Questions about British Styles and Titles 1: Ending 2022

[Mbruno]

I think it's very likely that Camilla will be styled Queen because Charles clearly adores her & will want his wife to have the proper title rather than a lesser one. He knows that names/titles have strong emotional attachments so BP will probably refer to her as Queen Camilla as much as possible rather than The Queen, at least until people become accustomed to her status.

Queen Camilla would be the style of a dowager queen. If they don't feel comfortable calling her The Queen, then I suggest they call her The Princess Consort (as Charles said he intended to do when he got married).

 

[VictoriaB]

Queen Camilla would be the style of a dowager queen. If they don't feel comfortable calling her The Queen, then I suggest they call her The Princess Consort (as Charles said he intended to do when he got married).

I don’t have a problem with this - provided, and only if, the title of Princess Consort is then used for Kate and all wives of the King going forward. There is absolutely no justification for treating Camilla any differently than Kate. If both are married to a King then both should be known as Queen.

 

[Iluvbertie]

I THINK, with some of the discussion I've seen here, that was a question posed to BP by someone here (Iluvbertie?) if the Wessex children are technically HRHs just not using their title since no LP was issued. The answer was that the Queen's wish was enough to take it away, and the statement at the time of the Wessex wedding was enough to consider as the Queen's wish. So LP isn't necessary.

Yes that was me.

What's awkward here is that while Archie isn't an HRH in this reign, he automatically becomes an HRH when Charles ascends to the throne under the 1917 LP. And then Charles has to take it away after he's had it. So why not preempt it like they did with the Wessex children if they can. I don't know if the Queen has the power to take away an HRH under the next reign without changing the LP. I would think so given that she can simply issue an LP and limit it for the next reign as well.

If The Queen issued that statement in this reign it would carry over. Her Will is the same as LPs and so is forever, unless changed by one of the three means possible - LPs, Royal Warrant, or monarch's Will.

I was surprised BP didn't announce a clear decision on this right now. I just figured they would want one less issue at the beginning of Charles III's reign. While I understand that Archie's status and Camilla's are separate, that's not how it'll be viewed. Taking away his grandson's title while going back on his word regarding Camilla's, albeit well-deserved, title? It has the potential to rile up those that do not support Camilla.

I don't think Charles will issue any such statement. I do think though that it goes against the 'smaller royal family' rumours as he will have more HRH grandchildren, in all likelihood than his mother has.

While that's normally the case. A statement was released, at the time of their wedding, that she'd be styled as Princess Consort. Now, there has been signs they might have changed their minds on that. While I think Camilla certainly deserves the title, and I do believe Charles would want his wife to have the title as well, it need to be addressed when the time comes.

Mr Blair made it clear, in Question Time, that for Camilla not to be The Queen would take legislation - nothing to do with Charles but the parliament would have to strip her of the title - along with the parliaments of the other realms.

That means that at his Accession Council Charles will have to ask parliament to pass the legislation to strip his wife of the title HM The Queen ... and what will happen if say Canada refuses to do so????

 

[O-H Anglophile]

Yes that was me.

If The Queen issued that statement in this reign it would carry over. Her Will is the same as LPs and so is forever, unless changed by one of the three means possible - LPs, Royal Warrant, or monarch's Will.

I don't think Charles will issue any such statement. I do think though that it goes against the 'smaller royal family' rumours as he will have more HRH grandchildren, in all likelihood than his mother has.

Mr Blair made it clear, in Question Time, that for Camilla not to be The Queen would take legislation - nothing to do with Charles but the parliament would have to strip her of the title - along with the parliaments of the other realms.

That means that at his Accession Council Charles will have to ask parliament to pass the legislation to strip his wife of the title HM The Queen ... and what will happen if say Canada refuses to do so????

So really nothing about titles is really "forever" if the next monarch wishes to change something.

Camilla is the Princess of Wales but uses the title the Duchess of Cornwall. Could she actually be Queen but use another title?

 

[Osipi]

So really nothing about titles is really "forever" if the next monarch wishes to change something.

Camilla is the Princess of Wales but uses the title the Duchess of Cornwall. Could she actually be Queen but use another title?

As Charles' wife, she takes and uses titles and styles from him. As Charles is The Prince of Wales and The Duke of Cornwall, she had a choice.

