Questions about British Styles and Titles 1: Ending 2022

[yukari]

For me, it feels dishonest. Both CH and BP.

First they said he won't remarry, but he does anyway. Then they said Camilla won't be called Queen, but now she will. What's next?

Yes, people change their mind over time, but personally this put a doubt the next time Charles issues statement of his "intention" whether it can be trusted because maybe he'll change his mind again in the later date.

Anyway, politicians do this all the time; say one thing during the campaign, then do the opposite after been elected ...

1995 AP article

(...)

The Prince of Wales has no intention of remarrying,″ his press secretary Allan Percival said today. ``This has been the subject of great speculation and we are now making clear the prince’s position.″

(...)

 

[Moran]

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.

Because at the time, people believed Diana was a saint and looked at Camilla as unworthy, conveniently forgetting that Diana would have never been Queen Consort anyway. Her part in the failure of her marriage had been glossed over and Camilla was treated as the devil who should never be Queen because she stole the man from poor innocent Diana.

Why shouldn't Camilla be Queen? Would you say that "no saint Diana" shouldn't have been, say, My Lady the King's Mother if she had stayed alive at the time of William's accession? She was no worthier and no worthless than Camilla.

If Diana deserved a special styling reflecting the reality of her being the King's mother, then Camilla deserves the normal styling reflecting her status as the monarch's wife.

You don't hate Camilla but you still want to punish her?

Why did Diana deserve to be Queen? Because she admitted high treason on TV? Cheating on the heir is just this.

I don't see the fact that she lost her HRH as sad. It came with her being married to the heir. She stopped being married, she lost it. Facts of life.

 

[angieuk]

NEW articles; re new announcement/s.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...s-1937-crown-containing-Koh-Noor-diamond.html

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...never-allow-Camilla-second-class-citizen.html

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...seen-problem-solution-writes-RICHARD-KAY.html

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...tinum-jubilee-says-Camilla-Queen-consort.html

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/...ws-vital-monarch-happy-confident-consort.html

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...IL-COMMENT-Monarchy-thrive-Queen-Camilla.html

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

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. [...]

The "real" Queens are/were the regnants Elizabeth II, Victoria, Anne, Mary II, Elizabeth I and Mary.


Alll others: Lady Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon, Princess Mary of Teck, Princess Alexandra of Denmark, Princess Adelaide von Sachsen-Meiningen etc. shared the rank, style and title of their husbands. Like Camilla and Kate will under King Charles III and King William V.

 

[Mbruno]

I don't see the fact that she (Diana) lost her HRH as sad. It came with her being married to the heir. She stopped being married, she lost it. Facts of life.

Actually it was not that straightforward. The Queen had to issue new
Letters Patent to clarify that women who divorced princes of the United Kingdom were not entitled to keep the style of Royal Highness. And we certainly know other cases iin Europe where former wives of princes kept the HRH until they remarried, e.g. Alexandra Manley in Denmark.

The "real" Queens are/were the regnants Elizabeth II, Victoria, Anne, Mary II, Elizabeth I and Mary.


Alll others: Lady Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon, Princess Mary of Teck, Princess Alexandra of Denmark, Princess Adelaide von Sachsen-Meiningen etc. shared the rank, style and title of their husbands. Like Camilla and Kate will under King Charles III and King William V.

Except that what has been proposed or is being apparently proposed is not that Camilla will "share her husband's style and title", but rather that a new style, HM The Queen Consort, will be created for her.

If you go back to when the rumors about that new style surfaced about a week ago, the alleged rationale for HM The Queen Consort was to avoid "confusion" between Camilla's constitutional position as a queen consort and, the present Queen's position as a queen regnant. However, the need to avoid such "confusion" in the titulaire of the consort was never raised in the past, even after a long reign of a former reigning queen. Queen Alexandra for example was always HM The Queen after Queen Victoria passed, not HM The Queen Consort.

