patronage is reserved for the eldest son alone, as are the dukedoms of Cornwall and Rothesay. For example, the queens regnant were - Mary I (known as The Lady Mary before becoming queen) Elizabeth I ( " The Lady Elizabeth " ) Mary II (" Princess of Orange " through marriage) Anne ( " Princess George of Denmark) Victoria (" Princess Victoria of Kent ") Elizabeth II ( " Princess Elizbaeth, Duchess of Edinburgh through marriage to Duke of Edinburgh)

So in fact none of the queens regnant were known as Princess Royal!

Was Mary I not created prince of Wales in 1525 and keep that title until 1532?

Bare in mind that under the British laws of succession, a female can only ever be "Heir Presumptive", and never "Heir Apparent" - theoretically, at any time, their right of inheritance may be superceded by the birth of a male.

The title "Princess Royal" is given *sometimes* to the eldest daughter of the monarch - there is no connection between the title and the holder's position in the Line of Succession, and there is no guarantee that the title *will* be given to the eldest daughter - it isn't automatic (eg the current holder, The Pricess Anne, only received it in 1987, at the age of 37).

Mary was "The Princess Mary" (ie princess in her own right) until 1533, when the marriage between Henry VIII and Catherine of Aragon was annulled - at this time, she was declared illegitimate, and became known as "The Lady Mary". The same is the case with Elizabeth (Henry's marriage with Ann Bolyne was annulled the day before her execution). --Thievinggypsy 14:06, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

This is true but her father Henry VIII also created her The Princess of Wales and this is the first and last time this has been allowed to happen! Henry the VIII did make Mary Princess of Wales in 1525 when it became obvious that Katherine of Aragon and himself would be childless. She was sent to Ludlow and was there with her own court until 1527. I have numerous sources, including David Starkeys books and documentarys.

Err... can you cite a source for that?--Jayboy2005 13:15, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

It is not impossible for an heiress apparent to occurr in the British succession, it just has never happened. If a monarch has a male heir and such heir produces a lone daughter, and then said male heir dies, then such grand daughter would be an heiress apparent. Theoretically, the Sovereign could create her "princess of Wales." I don't see hw there would be a proscription on the monarchs prerogative to do that, since in that case, it would create no danger that the title would be separated from the Crown. Up until now, however, that has never happened, and all women who have succeeded to the throne have come to the throne under whatever titles circumstances have provided, just like the many men who were heirs presumptive when they came to the throne. davedoug99

Jtdirl - can you clarify why you object to my statement that Diana kept the style "Princess of Wales" after her divorce? If you are correct about her forfeiting the title, the Wikipedia entry on "Diana Princess of Wales" also needs to be corrected. MJT

Because, as Buckingham Palace, Downing Street and the Lord Chancellor made clear at the time she did not. The article is also correct. As it says

From her marriage in 1981 to her divorce in 1996 she was styled Her Royal Highness The Princess of Wales, and after her divorce in 1996, Diana, Princess of Wales.

Diana ceased to be Princess of Wales the moment she ceased to be married to the Princess of Wales, as it was not hers by right but purely by marriage. She then reverted to the normal style for ex-wives of peers, namely <name>, <former title>.

That form never ever means that one is still the holder of the title. It means that one once held it prior to a divorce. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 19:28, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Made change in relation to Jayboy2005's point (I edited it before I saw his point, but he is correct, in such a case, the woman would be the heiress presumptive. --zev_steinhardt

Changed wording in opening paragraph from "Bestowed" to "held by", as "bestowed" implies it's personally given to an individual like a dukedom when it's given automatically.

The correct form of address for the divorced wives of peers is (Christian name),(former title). Therefore when her divorce became absolute Diana's style (not title) became Diana, Princess of Wales. She held only the style of Princess, but was NOT Princess after her divorce. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.105.166.23 (talk) 12:39, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Neither was she before her divorce if you could say that about a person who holds a title by courtesy. What's the difference? Gerard von Hebel (talk) 20:29, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Should not the order of the titles and styles match those of the Prince of Wales? The Princess of Wales pages lists "Her Royal Highness the Princess (husband’s Christian name) of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, Princess of Wales, Duchess of Cornwall, Duchess of Rothesay, Countess of Chester, Countess of Carrick, Baroness of Renfrew, Lady of the Isles and Princess of Scotland" While the Prince of Wales page lists: "His Royal Highness Prince Charles Philip Arthur George, Prince of Wales, KG, KT, GCB, OM, AK, QSO, PC, ADC, Earl of Chester, Duke of Cornwall, Duke of Rothesay, Earl of Carrick, Baron of Renfrew, Lord of the Isles and Prince and Great Steward of Scotland" 195.171.165.82 (talk) 12:26, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Cecily Neville?!?!?!