All of Charles' present titles revert to the Crown upon the Queen's death. Only title she can then take from him is "Queen". As King, Charles will also be the Duke of Lancaster (as the Queen is the Duke now actually) and is solely to be used by the monarch.

My opinion is that if Camilla is to be "Princess Consort", Charles would have to create Camilla a princess of the UK in her own right.

 

[jacqui24]

I don't think Charles will issue any such statement. I do think though that it goes against the 'smaller royal family' rumours as he will have more HRH grandchildren, in all likelihood than his mother has.

I know it’s been long rumored. But someone posted the announcement on the day of the Wessex wedding, and Charles was mentioned in the agreement to give The Duke of Edinburgh title to Edward. However, he was not mentioned on the matter about Edward’s future children’s titles. That was entirely between HM and the Wessexes. Or at least that’s how the announcement read. So I do wonder if Charles simply went along with it or actively sought it.

But having HRHs doesn’t conflict with his desire for a more slimmed down monarchy. They simply wouldn’t be working royals like the York princesses aren’t.

And this is an out of box idea. But what if Charles doesn’t make an announcement regarding Archie and just focuses on other business like announcing his wife, after many years, will indeed be Queen rather than Princess Consort? Can the Sussexes express a wish for their son to be known by a lesser title or remain without title? I don’t think they would do it without Charles’ support, but it kind of gets him out of a jam PR wise.

 

[Nice Nofret]

You may have a title but just not use it; the same is true for any style you have.


So the parents of Archie desire that he is known as Master Archie atm - without any further ado. That doesn't have any bearing on what his rightfull titles and styles are or will be in the futur.


Why is it so difficult for some persons here to just except that?



Your given name may be Augusta-Clementine but you / your parents choose to call you Tina .... as simple as that!


Harry is legally a Henry .. .so what?

 

[Denville]

You may have a title but just not use it; the same is true for any style you have.


So the parents of Archie desire that he is known as Master Archie atm - without any further ado. That doesn't have any bearing on what his rightfull titles and styles are or will be in the futur.


Why is it so difficult for some persons here to just except that?



Your given name may be Augusta-Clementine but you / your parents choose to call you Tina .... as simple as that!


Harry is legally a Henry .. .so what?

but they are making a decision for him, now as a baby.... that he may not want when he is older. Its different ot the situation of Edward and his children sicne it was announced that Edward would be an Earl, and that his children would not be HRH but would have the normal titles of the children ofn an earl. At the time Ed was not meant to be a wrokign royal and he was the youngest of 4 children. Harry is the younger of 2 children.. and he is NOT apparnelty letting his son be known by the normal title of the eldest son of a DUke...

 

[Tatiana Maria]

But someone posted the announcement on the day of the Wessex wedding, and Charles was mentioned in the agreement to give The Duke of Edinburgh title to Edward. However, he was not mentioned on the matter about Edward’s future children’s titles. That was entirely between HM and the Wessexes. Or at least that’s how the announcement read. So I do wonder if Charles simply went along with it or actively sought it.

The Prince of Wales had to be mentioned in the agreement to give the Edinburgh title to Prince Edward because he would need to take action, as king, to execute the agreement. No action would be needed from him in the matter of the Wessex children.

But having HRHs doesn’t conflict with his desire for a more slimmed down monarchy. They simply wouldn’t be working royals like the York princesses aren’t.

True, but if there is any substance to the reports that the decision to deny HRH status to the Wessex children was made jointly with him, or the reports that he wanted to strip the York children of their HRHs at the time, there will be a conflict with his desire for other children by younger sons not to have HRHs (unless he has evolved on the issue since the 1990s and is now open to elevating Louise and James in his reign as well).

but they are making a decision for him, now as a baby.... that he may not want when he is older.

It was stressed to reporters that the decision is "at this time", and the courtesy styles will presumably continue to be an option once the child is old enough to express an opinion.

Mr Blair made it clear, in Question Time, that for Camilla not to be The Queen would take legislation - nothing to do with Charles but the parliament would have to strip her of the title - along with the parliaments of the other realms. That means that at his Accession Council Charles will have to ask parliament to pass the legislation to strip his wife of the title HM The Queen ... and what will happen if say Canada refuses to do so????