Some people point to the style HM The Queen Mother as an example of or a precedent for the incorporation of qualifiers (like dowager, consort, etc.) in the style, but the situation in that case was different as the Queen Mother's normal style in the common law, i.e HM Queen Elizabeth, could actually create some confusion with her daughter by the mere fact that they shared the same forename. That is not the case with Camilla as there will not be anyone else in the UK or the Commonwealth realms styled HM The Queen, or informally Queen Camilla, when Prince Charles becomes King. So where is this (quite silly) idea of adding "Consort" to her style coming from?

And, again, if it is done for Camilla, it should by analogy apply to all wives of princes and future queens consort too. For example, HRH The Duchess of Cambridge should be called HRH The Duchess Consort of Cambridge or HRH The Duchess of Cambridge Consort (depending on your nterpretation of how the determiner should be used in the English language) and, when Prince William is King, she should also be HM The Queen Consort. The fact that none of that will likely happen shows that Camilla is still being given an unequal treatment that is at odds with the common law.

EDIT: Note that I am assuming HM will be in Camilla's style too, but actually that has not been confirmed yet. For now, all we know is that the Queen's "wish" is that Camilla be known as "Queen Consort" when her son is King, just as her son's previous "intention" was that his wife would be styled HRH The Princess Consort when he became King.

 

[Stefan]

Actually it was not that straightforward. The Queen had to issue new
Letters Patent to clarify that women who divorced princes of the United Kingdom, were not entitled to keep the style of Royal Highness. And we certainly know other cases iin Europe where former wives of princes kept the HRH until they remarried, e.g. Alexandra Manley in Denmark.

Actually Alexandra Man ley was the only case this happened and after the separation she was downgraded to Highness instead of Royal Highness.

But then the danish royal House is more liberal and lets married in woman known by their own name as Princess Alexandra, Princess Marie etc instead of adressing them as Princess Jaochim.

 

[Moran]

Actually it was not that straightforward. The Queen had to issue new
Letters Patent to clarify that women who divorced princes of the United Kingdom, were not entitled to keep the style of Royal Highness. And we certainly know other cases iin Europe where former wives of princes kept the HRH until they remarried, e.g. Alexandra Manley in Denmark.

It was rather straightforward, IMO. This was a situation that, if my memory serves, had not arisen before in the UK. It arose, The Queen solved it, no doubt it was legal, and that was it.

 

[Mbruno]

It was rather straightforward, IMO. This was a situation that, if my memory serves, had not arisen before in the UK. It arose, The Queen solved it, no doubt it was legal, and that was it.

If it were straightforward, there would be no need for Letters Patent. The fact that LPs were issued meant that clarification was deemed necessary.

Actually Alexandra Man ley was the only case this happened and after the separation she was downgraded to Highness instead of Royal Highness.

.

Yes, you are right. I stand corrected.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

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.

I think Kataryn and you meant Princess Patricia of Connaught.

King Edward VII's granddaughter Princess Maud gave up her HH Princess on her marriage to Lord Carnegie, a courtesy peer and heir to an earldom.

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

I imagine asking Parliament to pass legislation would not have been needed. Had the family not wanted Camilla to be known as Queen, she could have voluntarily declined to use her queenly title, in the same way she currently declines to use her title of Princess of Wales.

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.

But tradition, which is one of the topics of this debate, inherently involves comparing the living to the deceased.

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?

Due to the absence of precedent, it would probably need to be clarified by the then king. But if he followed the current practice for divorced peers (both royal and nonroyal) and sons of peers, then his ex-wife would legally become a commoner on divorce, would lose the title of Her Majesty, and would cease to be styled as "The" Queen, but she would remain entitled to use Queen as a courtesy title (my guess would be that she would use "Queen first name") until a remarriage.

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

Actually it was not that straightforward. The Queen had to issue new
Letters Patent to clarify that women who divorced princes of the United Kingdom were not entitled to keep the style of Royal Highness. And we certainly know other cases iin Europe where former wives of princes kept the HRH until they remarried, e.g. Alexandra Manley in Denmark.



