Talk:Duchess of Cornwall

Title

"The Duchess of Cornwall" is not a courtesy title. A peeress in right of her husband is as much a substantive peeress as a peeress suo jure. Donald Renouf, 02.52 11th Feb. '05 (GMT)

When has any woman who acquired a title by being married to the male holder of the title been allowed, on that basis alone, to cast a vote in The House of Lords? If the answer is "never", then what on Earth does the word "substantive" mean? A woman who inherited a title from her father could VOTE (in the House Of Lords), right? But I agree it's not a courtesy-title, which is when a son whose father has more than one title uses one of the lesser titles even though he isn't REALLY the holder of that peerage title. It's a well-known fact to Wikipedia readers that a Writ Of Acceleration might be issued to allow that son to vote, as ACTUAL holder of a junior title instead of mere USER of it. So then, it must follow, then, must it not, that WITHOUT a Writ Of Acceleration the son of "Duke of X, Marquess of Y" has NOT ever been (not without that Writ) allowed to vote (in Lords) as Marquess of Y.2600:1700:6759:B000:1C64:8308:33BC:E2D6 (talk) 10:00, 13 January 2024 (UTC)Christopher Lawrence Simpson

Untitled

To quote from Courtesy title:

A peer's wife takes her courtesy title based on her husband's rank, unless she herself has a higher title. Thus a baron's wife is called "baroness", an earl's wife is called a "countess", a duke's wife a "duchess", etc. Despite being referred to as a "peeress", she does not, however, become a peer "in her own right": these are 'styles', not substantive titles.

James F. (talk) 12:14, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The problem is that there are two conflicting usages of "courtesy title". The title of a peeress is not "substantive" in the way her husband's is (since she only has a title by virtue of being married to him and not in her own right), but neither is it the same as what is usually meant by "courtesy title" - i.e. a title that exists only by custom, and has no real legal basis. The holder of a courtesy peerage, for instance, is "Henry Miles Fitzalan-Howard, Esquire, commonly called Earl of Arundel and Surrey", whereas a peeress is "The Most Noble Georgina Susan, Duchess of Norfolk". Clearly using one term for both these titles is silly. And "courtesy title" implies that such a title only exists by courtesy, which isn't the case for a peeress, whose title is legally hers (and cannot be removed, cf Cowley (Earl) vs Cowley (Countess)). Thus the two-way distinction commonly used between "substantive" and "courtesy" titles is at the very least misleading, and probably completely inaccurate. It would be much simpler and more accurate to say "The title Duchess of Cornwall is held by the wife of the Duke of Cornwall." Proteus (Talk) 12:47, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

from VfD

On 10 Feb 2005, this article was nominated for deletion. See Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Duchess of Cornwall for a record of the discussion.

Queen Camilla

I know that the statement read something like once Charles becomes King that "it is intended" Camilla will be known as the Princess Consort. But didn't a recent statement from the Government say that they would recgnozie Camilla as Queen?

As I understand it, the statement said that there was no legal impediment to her being queen. In other words, she will be queen unless legislation is enacted to prevent it, but whether she uses this title is a different matter. See her article, Camilla, Duchess of Cornwall for more. Thryduulf 17:28, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Heiress Presumptive usage?

Would an heiress presumptive also be given the title, Duchess of Cornwall? Did QE2 have it before she became queen? She would not have been created Princess of Wales, just in case the king fathered a son before he died.

No, no, and indeed.

James F. (talk) 21:17, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The Queen was known as HRH The Princess Elizabeth, Duchess of Edinburgh but her Duchess title was by marriage only Duke of Cornwall and Rothesay are semi-hereditary titles and are automatically given to the eldest son of the sovereign (if there is one), whereas Prince of Wales is created and is not automatic. Both can only be held by the eldest son, NOT daughter (thats Princess Royal).

That's wrong. For instance, Queen Elizabeth was never Princess Royal. She could not be created Princess Royal except by taking the title away from someone who was still alive and held that title. A title is never taken away from a person who has done nothing wrong. Mary (daughter of King George V), was created Princess Royal by her father in 1932. She was still alive until 1965. Since she had never behaved in a manner illegal enough to forfeit the title, it was never possible to take it away from her. And even when the title has been vacant, a Monarch who has a daughter is not OBLIGATED to re-create the title for their oldest daughter. The title became vacant in 1965 upon Mary's death, but was not re-created for Elizabeth II's oldest daughter until 1987. An earlier example is: Before becoming Queen Mary II (of William and Mary), future Mary II had been eligible for the title as daughter of James II&VII, but did not receive it from her father. George I had a daughter, Sophia Dorothea, to whom he could have given the title during a time when it was vacant, but he never did.

