what surprises me is how Camilla has played her cards right and kept her mouth shut for thirty years despite being maligned on all sides, thus earning the right to be a spouse due to good behavior marks. I wonder if the payoff—marriage—will be worth it for her.

Aha! That explains the Princess Michael thing. I always thought that giving a girl that name seemed a little too forward thinking / free spirited for the royals.

You’re right about the crown prince bit. But European aristocratic custom gives a title to someone followed by their own name when they hold that title of their own right, not to a woman who marries the holder of the title. Otherwise, she is called “Princess” followed by her husband’s name - in this case, Princess Charles - or by her own title, in this case Lady Diana, because she was an earl’s daughter. There is currently a Princess Michael of Kent, whose husband is the real Prince Michael of Kent. I don’t know what her real name is.

(It used to be an English tradition that a woman came to be known as, say, Mrs John Smith. This has died out for perhaps obvious reasons, but it remains in identifying aristocrats in countries where they still exist.)

I think the reason there was a controversy over the title is because she’s the mother of an heir to the throne, so it seemed only right that she should have some title. Also, she was extremely popular and was seen as someone who was victimised by the supposedly cold and heartless royals. She was seen as the “people’s princess”, even though actually she was from a petty aristocratic family.

Question… so why did they call her the Princess of Wales then? I thought the wife of the crown prince became the princess? And wasn’t there some hullabaloo about the title when they divorced? And can you tell I retain way too much from “People” magazine?

(a US magazine that has always featured an inordinate amount of coverage on the royals, esp. Diana)