Except that what has been proposed or is being apparently proposed is not that Camilla will "share her husband's style and title", but rather that a new style, HM The Queen Consort, will be created for her.

If you go back to when the rumors about that new style surfaced about a week ago, the alleged rationale for HM The Queen Consort was to avoid "confusion" between Camilla's constitutional position as a queen consort and, the present Queen's position as a queen regnant. However, the need to avoid such "confusion" in the titulaire of the consort was never raised in the past, even after a long reign of a former reigning queen. Queen Alexandra for example was always HM The Queen after Queen Victoria passed, not HM The Queen Consort.

Some people point to the style HM The Queen Mother as an example of or a precedent for the incorporation of qualifiers (like dowager, consort, etc.) in the style, but the situation in that case was different as the Queen Mother's normal style in the common law, i.e HM Queen Elizabeth, could actually create some confusion with her daughter by the mere fact that they shared the same forename. That is not the case with Camilla as there will not be anyone else in the UK or the Commonwealth realms styled HM The Queen, or informally Queen Camilla, when Prince Charles becomes King. So where is this (quite silly) idea of adding "Consort" to her style coming from?

And, again, if it is done for Camilla, it should by analogy apply to all wives of princes and future queens consort too. For example, HRH The Duchess of Cambridge should be called HRH The Duchess Consort of Cambridge or HRH The Duchess of Cambridge Consort (depending on your nterpretation of how the determiner should be used in the English language) and, when Prince William is King, she should also be HM The Queen Consort. The fact that none of that will likely happen shows that Camilla is still being given an unequal treatment that is at odds with the common law.

EDIT: Note that I am assuming HM will be in Camilla's style too, but actually that has not been confirmed yet. For now, all we know is that the Queen's "wish" is that Camilla be known as "Queen Consort" when her son is King, just as her son's previous "intention" was that his wife would be styled HRH The Princess Consort when he became King.

Camilla just will be HM The Queen or HM Queen Camilla.
We only need to look to the other side of the North Sea that an intention by the lawmaker not always works out in practice (officially Princess Máxima, no difference with male consorts, but "on historic grounds" she is -by courtesy- addressed as Queen Máxima).

 

[yukari]

(...)

Due to the absence of precedent, it would probably need to be clarified by the then king. But if he followed the current practice for divorced peers (both royal and nonroyal) and sons of peers, then his ex-wife would legally become a commoner on divorce, would lose the title of Her Majesty, and would cease to be styled as "The" Queen, but she would remain entitled to use Queen as a courtesy title (my guess would be that she would use "Queen first name") until a remarriage.

Catherine of Aragorn was the Dowager Princess of Wales after the annulment of her marriage to Henry VIII until her death (most likely no longer "Her Majesty"). But she's a special case.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

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.

As I said in an earlier post, while it may not be official legal terminology in the UK, morganatic marriage is effectively the rule of UK common law when a woman marries a man of lower status than herself. In contrast to some other systems in Europe, both spouses in such a marriage will maintain their own rank and titles, instead of the woman taking on the lower status of her husband. (The same rule now applies when a person of rank marries somebody of the same gender.)

You are right that the distinction between equal and unequal marriages does not exist in the UK. But the now defunct Royal Marriages Act of 1772 was used to achieve the same purposes by preventing lower-status partners of British princes from being recognized as their legal wives.

Actually Alexandra Man ley was the only case this happened and after the separation she was downgraded to Highness instead of Royal Highness.

I believe Elena of Romania kept her HRH after her divorce. In any event, she was created HM Queen Mother by her son after he ascended the Romanian throne.

But then the danish royal House is more liberal and lets married in woman known by their own name as Princess Alexandra, Princess Marie etc instead of adressing them as Princess Jaochim.

In fact, every reigning royal house in Europe except for Britain now allows married-in princesses to be known by their own given name.

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,.