As far as I know, there have been no serious suggestions of stripping Camilla of the right to use the title of Queen via legislation. It is fairly clear that the Prince of Wales does intend that his wife will use it, but if he announced that she would be known as Princess Consort as stated in 2005, I cannot imagine any realm's Parliament passing legislation to force her to use Queen.

 

[Iluvbertie]

They won't need to pass legislation to force her to use Queen. They would need to pass it to strip her of that right.

As she won't be a Princess but a Queen the instant The Queen dies legislation would be required to demote her. It can't be done any other way - according to the advice Mr Blair gave to parliament in 2005.

Using Duchess of Cornwall was easy - as Charles is The Duke of Cornwall but once he is King the only title she can use from him is Queen.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

They won't need to pass legislation to force her to use Queen.

In the scenario where King Charles did not want his wife to use Queen, what measures could Parliament take without passing legislation to force her to use it?

Is there any history of Parliament overriding the King's wishes in title matters, and/or forcing a person to use a title without their consent?

As she won't be a Princess but a Queen the instant The Queen dies legislation would be required to demote her. It can't be done any other way - according to the advice Mr Blair gave to parliament in 2005.

Was he addressing her legal status, or how she would be known?

 

[jacqui24]

but they are making a decision for him, now as a baby.... that he may not want when he is older. Its different ot the situation of Edward and his children sicne it was announced that Edward would be an Earl, and that his children would not be HRH but would have the normal titles of the children ofn an earl. At the time Ed was not meant to be a wrokign royal and he was the youngest of 4 children. Harry is the younger of 2 children.. and he is NOT apparnelty letting his son be known by the normal title of the eldest son of a DUke...

Correct me if I’m wrong, but nothing was take away from Archie. His parents said he won’t be known by his courtesy title, but if he decides he doesn’t want it, he can use Earl of Dumbarton. It’s still an option for him. Is his parents making a decision for him or letting him to decide for himself when he grows up? I’m not seeing how that’s worse than the case for the Wessex children. In their case, they actually don’t have the choice to go by HRH Prince/ Princess if they want to.

True, but if there is any substance to the reports that the decision to deny HRH status to the Wessex children was made jointly with him, or the reports that he wanted to strip the York children of their HRHs at the time, there will be a conflict with his desire for other children by younger sons not to have HRHs (unless he has evolved on the issue since the 1990s and is now open to elevating Louise and James in his reign as well.

Like you said, all of this is nothing more than rumors regarding Charles. Do I believe he wants slimmed down monarchy? Yes. Do I think he wanted to strip his brothers’ children of their HRH title? I don’t know. And perhaps he has changed his mind on this after his mind was eased over the last 20 years on if the monarch has to support someone if they are HRH, and the answer is no. If I remember correctly, the Queen supported her cousins one way or another. Even Prince Michael of Kent, who is not a working royal, was only paying peppercorn rent. Things have come a long way since then.

 

[Osipi]

Was he addressing her legal status, or how she would be known?

When Charles becomes King, his titles will be Charles the Third (unless he opts for another regnal name), by the Grace of God, of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and of His other Realms and Territories King, Head of the Commonwealth, Defender of the Faith'.

As his spouse, Camilla can only be "known" and styled from any title that her husband has such as The Duchess of Cornwall or the The Duchess of Rothesay (in Scotland) or The Princess of Wales. If Charles only title she can take from is King, there is nothing else to be "known" as. Many of the Commonwealth realms where Elizabeth II is Queen have their own separate ways of looking at their Head of State.

Interestingly enough, Elizabeth II is the first monarch to be styled sovereign of Australia. In 1953 the Australian Parliament passed two bills. The first was the Royal Style and Titles Act 1953. This added the word "Australia" to the Queen's titles. So here we can see where legislation would have to be passed in Commonwealth realms just how to handle Camilla's title if it is anything but "Queen".

A good conundrum to look at in regards to sorting out titles and styles when it comes to a King and the Parliament is to look back to 1936 and the back and forth flurry of discussions when it came to The Duchess of Windsor and not having the HRH honorific. David retained his HRH as a son of a monarch but it was not bestowed on Wallis. I believe there's quite a discussion on this in the thread pertaining to the Duke and Duchess of Windsor.

