Questions about British Styles and Titles 1: Ending 2022

[Tatiana Maria]

How the titles "normally" work? The British system of Royal and other titles has always been amended to the times.



Let's just start with "The Empress Matilda". From 1141 she was the first female regent in her own right of England (as "mistress of the English"), but as she already was known as "the Empress" she did not have a coronation to become queen. But she was never Empress Regnant, but Empress Consort of the Holy Roman Empire through her marriage with Emperor Heinrich V.



Later princesses were just known as "ladies", like later queens Mary I. and Elizabeth II. James I/VI.'s daughter was known as "Lady Elizabeth Stuart" after she was born as the king's daughter in Scotland in 1596, but finally she was known as the queen of Bohemia, even though her husband had only been a king for a winter. With the German descendants of her, following her grandson George I., German titles became part of the Royal title while George II. was the first Hanoveran prince to get the now "classic" combination of a dukedom (plus Marquisate), Earldom and Baronship in the peerage of England in 1705. But the German titles were kept as well, as was stated by German laws.


And so on...


Today, even though Andrew of York and Harry of Sussex are still "princes of the UK", their HRH-styles have been removed. But other than HRH Princess Katherine of Connaught, princesses Beatrice and Eugenie did not have to give up their Royal titles to marry British commoners. The granting and removing of Royal titles has always been a Royal privilege (hence William's son is Prince George while Harry's son Archie could only claim the title of "Lord" or "Earl" as son of a duke.) and while "granting" Camilla the title of Queen is the one thing that is not in Elizabeth II. power, what the Queen did for herson's "Darling wife" is the most she can do now. But claim that there are "rules" about Royal titles apart from the souvereigns will? Nope, I think.

Indeed, the British system has been amended many times (although in my view it has fallen behind the times in many respects), and the reminder that many conventions are newer than popularly believed is welcome.

However, the automaticity of a wife taking her husband's title, without needing to "earn" it (as Gawin and I were discussing), has been regarded in official quarters as a settled rule in the United Kingdom, as was confirmed in government correspondence and an announcement from the palace in 1923. (Please refer to the next post, as the forum will not permit me to post a link here.)

But claim that there are "rules" about Royal titles apart from the souvereigns will? Nope, I think.

Do you disagree, then, with the many posters here and elsewhere who have argued that legislation would be needed to displace Camilla from the status of queen?

 

[Nico]

Queen Camilla??

After all these years, i drink your tears

No hard feelings !

 

[Tatiana Maria]

Here is the link:

https://www.heraldica.org/topics/britain/prince_highness.htm#After_1917

 

[angieuk]

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...akes-deeply-uneasy-accept-Queens-verdict.html

Whenever it happens; I don't see the country putting on a massive 1953, Coronation. It would cost millions in today's money, and also the Reign will be decades shorter than the Queen's. I would love to see inside the Queen's Jewellery Box; and which pieces Camilla will choose to wear!

 

[Mbruno]

How the titles "normally" work? The British system of Royal and other titles has always been amended to the times.


[...] But claim that there are "rules" about Royal titles apart from the souvereigns will? Nope, I think.

The Sovereign's titles and styles in particular have been regulated for quite some time in the UK and, now also in the Commonwealth realms, by acts of Parliament.

The titles and styles of other members of the Royal Family have been indeed traditionally governed by the Sovereign's will, which doesn't mean that ministerial advice is not sought in those matters as it would be expected of a constitutional monarch.

 

[Osipi]

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...akes-deeply-uneasy-accept-Queens-verdict.html

Whenever it happens; I don't see the country putting on a massive 1953, Coronation. It would cost millions in today's money, and also the Reign will be decades shorter than the Queen's. I would love to see inside the Queen's Jewellery Box; and which pieces Camilla will choose to wear!

To be honest, I see Camilla sticking to the pieces that she loves already for the most part. Nothing about Camilla has ever struck me as being the kind of person to "go for gold". So many people have described meeting her as being "down to earth" and fun and witty to be around. It's her character and her attitude towards who she is that impresses people. Not what she wears or how much she "sparkles" in diamonds and precious stones. She's never been a clothes horse where the fashion world follows her every outfit and I would bet my last waffle that the pieces that mean the most to her are the ones that Charles has given her.