I can't see why not being a Majesty would be less obvious than not being a King. A reigning Queen's consort being King was the practice in Europe for many more centuries than the use of Majesty as a form of address restricted to kings and queens.

Catherine of Aragorn was the Dowager Princess of Wales after the annulment of her marriage to Henry VIII until her death (most likely no longer "Her Majesty"). But she's a special case.

But isn't annulment different from divorce under current law?

 

[HighGoalHighDreams]

I don't know if this conversation best moves to the Camilla General Information thread, and if so, I hope the moderators will humor us by moving it accordingly.

The problem isn't so much that making a change for Camilla couldn't be used for one reign and would have to set a precedent in terms of specific titles. The "precedent" it would be setting is that the titles of reigning monarchs and their spouses can or should be adjusted based on-- public sentiment? Past indiscretions?

This creates a much bigger problem than Camilla's title. It would mean that whenever the heir, the heir's heir, the reigning monarch, or these people's spouses, committed a social error that cast him out of social graces, the question would arise of whether he should be "demoted" in title.

You can see the problem here. For what offenses should a title be adjusted? And I can assure you, the standards for what constitutes a qualifying offense would be quite different for some-- the young, popular, and beautiful-- than for others.

Incidentally, I feel certain that the above is why we have not seen anyone's title removed for any recent events. No one is keen to set off that domino effect.

 

[Stefan]

I believe Elena of Romania kept her HRH after her divorce. In any event, she was created HM Queen Mother by her son after he ascended the Romanian throne.

True but then she was an HRH in her own right as she was a born Princess of Greece.

 

[roseroyal]

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.

First off, she had an affair with Charles WAY before the marriage was over. One of many reasons the marriage ended, causing Diana much pain. Yes, I realize she wasn’t a saint. I realize that ideally Charles and Diana wouldn’t have gotten married.
I am not saying she’s not good enough to be his wife- I’m saying she MAY not be good enough to hold the title of Queen- there’s a difference between good wife, and good Queen IMO.
I’m really trying to understand all sides while I’m dealing with strong emotions.
Part of me says Diana is dead,Camilla is going to be the King’s wife, for the sake of the future, let her be Queen. The larger part says to reward her with Queen is wrong.

 

[roseroyal]

Because at the time, people believed Diana was a saint and looked at Camilla as unworthy, conveniently forgetting that Diana would have never been Queen Consort anyway. Her part in the failure of her marriage had been glossed over and Camilla was treated as the devil who should never be Queen because she stole the man from poor innocent Diana.

Why shouldn't Camilla be Queen? Would you say that "no saint Diana" shouldn't have been, say, My Lady the King's Mother if she had stayed alive at the time of William's accession? She was no worthier and no worthless than Camilla.

If Diana deserved a special styling reflecting the reality of her being the King's mother, then Camilla deserves the normal styling reflecting her status as the monarch's wife.

You don't hate Camilla but you still want to punish her?

Why did Diana deserve to be Queen? Because she admitted high treason on TV? Cheating on the heir is just this.

I don't see the fact that she lost her HRH as sad. It came with her being married to the heir. She stopped being married, she lost it. Facts of life.

So you’re saying that if things had been straightforward, meaning Diana hadn’t died, things would have been rockier? Maybe. Speaking for myself, the fact that she is dead makes things tougher.
Yes, I know that she would never have been Queen Consort after divorce, but as mother to the future King, and all the good she did for her nation, she should have been Her Highness as in Denmark. The wronged woman gets nothing while she was alive, she’s dead, the mistress gets to be Queen?
Had Charles been a faithful husband, and Camilla not a mistress, she MAY have been Queen.
I don’t hate Camilla, I am not sure she should have the title Queen- there’s a difference.

Diana had the elegance of a Queen. And the compassion of one. She wasn’t a saint, she was a flawed human being, but she had many good qualities.
I don’t approve of her affairs but I understand that she loved Charles. If he had been faithful, I doubt she would have cheated. She felt unloved. She was.
Panorama was a disaster.
Kate has many of the same qualities as Diana. She deserves the title.