Correct me if I’m wrong, but nothing was take away from Archie. His parents said he won’t be known by his courtesy title, but if he decides he doesn’t want it, he can use Earl of Dumbarton. It’s still an option for him. Is his parents making a decision for him or letting him to decide for himself when he grows up? I’m not seeing how that’s worse than the case for the Wessex children. In their case, they actually don’t have the choice to go by HRH Prince/ Princess if they want to.

The way I see it right now is that it is similar to the way some married women prefer to be styled. Some women use Mrs. Some women use Ms. It doesn't mean that at some time they can't change their mind and use the other form of address.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

When Charles becomes King, his titles will be Charles the Third (unless he opts for another regnal name), by the Grace of God, of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and of His other Realms and Territories King, Head of the Commonwealth, Defender of the Faith'.

As his spouse, Camilla can only be "known" and styled from any title that her husband has such as The Duchess of Cornwall or the The Duchess of Rothesay (in Scotland) or The Princess of Wales. If Charles only title she can take from is King, there is nothing else to be "known" as. Many of the Commonwealth realms where Elizabeth II is Queen have their own separate ways of looking at their Head of State.

Interestingly enough, Elizabeth II is the first monarch to be styled sovereign of Australia. In 1953 the Australian Parliament passed two bills. The first was the Royal Style and Titles Act 1953. This added the word "Australia" to the Queen's titles. So here we can see where legislation would have to be passed in Commonwealth realms just how to handle Camilla's title if it is anything but "Queen".

A good conundrum to look at in regards to sorting out titles and styles when it comes to a King and the Parliament is to look back to 1936 and the back and forth flurry of discussions when it came to The Duchess of Windsor and not having the HRH honorific. David retained his HRH as a son of a monarch but it was not bestowed on Wallis. I believe there's quite a discussion on this in the thread pertaining to the Duke and Duchess of Windsor.

Thank you for the examples. The difference as I see it is that in neither situation did Parliament override the will of the reigning sovereign, and with the Duchess of Windsor, the letters patent were issued by the sovereign rather than Parliament.

In the hypothetical scenario under discussion, where a King Charles made it known that his will was that his wife would be known as Princess Consort (her legal status as Queen notwithstanding), it seems very unlikely to me that the British Parliament would battle him over the matter.

 

[Osipi]

In the hypothetical scenario under discussion, where a King Charles made it known that his will was that his wife would be known as Princess Consort (her legal status as Queen notwithstanding), it seems very unlikely to me that the British Parliament would battle him over the matter.

The conundrum would be that there is no place where Camilla can get the "princess' to be "known as". She also is The Princess Charles but that reverts to the Crown when Charles becomes King. That's why I believe that if it is the King's will and pleasure that Camilla will be known as "Princess Consort", the solution would be to create her a Princess of the UK in her own right. This is what the Queen, herself did. On 22 February 1957, she granted her husband the style and title of a Prince of the United Kingdom by Letters Patent, and it was gazetted that he was to be known as "His Royal Highness The Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh". From 1947 to 1957, his title was His Royal Highness The Duke of Edinburgh. No Prince.

In this regards, Charles would be actually honoring his wife and elevating her status. No female spouse ever has had that honor. Perhaps it will become a tradition then and when William ascends the throne, he'll elevate Kate to the rank of being a Princess of the UK in her own right and so forth with George. To not make it a universal thing once done, its my opinion that it would significantly single out Camilla as an attempt to "punish" her because she's not fit in the public eye to be "Queen".

I do believe that when the time does come, Charles will be King and Camilla will be his Queen.

 

[muriel]

The conundrum would be that there is no place where Camilla can get the "princess' to be "known as". She also is The Princess Charles but that reverts to the Crown when Charles becomes King. That's why I believe that if it is the King's will and pleasure that Camilla will be known as "Princess Consort", the solution would be to create her a Princess of the UK in her own right.

I am not sure that is necessary. Whilst Camilla will legally be Queen once Charles is King, I think she could be styled at HRH Princess Consort. It does not change her legal status and she does not need to become a Princess to be styled as such. This can be clarified as the will of the King shortly after Charles becomes King.

 

[Osipi]

I'm going to be a bit fanciful here but imagine all the pearls rolling around should King Charles' will and pleasure be known that Camilla, while legally Queen, will be known as "Empress of All My World and My Life in the Hereafter".