I'd have moved this to the jewelry thread but I don't really expect it to become a huge tangent away from the topic at hand here. ?

 

[Osipi]

The Sovereign's titles and styles in particular have been regulated for quite some time in the UK and, now also in the Commonwealth realms, by acts of Parliament.

The titles and styles of other members of the Royal Family have been indeed traditionally governed by the Sovereign's will, which doesn't mean that ministerial advice is not sought in those matters as it would be expected of a constitutional monarch.

There is also the thought that whatever changes were made to the title and style of the Queen Consort wouldn't affect only Camilla. It would also affect going into the future and the wives of William and George. To do this now and put the Queen's stamp of approval on what Camilla should be titled when Charles becomes King preserves the continuity of the title as much as the Queen is striving for continuity in the monarchy that she holds so dearly.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

I wonder whether she is also going to take care of other title issues that might arise in the future (such as the titles of grandchildren of the monarch other than those of the direct heirs) or will leave that to Charles.

All this is showing me that the "Firm" doesn't leave anything to chance "when the time comes". They plan ahead and take care of business before it has a chance to happen. [...]

Not quite every piece of business, perhaps. As Somebody alluded to, the reform of the 1917 letters patent is an unfinished business. Like the future title of Camilla, there would be a clear benefit if the Queen would take the initiative rather than leaving it completely to the next King.

 

[Osipi]

Not quite every piece of business, perhaps. As Somebody alluded to, the reform of the 1917 letters patent is an unfinished business. Like the future title of Camilla, there would be a clear benefit if the Queen would take the initiative rather than leaving it completely to the next King.

I totally agree on this. Especially with the recent "complaints" about Archie not being a "prince" (which by letters patent in existence, he doesn't hold until his grandfather becomes king).

I'm sure Charles has discussed with his mother. If the Queen would make her wishes known putting a stamp on Charles' wishes for a "slimmed down monarchy", her words would be far more powerful to as the monarchy is supposed to go into the future after her than it seeming like Charles wants to do things "his way" and change things up at the start of the new reign.

 

[Mbruno]

There is also the thought that whatever changes were made to the title and style of the Queen Consort wouldn't affect only Camilla. It would also affect going into the future and the wives of William and George. To do this now and put the Queen's stamp of approval on what Camilla should be titled when Charles becomes King preserves the continuity of the title as much as the Queen is striving for continuity in the monarchy that she holds so dearly.

I sincerely hope that "HM The Queen Consort" is not made permanent. First, it would actually break continuity with previous practice in the United Kingdom. Second, that particular style is not used as far as I know in any other European kingdom for queens consort.

Belgium

The Netherlands

Norway

Spain

Sweden

 

[Osipi]

I sincerely hope that "HM The Queen Consort" is not made permanent. First, it would actually break continuity with previous practice in the United Kingdom. Second, that particular style is not used as far as I know in any other European kingdom for queens consort.

I sincerely hope it doesn't change things up too. If it's worked well for centuries, why try and fix it just because a segment of the public (that is actually growing smaller and smaller with time) are up in arms about what the King's wife is called.

 

[roseroyal]

I think it should just be plain consort for Camilla and then Queen for Kate. I wouldn’t advocate changing the system for eternity- just for one reign.

 

[Osipi]

I think it should just be plain consort for Camilla and then Queen for Kate. I wouldn’t advocate changing the system for eternity- just for one reign.

Changing things up for one reign sets a precedence. It would denote that Camilla isn't as "likeable" or "worthy" of being Charles' Queen whereas Catherine, being so well suited to William is "better" and deserves to be a full blown HM, The Queen. The monarchy doesn't work like that and plays favorites here and there and whenever public opinion takes a turn downwards.

The monarchy and it's "Firm" has been set with traditions and ways of doing things for centuries. It's what gives it that patina of continuity from the mists of time into the present day. If things change for just one person, it should be a change made that affects all future incidents in the future. Making an exception for one person's title or role breaks another link in continuity that the monarchy has come to represent, IMO.

 

[royal-blue]

In retrospect, does anyone think that Prince Philip should have been made His Majesty? Obviously a Queen's husband is nitvavking but he could still have been a Majesty,.

 

[Iluvbertie]

How the titles "normally" work? The British system of Royal and other titles has always been amended to the times.