 

[roseroyal]

I don't know if this conversation best moves to the Camilla General Information thread, and if so, I hope the moderators will humor us by moving it accordingly.

The problem isn't so much that making a change for Camilla couldn't be used for one reign and would have to set a precedent in terms of specific titles. The "precedent" it would be setting is that the titles of reigning monarchs and their spouses can or should be adjusted based on-- public sentiment? Past indiscretions?

This creates a much bigger problem than Camilla's title. It would mean that whenever the heir, the heir's heir, the reigning monarch, or these people's spouses, committed a social error that cast him out of social graces, the question would arise of whether he should be "demoted" in title.

You can see the problem here. For what offenses should a title be adjusted? And I can assure you, the standards for what constitutes a qualifying offense would be quite different for some-- the young, popular, and beautiful-- than for others.

Incidentally, I feel certain that the above is why we have not seen anyone's title removed for any recent events. No one is keen to set off that domino effect.

I do see your point, but why would we do that - unless the social error was beyond the pale as I believe this may be? No easy answer.

 

[Moran]

So you’re saying that if things had been straightforward, meaning Diana hadn’t died, things would have been rockier? Maybe. Speaking for myself, the fact that she is dead makes things tougher.
Yes, I know that she would never have been Queen Consort after divorce, but as mother to the future King, and all the good she did for her nation, she should have been Her Highness as in Denmark.
Had Charles been a faithful husband, and Camilla not a mistress, she MAY have been Queen.
I don’t hate Camilla, I am not sure she should have the title Queen- there’s a difference.

Diana had the elegance of a Queen. And the compassion of one. She wasn’t a saint, she was a flawed human being, but she had many good qualities.
I don’t approve of her affairs but I understand that she loved Charles. If he had been faithful, I doubt she would have cheated. She felt unloved. She was.
Panorama was a disaster.
Kate has many of the same qualities as Diana. She deserves the title.

No, I mean after Diana's death. If she had stayed alive, the halo placed on her head would have dissipated. The media had already started turning against her, ruining the saintlike image they helped her create. If she had stayed alive, I think she would have long found someone else and the mood against Charles and Camilla wouldn't have been this strong. Camilla would have been known as HRH The Princess of Wales and later, HM The Queen without a problem. Diana would have been styled in a Margaret Beaufort's way or something close to this once her son acceded to the throne.

Camilla also has the elegance of Queen. And the compassion of one. Or are they just Diana's prerogatives? IMO, not. Also, Diana wasn't elegant at all before she married Charles. Her personal style at the time was horrifying, just like Camilla's. She was elegant because the Palace stylists made her so. Just like Camilla. Anyway, elegance isn't a quality that a Queen must necessary have. If so, Juliana of the Netherlands would have never been crowned. She was all but elegant.

Diana wasn't very compassionate when she jumped into affairs with married men now, was she? Or when she harassed them and scared their wives. But if that's no problem for her to have the highest title her kinship to the future King gave her, I see no reason for Camilla to be denied the same.

Diana was "flawed" (not really, she was hurtful to people and that's more than the gentle term of "flawed") but Camilla's flaws are such that she should be punished? IMO, Diana's behavior far exceeded anything Camilla did. But I'd never say she wouldn't have deserved a title based on her relationship to William.

Also, I don't care about her affairs, that was supposed to be Charles' problem. I care about the fact that she preferred married men and became "the other woman" and then lied about this on TV.

I don't think a proven liar with the clear intention to harm her husband is "worthy" of being Queen but it isn't about my assessment.

 

[roseroyal]

That’s what I thought you meant- it’s much harder now that she’s dead.
Diana had her flaws. Yes, she caused pain by being the mistress too. If she was alive, I wouldn’t suggest that she be made Queen. She wouldn’t be married to the King.
If Diana was alive, I’d suggest nobody be Queen. Just King, Princess Consort, Camilla, Her Highness Diana.
I’m not saying Camilla shouldn’t be Princess Consort , just not Queen.
Princess Consort is still a high title.

