Reply
Honored Contributor
Posts: 11,015
Registered: ‎03-09-2010

@gertrudecloset wrote:

@beckyb1012 wrote:

@gertrudecloset wrote:

@faeriemoon wrote:

@gertrudecloset wrote:

@faeriemoon wrote:

@gertrudecloset wrote:

@beckyb1012 wrote:

@LaurenCats4 wrote:

@goldensrbest wrote:

She is just lovely, like her very much, do have a question though. the title of princess of wales, i feel that it was Di's, title, is there a reason they could not saved that for her,and not used it again?


 

That's a really good question, @goldensrbest .

I read that there were in fact 8 "Princess of Wales' " prior to Diana being given the title, so maybe it's just a passage of that title on to another generation.(??)  Possibly (in Catherine's case) because it was William's wife (and Diana's DIL). It's certainly interesting, for sure!


Princess of Wales (Welsh: Tywysoges Cymru) is a courtesy title used since the 14th century by the wife of the heir apparent to the English and later British throne. The current title-holder is Catherine, wife of William, Prince of Wales.

 

It only belonged to the wife of the current title holder Prince of Wales.  Camilla was the Princess of Wales but out of respect for all she did not use.


Camilla Parker Bowles NEVER had the Title of Princess of Wales.  The Queen fashioned her Queen Consort.  They are not the same.  Diana Spencer was the othwer Princess of Wales @beckyb1012 


As wife of The Prince of Wales, Camilla was indeed the Princess of Wales.  Out of respect for Diana, and not wanting to cause controversy as her "replacement", she/they opted to use one of her other titles, Duchess of Cornwall.  She only became Queen Consort when QE died and Charles became king.

 

Adding:  My apologies for repeating what has been posted already.  I didn't see there was an additional page.


It was not out of "respect for Diana."  If you read any of the two opposing views you would see the reason the Firm did not give her that title.  She was never called that, she was never considered Princess of Wales.  Never.  Did you read the articles @faeriemoon ?  


@gertrudecloset Why the attitude?  I did NOT read your articles, but I was present (meaning "in the moment") for the whole controversy when it occurred.  I'm really not interested in articles you dug up in order to be argumentative.  I have been following the royals forever and I know exactly what occurred and why.


No attitude @faeriemoon unless you want me to have one.  I am only going by what I've read.  Why didn't you provide me a source that say's otherwise?  I can only know what I know by reading the information provided from the sources.  Which I provided here with links for all to read.  Yet, if I was wrong about any of it, why didn't you bother to correct me with a source, that "I" could read for clarification?

 

Don't accuse me of anything that's not there.  I asked if you head read the cut and paste articles I referred to within.  If you  had read them, you would know why I insisted on my continued belief that she was not known as the Princess of Wales.


Here is the link of them all from the beginning with pictures including Camilla's.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Princess_of_Wales


I don't do Wiki.  I need better sources.  This is part of the problem of getting accurate accountings of things.  I can update a wiki article and so can you.  So, how accurate can it be? @beckyb1012 


Just go talk to a jr. high history teacher and you will be enlightened with the knowledge.

"Live frugally, but love extravagantly."
Respected Contributor
Posts: 2,206
Registered: ‎09-18-2010

Re: Princess of Wales

[ Edited ]

Comprehension is a useful tool but it can be challenging for some. 

Respected Contributor
Posts: 4,421
Registered: ‎03-11-2010

@gertrudecloset Wow, so only YOUR sources are the accurate ones?  

Esteemed Contributor
Posts: 5,057
Registered: ‎05-24-2010

@KKJ wrote:

@gertrudecloset Wow, so only YOUR sources are the accurate ones?  


It is called confirmation bias. @KKJ  Take only what supports your belief and disregard the rest.

Honored Contributor
Posts: 37,847
Registered: ‎06-11-2011

@manny2 wrote:

@KKJ wrote:

@gertrudecloset Wow, so only YOUR sources are the accurate ones?  


It is called confirmation bias. @KKJ  Take only what supports your belief and disregard the rest.


@manny2  Also known as cherry picking.

Respected Contributor
Posts: 3,523
Registered: ‎05-31-2022

As long as there as been a royal family, there have been rumors. There will always be rumors since it is what keeps the press in business. The more sensational the rumor, the more money they make. The rumors are quicker to spread with social media. Now it's William's turn to be trashed....guess the media is bored with Meghan and Harry. I don't believe any rumors about William and I hope he is far smarter than his father regarding fidelity.

Respected Contributor
Posts: 4,104
Registered: ‎10-19-2012
The gossip in the royal family happens in cycles. When Camilla married Charles she was the source of gossip. When William and Kate were married it was there turn for the gossip. Meghan and Harry were then next when they got married.
Esteemed Contributor
Posts: 5,057
Registered: ‎05-24-2010

@Trailrun23 wrote:

As long as there as been a royal family, there have been rumors. There will always be rumors since it is what keeps the press in business. The more sensational the rumor, the more money they make. The rumors are quicker to spread with social media. Now it's William's turn to be trashed....guess the media is bored with Meghan and Harry. I don't believe any rumors about William and I hope he is far smarter than his father regarding fidelity.


I think William and Kate are held in such high regard they want to knock them off the pedestal. The problem is they never presented themselves as perfect. They just don’t “air their dirty laundry” in public.  

 

Harry and Meghan are a different story. They chose to do the interview, so they also assumed the consequence. @Trailrun23