Let's just start with "The Empress Matilda". From 1141 she was the first female regent in her own right of England (as "mistress of the English"), but as she already was known as "the Empress" she did not have a coronation to become queen. But she was never Empress Regnant, but Empress Consort of the Holy Roman Empire through her marriage with Emperor Heinrich V.

She was in London preparing for her coronation but behaved so appallingly that the people of London forced her to flee before she was crowned as Queen of England. It wasn't that she didn't need one - in those days she really did - but her arrogance was so bad she had to get out or probably get lynched.

Today, even though Andrew of York and Harry of Sussex are still "princes of the UK", their HRH-styles have been removed. But other than HRH Princess Katherine of Connaught, princesses Beatrice and Eugenie did not have to give up their Royal titles to marry British commoners. The granting and removing of Royal titles has always been a Royal privilege (hence William's son is Prince George while Harry's son Archie could only claim the title of "Lord" or "Earl" as son of a duke.) and while "granting" Camilla the title of Queen is the one thing that is not in Elizabeth II. power, what the Queen did for herson's "Darling wife" is the most she can do now. But claim that there are "rules" about Royal titles apart from the souvereigns will? Nope, I think.

The HRHs have NOT been removed. They have been asked/told to not use the in official situations or for commercial purposes but they still are HRHs. The only way to remove HRH is via Letters Patent and The Queen hasn't issued any such LP to remove HRH and why remove HRH and not Prince when they go together. Under the 1917 LPs of George V all HRHs are also Prince/Princess as that is the way the LPs were written.

Princess Katherine CHOSE to give up her HRH on marriage.

No other British princess who married a commoner made such a decision and all subsequent British princesses (other then The Queen herself) married a person who was a commoner at the time of their marriage although Princess Mary and Princess Margaret's husbands later became Peers of the Realm.

 

[Iluvbertie]

I think it should just be plain consort for Camilla and then Queen for Kate. I wouldn’t advocate changing the system for eternity- just for one reign.

The wife of the King is the Queen (consort). The Queen has asked for that to happen - which avoids the parliament having to pass legislation to deny Camilla the right of every other wife in the UK - to take on the titles of her husband and thus creating the concept of 'morganatic' or unequal marriage in the UK. The UK has for centuries been proud that it didn't recognise such as concept, unlike the continent where morganatic marriages were (and in some deposed royal houses still are) recognised.

 

[Moran]

Honestly, I see it as another step down the road of HM The Queen. At the time, the tide was so strongly against Camilla being elevated to the top tier that the Princess Consort thing was kind of necessary. Now, we're told that HM wants Camilla to be known as Queen Consort. Not quite like a "real" queen. Apart from literally all other queens, even the Catholic ones who were never crowned. But there is still time for people to get accustomed to the idea that Camilla will be queen at all, as if the title was somehow reserved for Charles' divorced late wife. And when the time comes for Camilla to assume the top place as a monarch's consort, the consort part, IMO, will be discreetly dropped.

It doesn't look very fair but we're talking about people who still hate on Camilla some 16 years into her marriage and paint her as the devil against Diana's sainthood. If things were straightforward from the beginning, I daresay Camilla's path would have been far rockier.

 

[sophie25]

After all these years, i drink your tears

No hard feelings !

No tears here, she's so inappropriate it's hilarious �� It will be interesting to see how the same Church that couldn't even marry her to Charles (only gave a blessing), due to her first husband still kicking about, are going to crown her as his Queen. Elizabeth II has totally misjudged the people of the UK on this one IMO. The vast majority of people do not want this woman as Queen.

 

[Osipi]

No tears here, she's so inappropriate it's hilarious �� It will be interesting to see how the same Church that couldn't even marry her to Charles (only gave a blessing), due to her first husband still kicking about, are going to crown her as his Queen.

The thing is, Sophie, when it comes to titles and styles, they have meaning and it denotes not only the relationship of the person to the monarch, but sometimes even defines their roles within the monarchy. It's not about what has happened in the past. It's not about popular opinion. It's following common law that has been in practice in the UK since 1064 (and largely due to Alfred the Great). A wife in the UK is entitled to use the feminine form of her husband's title whether she's saint or sinner.