 

[Denville]

but the point is.. that unless a royal behaves MILES AND MILES badly, he/she doesnt lose his royal rank. Short of committing a serious crime or treason. So why - if Diana had lived and reamined married to Charles would she not be "worth" of being queen? Why is Camilla worthy of being queen but Diana isn t? Or vice versa?

 

[Moran]

Why Her Highness, though? As if she hadn't done anything wrong and should get the highest rank the monarchy could give her while Camilla should settle for the second best?

Her Grace for Diana, perhaps. Or better yet, My Lady the King's Mother.

Denville, that's what I meant. With the clarification that Diana isn't unworthy of being queen. She would have been simply ineligible.

 

[Denville]

Why Her Highness, though? As if she hadn't done anything wrong and should get the highest rank the monarchy could give her while Camilla should settle for the second best?

Her Grace for Diana, perhaps. Or better yet, My Lady the King's Mother.

Denville, that's what I meant. With the clarification that Diana isn't unworthy of being queen. She would have been simply ineligible.

Diana had lost her HRH and was given the title of Diana Princess of Wales. If she remarried she would have stopped using htat title and gone by her husbands. As for @My Lady the Kings Mother, I think that is way too medieval.

 

[Kataryn]

This conversation brings up an interesting question: if HM The Queen Consort becomes a legal title in itself and becomes the norm for the female spouse of a monarch, if HRH Prince George of Cambridge has a daughter who becomes queen regnant in about 100 years, would she have to be styled HM The Queen Regnant to avoid confusion?

I honestly don't see the need for it. It is one thing to have fun with a discussion about it with other Royal watchers, but which Royal family would see the need to use such explicit titles when their subjects should be able to remember who is the born king and who is his wedded wife, or, in case George has a daughter first, who is the woman who was born to be queen and who is her wedded husband! (If she decided that he should have the title of King Consort instead of the usual Prince Consort.)


I mean: it was okay to name Camilla "Princess Consort" in an analogy to Albert who was "Prince Consort" (Though I alway preferred her to become queen as the wife of the king). But why should there be a need to call her officially "Queen Consort" when there is Elizabeth's son Charles who will be king (as people have known for over 70 years now) and his wife who as the king's wife will be his queen? She will be named HM Queen Camilla and she will take that name because she is the Queen Consort.

 

[Denville]

That’s what I thought you meant- it’s much harder now that she’s dead.
Diana had her flaws. Yes, she caused pain by being the mistress too. If she was alive, I wouldn’t suggest that she be made Queen. She wouldn’t be married to the King.
If Diana was alive, I’d suggest nobody be Queen. Just King, Princess Consort, Camilla, Her Highness Diana.
I’m not saying Camilla shouldn’t be Princess Consort , just not Queen.
Princess Consort is still a high title.

why should nobody be queen? Charles has a wife. if Di were alive I think that Camilla would not be suffering the flak still that she is suffering.. being seen as the "wicked mistress who ensnared Charles".. Diana would not be Her highness, she would simply have reamined Diana Princess of Wales or Lady Diana whoever... if she remarried... so I cna't see any reason why Camilla should not be queen adn be titled as such...

 

[Tatiana Maria]

The problem isn't so much that making a change for Camilla couldn't be used for one reign and would have to set a precedent in terms of specific titles. The "precedent" it would be setting is that the titles of reigning monarchs and their spouses can or should be adjusted based on-- public sentiment? Past indiscretions?

This creates a much bigger problem than Camilla's title. It would mean that whenever the heir, the heir's heir, the reigning monarch, or these people's spouses, committed a social error that cast him out of social graces, the question would arise of whether he should be "demoted" in title.

You can see the problem here. For what offenses should a title be adjusted? And I can assure you, the standards for what constitutes a qualifying offense would be quite different for some-- the young, popular, and beautiful-- than for others.