The bizarre decision to include Cecily Neville in this list seems to have been made with this edit by User:Keivan.f without any discussion. (Please correct me if this is not true.) Okay, I can accept that her husband was granted the title of "Prince of Wales" by Parliament, under duress, and for a very short time, but there was another Prince of Wales living who had already been given the title by the King - surely the only person with the authority to do so. I would dispute whether either the Duke of York or his wife are entitled to remain in the lists of Princes and Princesses of Wales. Deb (talk) 11:31, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

@Deb: I'm not the person who made that decision. Her husband was already listed as a Prince of Wales on the other list, thus, based on that, his wife should have been also the Princess of Wales as she was legally married to him. Whether they were truly the Prince and Princess of Wales is another issue that needs to be discussed. As you already know he was granted the title by the Parliament while the other person was given the title by the King. Do we have a source that says Cecily's husband was not technically the Prince of Wales because the title was not given to him by the King? Keivan.f^Talk 16:21, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

@Keivan.f:He doesn't seem to be listed as a Prince of Wales now, nor is he listed as a Prince of Wales in any of the books on the subject (most of which I've read). Admittedly (and surprisingly), none of these are cited as sources in the article.Deb (talk) 16:48, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

@Deb: If he's not listed, then feel free to remove the name of Cecily as well. Keivan.f^Talk 19:55, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. I'll try and find a way around the problem. Deb (talk) 20:00, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• Duchess of Cornwall in 2014 (cropped).jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 04:38, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Other titles

The Prince of Wales is not necessarily Duke of Cornwall (see the Duke of Cornwall article). Mdrb55 (talk) 21:02, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

Delineation of Titles

There is imprecision in description of the subsidiary titles of The Princess of Wales.

Prince of Wales and Earl of Chester are the two titles that go hand-in-hand, and which may be created for the Heir Apparent to the Sovereign. The present Heir Apparent was so created on 26 July 1958.

Duke of Cornwall, Duke of Rothesay, etc. are titles automatic to the man who is both Heir Apparent and eldest son to the Sovereign. The present holder became thus on 6 February 1952 when he fulfilled both these criteria.

Thus it is possible for a Prince of Wales not to be Duke of Cornwall, the most recent example occurring between 1751 and 1760.

It is also possible for a Duke of Cornwall not to be Prince of Wales, the most recent example occurring between 1952 and 1958.

The present Princess of Wales and Duchess of Cornwall holds all titles by virtue of her marriage, but it need not necessarily be so; rather, it is dependent on her husband's own titles at any given time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.73.246.208 (talk) 11:37, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

Sept 9 2022 Catherine confusion

It would be nice now to find in this article something about Prince William's wife Catherine; why she isn't called Princess of Wales yet, when she will be, what is needed first etc. - rather than total silence. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 12:56, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

She is now with William being made Prince of Wales by the King at 1800 BST today --Greatestrowerever^{Talk Page} 17:19, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Camilla is never the Princess of Wales and should be removed from this article

Princess of Wales is a British courtesy title held by the wife of the Prince of Wales. Camilla is the second wife of Charles, Prince of Wales from their marriage on 9 April 2005. However, she never holds, uses or proclaims the title "Princess of Wales". Thus, Camilla is never the Princess of Wales and should be removed from this article. If have different opinions, please show the official source to confirm Camilla is the Princess of Wales, especially from Buckingham Palace or Clarence House, which is most convincing. Otherwise, please remove Camilla from this article to correct this big mistake. 123.150.182.180 05:00, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

Please see this link here further down under the heading of Royal Marriage, where the British Parliamentary Secretary (Department for Constitutional Affairs) was asked in the House of Commons of the United Kingdom whether the spouse of the Prince of Wales will be the Princess of Wales upon the marriage, and he makes this official statement: "Following her marriage, Camilla Parker Bowles will be HRH the Duchess of Cornwall and the Duchess of Rothesay in Scotland. As was made clear at the time of the announcement of the marriage, she will be Princess of Wales but will not use the title." This is official confirmation by the British government that she is Princess of Wales even though she does not use the title.-- 2607:FEA8:87E0:A8E:1D0D:34A7:1BA9:E597 (talk) 18:14, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

I agree Camilla should most definitely be included in this article for the reasons listed above.

Just because she didn’t use the title doesn’t mean she didn’t have it. Charles was from April 2021 until Sept 2022 Duke of Edinburgh- he never used the title but he most definitely had it and is listed as such on here. Kalamikid (talk) 21:10, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

Inaugural holder

This information is not cited and contradicts other articles on wikipedia. Celia Homeford (talk) 12:59, 5 October 2022 (UTC)