As far as being "appropriate", in the 16 years since Charles and Camilla married, she's not put a foot wrong. She has more than proven herself to be a huge asset not only to Charles but to the entire "Firm" and the Queen has shown her appreciation in quite a few ways in appreciation of what Camilla brings to the monarchy in honoring Camilla as a Dame Grand Cross of the Royal Victorian order and Royal Lady of the Noble Order of the Garter. She has served the monarchy above and beyond what her predecessor did and for longer.

 

[sophie25]

The thing is, Sophie, when it comes to titles and styles, they have meaning and it denotes not only the relationship of the person to the monarch, but sometimes even defines their roles within the monarchy. It's not about what has happened in the past. It's not about popular opinion. It's following common law that has been in practice in the UK since 1064 (and largely due to Alfred the Great). A wife in the UK is entitled to use the feminine form of her husband's title whether she's saint or sinner.

As far as being "appropriate", in the 16 years since Charles and Camilla married, she's not put a foot wrong. She has more than proven herself to be a huge asset not only to Charles but to the entire "Firm" and the Queen has shown her appreciation in quite a few ways in appreciation of what Camilla brings to the monarchy in honoring Camilla as a Dame Grand Cross of the Royal Victorian order and Royal Lady of the Noble Order of the Garter. She has served the monarchy above and beyond what her predecessor did and for longer.

I wouldn't say Camilla has served the Monarchy above and beyond what Diana did and timewise it's pretty tasteless to compare them when one lady died at a young age.

 

[Osipi]

I wouldn't say Camilla has served the Monarchy above and beyond what Diana did and timewise it's pretty tasteless to compare them when one lady died at a young age.

I think the Queen's recognition says it all, actually. The only thing Diana ever received from the Queen is the Royal Family Order. The fact remains though that Camilla has served flawlessly for more years than Diana spent as The Princess of Wales.

To appreciate Camilla, it doesn't mean that Diana is being disrespected at all. The world has moved on since Diana's death. Diana is irrelevant to the monarchy of the UK now whereas Camilla is. Just the facts.

 

[roseroyal]

In retrospect, does anyone think that Prince Philip should have been made His Majesty? Obviously a Queen's husband is nitvavking but he could still have been a Majesty,.

Yes I do think that.

 

[roseroyal]

Changing things up for one reign sets a precedence. It would denote that Camilla isn't as "likeable" or "worthy" of being Charles' Queen whereas Catherine, being so well suited to William is "better" and deserves to be a full blown HM, The Queen. The monarchy doesn't work like that and plays favorites here and there and whenever public opinion takes a turn downwards.

The monarchy and it's "Firm" has been set with traditions and ways of doing things for centuries. It's what gives it that patina of continuity from the mists of time into the present day. If things change for just one person, it should be a change made that affects all future incidents in the future. Making an exception for one person's title or role breaks another link in continuity that the monarchy has come to represent, IMO.

I respect traditions, but they can change. What is wrong with changing for one reign? It may set a precedent, but it doesn’t have to.
It would be a shame if it did.

 

[roseroyal]

The wife of the King is the Queen (consort). The Queen has asked for that to happen - which avoids the parliament having to pass legislation to deny Camilla the right of every other wife in the UK - to take on the titles of her husband and thus creating the concept of 'morganatic' or unequal marriage in the UK. The UK has for centuries been proud that it didn't recognise such as concept, unlike the continent where morganatic marriages were (and in some deposed royal houses still are) recognised.

To me, she should be married to him, but I don’t see how a title makes an equal marriage . A man’s respect for a woman is not determined by a title.
To me, Charles, should be His Majesty, she should be Her Royal Highness, the Princess Consort.
Kate should be Queen.

 

[Osipi]

I respect traditions, but they can change. What is wrong with changing for one reign? It may set a precedent, but it doesn’t have to.
It would be a shame if it did.

Why should Camilla really be treated differently than any other woman that is married to a man that becomes king? Even Caroline of Brunswick, the wife of George IV was titled Queen. George IV and Caroline didn't have a happy marriage and on the day of his coronation, George IV had her locked out of the ceremony even. She died a year later.

There is absolutely no reason whatsoever that Charles' wife shouldn't be known as Queen. The monarchy doesn't bow to the whims of popular opinion. Once it starts doing that, it opens the door to placating the mood of the day and weakens what the monarchy stands for in the first place. Continuity.