Incidentally, I feel certain that the above is why we have not seen anyone's title removed for any recent events. No one is keen to set off that domino effect.

Well stated, particularly: "the standards for what constitutes a qualifying offense would be quite different for some-- the young, popular, and beautiful-- than for others".


It is worth noting that the original announcement in 2005 did not disclose the basis for the decisions regarding the then Camilla Parker Bowles's titles. While most courtiers and royal watchers conclude, reasonably, that it was based on public sentiment, that has never been formally confirmed.

Nor did the statement disclose whether the Duchess of Cornwall and Princess Consort decisions were intended to apply to subsequent future consorts.

Announcement of the marriage of HRH The Prince of Wales and Mrs Camilla Parker Bowles
Published on 10th February 2005

It is with great pleasure that the marriage of HRH The Prince of Wales and Mrs Camilla Parker Bowles is announced. It will take place on Saturday 9th April 2005.

The Prince of Wales has said: “Mrs Parker Bowles and I are absolutely delighted. It will be a very special day for us and our families.”

Princes William and Harry released a joint statement: "We are both very happy for our father and Camilla, and we wish them all the luck in the future."

Mrs Parker Bowles will use the title HRH The Duchess of Cornwall after marriage. It is intended that Mrs Parker Bowles should use the title HRH The Princess Consort when The Prince of Wales accedes to The Throne. The wedding will be a largely private occasion for family and friends. It will comprise a civil ceremony at the Guildhall in Windsor and will be followed by a service of prayer and dedication in St George’s Chapel over which the Archbishop of Canterbury will preside.​

 

[roseroyal]

but the point is.. that unless a royal behaves MILES AND MILES badly, he/she doesnt lose his royal rank. Short of committing a serious crime or treason. So why - if Diana had lived and reamined married to Charles would she not be "worth" of being queen? Why is Camilla worthy of being queen but Diana isn t? Or vice versa?

If Diana had remained alive, and happily married to Charles, I would have no issue with her being Queen.

 

[roseroyal]

Why Her Highness, though? As if she hadn't done anything wrong and should get the highest rank the monarchy could give her while Camilla should settle for the second best?

Her Grace for Diana, perhaps. Or better yet, My Lady the King's Mother.

Denville, that's what I meant. With the clarification that Diana isn't unworthy of being queen. She would have been simply ineligible.

In my eyes, Her Highness is lower than HRH.

 

[Denville]

If Diana had remained alive, and happily married to Charles, I would have no issue with her being Queen.

but the point is that being queen is simply the title of the lady married to the king. Its not dependent on virtue or happy marriage or anything but simply being the wife of the King. If the queen had passed away in 1993, when Di was separated, Diana would still have been queen because her rank woud not depend on her being a good person nor on her being happly married to Charles

 

[Moran]

In my eyes, Her Highness is lower than HRH.

It is. But it's higher than anything she was entitled to. Which was - Diana, Princess of Wales. Until she remarried. Denmark is another kingdom with other traditions. Margrethe decided to let Alexandra be Her Highness and it doesn't bind the UK with anything re: Diana.

No one owed her any higher style. It would have been dependent on King William's goodwill but he wouldn't have been obliged in any way to bestow anything upon her.

Camilla will be married to the King. HM The Queen is the normal style for such occasions all over Europe.

 

[roseroyal]

why should nobody be queen? Charles has a wife. if Di were alive I think that Camilla would not be suffering the flak still that she is suffering.. being seen as the "wicked mistress who ensnared Charles".. Diana would not be Her highness, she would simply have reamined Diana Princess of Wales or Lady Diana whoever... if she remarried... so I cna't see any reason why Camilla should not be queen adn be titled as such...

Diana wouldn’t have been Queen because she was divorced, and because of her social errors AKA affairs. Camilla was Charles mistress. As such I don’t know that she should have been Queen But who knows what would have been? Diana may have remarried. But that doesn’t change she is the mother of the future King.