Talk:Duchess of Cornwall

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


"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)


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[edit]

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[edit]

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?[edit]

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).

Dukedom category[edit]

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)Reply[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Cam2.jpg[edit]

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)Reply[reply]

The next Duchess of Cornwall[edit]

"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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

Rampant Speculation[edit]

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)Reply[reply]

Delete. john k (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Put Camilla on top[edit]

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 (talk) 06:14, 20 February 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 04:37, 17 December 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

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