The part about not forfeiting a title except by wrongdoing is the reason the future Elizabeth II was never given the Wales or Cornwall titles. It was always possible that Elizabeth's mother could become pregnant (it's never officially reported (not only because of manners but because it can never be said with the ABSOLUTE certainty beyond mere "phenomenally unlikely" that a woman is beyond child-bearing years). If not, Elizabeth's mother could die and widower father could then marry a woman who could become pregnant and give birth to a male. Elizabeth would have had to forfeit the Wales and Cornwall titles so that they could be moved to that new younger brother (or half-brother) of hers. Since the fact of someone else having a baby would not have been egregious wrongdoing on ELIZABETH'S part (and in fact not wrongdoing at all), then that would be a circumstance wherein someone was forced to relinquish a title not by their own misconduct, or a Court having found a defect in their possession of the title, but only because someone else was born. The solution to that problem (i.e. the way to fix things so that no such daughter, though innocent of all fault, ever has to give back a title), is to never give the title to a female Heiress Presumptive in the first place. If you never confer the title, you never have to take it back to give it to a future male Heir Apparent.2600:1700:6759:B000:1C64:8308:33BC:E2D6 (talk) 10:00, 13 January 2024 (UTC)Christopher Lawrence Simpson

Dukedom category

I've removed this article from Category:Dukedoms because I find that usage inaccurate. There never has and probably never can be a Duchess of Cornwall in her own right, thus only the male-gender form (Duke of Cornwall) belongs in the category. That's how I see it, at any rate, although someone please correct me if I'm putting a foot wrong here. --Mackensen (talk) 15:18, 14 January 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 next Duchess of Cornwall

"The next Duchess of Cornwall will be Kate Middleton."

It seems to me this unqualified assertion is unencyclopedic. It assumes that Ms Middleton and the Prince marry. However much one might wish this to happen, should Wikipedia assert that it will happen? Wanderer57 (talk) 16:43, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Well, it's likely to happen, what with them being engaged, but not certain. It also assumes that the Prince of Wales, Prince William, and Ms. Middleton will all outlive the current queen - that is also likely, but, again, not certain. (If Charles predeceases his mother, William will not become Duke of Cornwall, a title which can only be held by a son of the monarch; if William predeceases the Queen, then Middleton will never become Duchess, as her husband won't be alive to be duke; obviously, if she predeceases the present queen she will never become duchess). I agree that this should not be in the article. john k (talk) 04:02, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Rampant Speculation

In most Wikipedia articles this paragraph ---"At present, it is speculated that upon Charles' accession to the throne (if he survives the present sovereign and is then still married to The Duchess of Cornwall), that she will be styled HRH The Princess Consort, rather than the more usual HM The Queen. Alternatively, she may become Queen Consort if and when Prince Charles becomes King, but it is unknown what will transpire in the future, and whether she will openly take up the Queen title in any realm. She will of course legally be Queen whether she uses the title or not." --- would be deleted as being rampant speculation.

I am tempted to delete the paragraph on that ground. Can any editor offer an argument for keeping it? Feedback please. Wanderer57 (talk) 23:05, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Delete. john k (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Put Camilla on top

I realized Diana was much loved, but Camilla is the current Duchess of Cornwall and far more known for the title than Diana ever was. Camilla's pic really ought to be on the top. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 23.119.205.88 (talk) 06:14, 20 February 2014 (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) 04:37, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Diana, Princess of Wales 1997 (2).jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 14:54, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

This article needs to state what happens when the Heir Apparent is female and has a male spouse

So, the first sentence of this article says that in the event some future female Heir Apparent to the throne marries another female, the spouse will be known as "Duchess Of Cornwall". I rather doubt that. I haven't looked it up but I'm going to GUESS that the Succession to the Throne was changed because Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Jamaica, etc. wanted it, and this is THEIR Monarch too, but that the titles "Prince Of Wales", "Princess Of Wales", "Duke Of Cornwall", "Duchess Of Cornwall", and the rest are regarded as exclusively British matters about which the U.K. is free to ignore the other Realms' preference for female equality. So the rules governing the Cornwall and Wales titles were probably left alone. And what would the rules be in the event of a female Heir Apparent? It never happened, but the people who devise these rules always knew it COULD happen: A is King, Prince B is King A's male Heir Apparent with no sons, and Princess C is Prince B's female Heiress Presumptive. Then Prince B dies. Princess C instantly becomes King A's female Heir Apparent, because she can miss out on the Throne only by dying before King A dies. She can't miss out on the Throne because someone else is born, and that's what "Apparent" means (as technical jargon). The only person who could reduce her priority in line would be a son of her father Prince B, and once her father Prince B has died it's known that he will never have any sons. This being a foreseeable occurrence despite that it never came to pass, I'm sure that everyone was going to let it happen that Princess C would simply never hold the Cornwall or Wales titles, which would then be left vacant just as they were when George VI was King, and the world kept on turning just fine even without a Duke of Cornwall or a Prince of Wales.

Another thing that the architects of these rules would have in mind is that the inheritance would never change based on someone dying before someone else. So the Succession above, from King A to Prince B to Princess C, would be the same as if Prince B had outlived King A. To make it dependent on Prince B outliving King A would be to court disaster in the event that King A and Prince B died in, say, the same explosion. A fact-finding body would have to find out which of them died first. With the rules as they are, it wouldn't matter, although it would matter for purposes of assigning a Roman Numeral to Prince B. If he died a trillionth of a second earlier in that explosion, he was never King and gets no Roman Numeral. If he died a trillionth of a second later, then he was King for that instant and gets the Roman Numeral. We don't want the courts to have to decide who died first in a calamity (just ask any U.S.A. wills-and-estates lawyer), so rules of succession constructed so that it wouldn't matter who died first are very wise.2600:1700:6759:B000:1C64:8308:33BC:E2D6 (talk) 10:00, 13 January 2024 (UTC)Christopher Lawrence Simpson