I would think that there would be some guidelines and reason used in a monarch's will and pleasure when it comes to being the font of honor of the British monarchy. ?

 

[jacqui24]

The conundrum would be that there is no place where Camilla can get the "princess' to be "known as". She also is The Princess Charles but that reverts to the Crown when Charles becomes King. That's why I believe that if it is the King's will and pleasure that Camilla will be known as "Princess Consort", the solution would be to create her a Princess of the UK in her own right. This is what the Queen, herself did. On 22 February 1957, she granted her husband the style and title of a Prince of the United Kingdom by Letters Patent, and it was gazetted that he was to be known as "His Royal Highness The Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh". From 1947 to 1957, his title was His Royal Highness The Duke of Edinburgh. No Prince.

In this regards, Charles would be actually honoring his wife and elevating her status. No female spouse ever has had that honor. Perhaps it will become a tradition then and when William ascends the throne, he'll elevate Kate to the rank of being a Princess of the UK in her own right and so forth with George. To not make it a universal thing once done, its my opinion that it would significantly single out Camilla as an attempt to "punish" her because she's not fit in the public eye to be "Queen".

I do believe that when the time does come, Charles will be King and Camilla will be his Queen.

I agree with this. I do think it's sexist to have Queen Consorts, but only Prince Consort when the reigning monarch is a woman. The underlining connotation is that king and queen aren't equal. Then you add the fact if Camilla isn't Queen Consort, just make it so every one will be a Prince or Princess Consort from now on and call it a day. The distinction between them and younger siblings' spouses would just be they are prince/princess in their own right.

 

[muriel]

I'm going to be a bit fanciful here but imagine all the pearls rolling around should King Charles' will and pleasure be known that Camilla, while legally Queen, will be known as "Empress of All My World and My Life in the Hereafter".

She had held that title for a long time, but publicly got it on 9 APril 2005!

I would think that there would be some guidelines and reason used in a monarch's will and pleasure when it comes to being the font of honor of the British monarchy. ?

It is the will and pleasure of the monarch as you say, and lots of judgement. No need for any formal guidelines beyond that, IMO!

 

[Osipi]

She had held that title for a long time, but publicly got it on 9 APril 2005!

Come to think of it, you're absolutely right about that.

 

[Lilyflo]

I'll be amazed (& very disappointed) if Camilla isn't styled Queen. She'll be the King's wife so she will be Queen. On what grounds should she be styled less than that?

As I've said before, I think BP could be sensitive to the title of 'The Queen' being so entrenched in almost everyone's mind as QE2 the monarch by using 'Queen Camilla' a lot to start with. I know that's not the norm but flexibility in her title due to public associations with someone else isn't something new. People would gradually become accustomed to 'Queen Camilla' and 'The King and Queen' to the point where 'The Queen' isn't going to result in too much pearl clutching in the shires.

 

[jacqui24]

I'll be amazed (& very disappointed) if Camilla isn't styled Queen. She'll be the King's wife so she will be Queen. On what grounds should she be styled less than that?

As I've said before, I think BP could be sensitive to the title of 'The Queen' being so entrenched in almost everyone's mind as QE2 the monarch by using 'Queen Camilla' a lot to start with. I know that's not the norm but flexibility in her title due to public associations with someone else isn't something new. People would gradually become accustomed to 'Queen Camilla' and 'The King and Queen' to the point where 'The Queen' isn't going to result in too much pearl clutching in the shires.

Agreed. There will be initial reactions, but they'll get over it. And I do think it's helpful to monarchy overall for his mother to be more known as QEII than The Queen over time. She's obviously The Queen today, but in order for monarchy to survive, we need to remember that the title outweighs the individual rather than one individual being equivalent to that title.

 

[Osipi]

Even simpler would be to use the style "Queen Consort" as that denotes she's the consort to the King and not "The Queen" like QE2 is as monarch. It would probably be like marking the differences between Queen Elizabeth II and Queen Elizabeth, the Queen Mother. People got used to calling the latter The Queen Mum as an affectionate term and still do. Calling Camilla "The Queen" would stick in people's throats for a long time simply because the majority of the people on our planet have only known one Queen as the monarch of the UK.