 

[roseroyal]

Why should Camilla really be treated differently than any other woman that is married to a man that becomes king? Even Caroline of Brunswick, the wife of George IV was titled Queen. George IV and Caroline didn't have a happy marriage and on the day of his coronation, George IV had her locked out of the ceremony even. She died a year later.

There is absolutely no reason whatsoever that Charles' wife shouldn't be known as Queen. The monarchy doesn't bow to the whims of popular opinion. Once it starts doing that, it opens the door to placating the mood of the day and weakens what the monarchy stands for in the first place. Continuity.

I went into why in previous posts, but they were deleted.
You’ve got good points, but .
Believe me or not, but I’ve come a long way on this issue . I used to believe that if Charles wanted to marry her, he should be forced to abdicate. I don’t believe that now, and wouldn’t have forced that decision, but I still don’t believe Camilla should be Queen. She hasn’t earned the reward. The one who does id dead, and sadly if she was alive wouldn’t even be an HRH.

 

[roseroyal]

Honestly, I see it as another step down the road of HM The Queen. At the time, the tide was so strongly against Camilla being elevated to the top tier that the Princess Consort thing was kind of necessary. Now, we're told that HM wants Camilla to be known as Queen Consort. Not quite like a "real" queen. Apart from literally all other queens, even the Catholic ones who were never crowned. But there is still time for people to get accustomed to the idea that Camilla will be queen at all, as if the title was somehow reserved for Charles' divorced late wife. And when the time comes for Camilla to assume the top place as a monarch's consort, the consort part, IMO, will be discreetly dropped.

It doesn't look very fair but we're talking about people who still hate on Camilla some 16 years into her marriage and paint her as the devil against Diana's sainthood. If things were straightforward from the beginning, I daresay Camilla's path would have been far rockier.

Why do you say that if things had been straightforward, then things would have been rocky??
If things were ideal, then Charles would have married Camilla first.
I don’t hate Camilla. I know Diana was no saint.
Still Camilla should not have have the title of Queen IMO.

 

[Iluvbertie]

To me, she should be married to him, but I don’t see how a title makes an equal marriage . A man’s respect for a woman is not determined by a title.
To me, Charles, should be His Majesty, she should be Her Royal Highness, the Princess Consort.
Kate should be Queen.

An 'equal marriage' is a construct in noble and royal terms.

In many European royal families if a women is of a lower status the marriage is an unequal marriage e.g. Franz-Ferdinand's wife was never able to share his status as she wasn't born from a high enough family which is why their legitimate children would never be in the line of succession to the Austrian-Hungarian throne (and is why Franz-Ferdinand was in Sarajevo in June 1914 - so he could be there as an officer in the army and so she could be treated as his equal whereas at the court in Vienna she wasn't ... she wasn't allowed to sit next to him for instance at court events).

Britain has never recognised such a situation and all wives are immediately regarded as equal to their husbands on marriage.

What you are suggesting is that Camilla isn't good enough to be the wife of the heir to the throne - thus an unequal marriage which has never been the situation in the UK and was officially denied to Edward VIII when he asked for such a marriage in 1936 and was told that the UK had never had such a concept and never would.

You want to take the UK backwards and argue that ONE woman should be denied the right of every other woman in the UK - the right to take all her husbands titles. The only reason someone would suggest that is to punish Camilla for daring to have an affair with Charles after Charles and Diana's marriage was over in all but name.

 

[royal-blue]

If a reigning king and queen consort were to divorce while he was still on the throne, would the wife be entitled to continue being HM Queen X after divorce?

 

[Heavs]

No tears here, she's so inappropriate it's hilarious �� It will be interesting to see how the same Church that couldn't even marry her to Charles (only gave a blessing), due to her first husband still kicking about, are going to crown her as his Queen. Elizabeth II has totally misjudged the people of the UK on this one IMO. The vast majority of people do not want this woman as Queen.

The Church of England has changed quite a bit in recent years, including relaxing the rules on marriage. 8 years ago there were no woman bishops and strong opposition to them in some cases, now more than 1/4 are women as a different example.

When the time comes there won't be an issue with crowning her, especially as they did have a blessing.