I think it would take years for me to hear the words "The Queen" and *not* think of Queen Elizabeth II. Perhaps "Queen Camilla" could be used later on should she outlive her husband? "Queen Camilla" reminds me too much of the courtesy styling of a divorced wife of a title holder where the woman's first name can be used similar to Diana, Princess of Wales and Sarah, Duchess of York. I can just imagine the slants being put on that one.

Hmmmmm... Her Majesty, The Queen Consort puts me in mind of a previous Prince Consort that had a close and loving relationship with his wife and monarch, Queen Victoria.

 

[Excalibur]

Even simpler would be to use the style "Queen Consort" as that denotes she's the consort to the King and not "The Queen" like QE2 is as monarch. It would probably be like marking the differences between Queen Elizabeth II and Queen Elizabeth, the Queen Mother. People got used to calling the latter The Queen Mum as an affectionate term and still do. Calling Camilla "The Queen" would stick in people's throats for a long time simply because the majority of the people on our planet have only known one Queen as the monarch of the UK.

I think it would take years for me to hear the words "The Queen" and *not* think of Queen Elizabeth II. Perhaps "Queen Camilla" could be used later on should she outlive her husband? "Queen Camilla" reminds me too much of the courtesy styling of a divorced wife of a title holder where the woman's first name can be used similar to Diana, Princess of Wales and Sarah, Duchess of York. I can just imagine the slants being put on that one.

Hmmmmm... Her Majesty, The Queen Consort puts me in mind of a previous Prince Consort that had a close and loving relationship with his wife and monarch, Queen Victoria.

But she would be "The Queen". I think to style her any other way would serve to diminish her rightfully attained role. And at what point do you make the transition back to The Queen? IMO, just jump right in, calling her The Queen from the beginning. The sooner she is called this, the sooner the people will get used to hearing it. Before long, it will be instant recognition as it is today.

 

[Princess Larisa]

Court Circular 29th May:
Buckingham Palace

The Queen gave an Afternoon Party in the garden of Buckingham Palace.
The Duke of Sussex, Princess Beatrice of York, Princess Eugenie, Mrs Jack Brooksbank, The Duke and Duchess of Gloucester, The Duke of Kent and Prince and Princess Michael of Kent were present.

 

[Mbruno]

Court Circular 29th May:
Buckingham Palace

The Queen gave an Afternoon Party in the garden of Buckingham Palace.
The Duke of Sussex, Princess Beatrice of York, Princess Eugenie, Mrs Jack Brooksbank, The Duke and Duchess of Gloucester, The Duke of Kent and Prince and Princess Michael of Kent were present.

It is interesting that the Palace makes a pointto use the right style for Eugenie, but not for Archie Mountabatten-Windsor.

 

[Iluvbertie]

Archie's titles are determined by his parents at this age and it is clear that Harry and Meghan have asked for him to be styled as Master and not as Lord or Earl Dumbarton.

 

[Mbruno]

Archie's titles are determined by his parents at this age and it is clear that Harry and Meghan have asked for him to be styled as Master and not as Lord or Earl Dumbarton.

As the son of a Duke , he should be a Lord even if he didn’t use one of his father’s subsidiary titles as courtesy. There is no rationale to style him Master.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

It is interesting that the Palace makes a pointto use the right style for Eugenie, but not for Archie Mountabatten-Windsor.

The Palace actually made a stronger point for Archie Mountbatten-Windsor's style: A statement was made and they have consistently called him Master Archie Mountbatten-Windsor.

By way of comparison, no statement was given on Princess Eugenie's style, and the Palace called her Princess Eugenie of York (including an entry in the Court Circular on March 21) up until some weeks ago, when her style was changed with no explanation to Princess Eugenie, Mrs. Jack Brooksbank.

http://www.theroyalforums.com/forum...title-in-his-future-44267-15.html#post2206491
http://www.theroyalforums.com/forum...title-in-his-future-44267-15.html#post2223305

 

[Gawin]

As the son of a Duke , he should be a Lord even if he didn’t use one of his father’s subsidiary titles as courtesy. There is no rationale to style him Master.

He's *entitled* to be styled Earl or Lord but his parents have chosen not to, just as Camilla has chosen not to be styled Princess of Wales.