Questions about British Styles and Titles 1: Ending 2022

[padams2359]

Seem coincidental that just as this announcement was regarding Camilla’s title, which I agree with, that Charles came out and said, for the first time I believe, that he would move to BP, and that he thought it was where the monarch should live.

 

[Osipi]

Seem coincidental that just as this announcement was regarding Camilla’s title, which I agree with, that Charles came out and said, for the first time I believe, that he would move to BP, and that he thought it was where the monarch should live.

All this tells me that, right now, the "Firm" is very much concentrating on this being the transitional period preparing for a smooth transition between reigns of monarchs. The Queen is very actively a part of it working with the her son and heir to ensure that when the time does come, it happens as smoothly as possible for everyone involved. From titles to residences to probably a whole lot of other loose ends is something that weighs heavily on the Queen's mind and she'll not want to leave one little thing to chance. She's pragmatic and realistic that way when it comes to her beloved monarchy.

Hopefully our Queen will be with us for years to come now but it has to be reassuring to HM to know that things are in place and ready to go into the future and that she's been actively involved in it.

 

[Alison H]

I somehow doubt that Camilla would "confide" in Roya Nikkhah. In her closest friends and relatives, maybe, but surely not in a journalist.

 

[Osipi]

I somehow doubt that Camilla would "confide" in Roya Nikkhah. In her closest friends and relatives, maybe, but surely not in a journalist.

Camilla has never run to the press or a journalist in all these years so why would she start now? This is one thing I admire about Camilla. She goes on and does what she needs to do and isn't bothered by the "noise" or feel that she has to "set the record straight" on things. If that was part of her character makeup, it would have happened years ago. She's secure enough in her own skin to not let "noise" bother her at all. As you said, maybe to close friends and family but *never* outside of her inner trusted circle. That's just Camilla being Camilla.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

It is always possible that a misunderstanding occurred, but a journalist who lied about what they were told off the record would be committing an ethical violation, and I would prefer not to speculate in that direction without evidence.

As mentioned in many of the recent reports, the couple has hinted in the press/in public about changing their intentions, over a decade ago. From the Rebecca English article earlier:

On a visit to a Wiltshire children’s centre 11 years ago, Camilla was asked by an eight-year-old girl if she would be Queen. ‘You never know,’ she quickly replied.

And in 2010, when the prince was put on the spot by an interviewer and asked if his wife would rule by his side, Charles said: ‘We’ll see, won’t we? That could be.’​

 

[Tatiana Maria]

There seems to be general agreement that public objections to the Duchess of Cornwall being known as Queen in some form can be blamed on the memory of Diana, Princess of Wales, and that over the years public opinion has come to be more accepting of using Queen for Camilla, but the issue is more complicated than that.

First, I believe it is an important point that between 2005 and 2022, the members of the public who approved of "Princess Consort" were following the publicly announced wishes of the future King, and Camilla's husband. Those who wanted Queen Camilla were disregarding the will of the next monarch and the couple themselves.

Second, while the Duchess of Cornwall's approval ratings improved, the improvement did not translate into a preference for Queen over Princess Consort. According to the latest YouGov poll on the title issue (April 2021) to be taken before Elizabeth's announcement:

http://cdn.yougov.com/cumulus_uploads/document/y77stv13r3/YG-Archive-140609-Camilla.pdf

If Prince Charles does become King, should his wife, the Duchess of Cornwall ... ?

14% Become Queen
44% Have the title of Princess Consort
26% Not have any title at all
17% Don't know
​

Third, while the preference for Princess Consort in April 2021 is typical of the polling through the years, a YouGov poll in June 2014 presented the question and options differently than in most polls, and it resulted in a majority of the respondents expressing support for the Queen option.

https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/articles-reports/2014/06/10/Camilla-can-become-Queen

In the UK, when a king is crowned his wife typically becomes queen consort. Thinking about if Prince Charles becomes king, which of the following comes closest to your view of his wife Camilla, Duchess of Cornwall?

53% She should become queen consort, as is traditional for a reigning king's wife in the UK
32% She should be given a lesser title, out of sensitivity to Diana, Princess of Wales
14% Don't know
​

What that atypical result suggests to me is that there is a significant segment of the public which wanted the lesser title for reasons other than sensitivity to Diana, Princess of Wales (which is why they did not choose the second option), and/or were not aware that Queen is the traditional title for a reigning king's wife in the UK (which most polls do not explain).

 

[Tatiana Maria]

And after the announcement of Elizabeth II's wishes, the polling results (February 7) have undergone a dramatic change, which would back up the hypothesis that the previous strong preference for Princess Consort had more to do with following the announced wishes of Prince Charles than with the late Diana, Princess of Wales.


https://yougov.co.uk/topics/arts/survey-results/daily/2022/02/07/8cfa7/1

If Prince Charles becomes King, do you think his wife Camilla should become Queen Consort, or Princess Consort?

Queen Consort 41%
Princess Consort 10%
Neither 15%
Don’t know or don’t care 34%​

There are major differences in age and politics. Those answering "Queen Consort" skewed older (including 58% of 65%+ year olds) and Conservative (60%), while those answering "Don't know or don't care" skewed younger (including 55% of 18-24 year olds) and Labour (a plurality of 45%).

 

[Denville]

Possibly people esp older ones are influenced by the fact that the queen has announced her support for Camilla becoming queen.

 

[Osipi]

When Queen Elizabeth II, who is much admired and loved, puts her stamp of approval on someone or something, it means something and is heeded. The Queen has in quite a few ways shown that she not only approves of Camilla and the love and support she gives Charles but has also recognized her personally for the work she has done for crown and country. That carries a *lot* of weight with people.

The Queen knows Camilla far better than anyone in the general public ever will.

 

[Somebody]

There seems to be general agreement that public objections to the Duchess of Cornwall being known as Queen in some form can be blamed on the memory of Diana, Princess of Wales, and that over the years public opinion has come to be more accepting of using Queen for Camilla, but the issue is more complicated than that.

(...)

Second, while the Duchess of Cornwall's approval ratings improved, the improvement did not translate into a preference for Queen over Princess Consort. According to the latest YouGov poll on the title issue (April 2021) to be taken before Elizabeth's announcement:

http://cdn.yougov.com/cumulus_uploads/document/y77stv13r3/YG-Archive-140609-Camilla.pdf

If Prince Charles does become King, should his wife, the Duchess of Cornwall ... ?

14% Become Queen
44% Have the title of Princess Consort
26% Not have any title at all
17% Don't know
​

Third, while the preference for Princess Consort in April 2021 is typical of the polling through the years, a YouGov poll in June 2014 presented the question and options differently than in most polls, and it resulted in a majority of the respondents expressing support for the Queen option.

https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/articles-reports/2014/06/10/Camilla-can-become-Queen

In the UK, when a king is crowned his wife typically becomes queen consort. Thinking about if Prince Charles becomes king, which of the following comes closest to your view of his wife Camilla, Duchess of Cornwall?

53% She should become queen consort, as is traditional for a reigning king's wife in the UK
32% She should be given a lesser title, out of sensitivity to Diana, Princess of Wales
14% Don't know
​

What that atypical result suggests to me is that there is a significant segment of the public which wanted the lesser title for reasons other than sensitivity to Diana, Princess of Wales (which is why they did not choose the second option), and/or were not aware that Queen is the traditional title for a reigning king's wife in the UK (which most polls do not explain).

I personally don't think that the difference is in the answers but in the question. If you first prime people with the idea that it is traditional for a king's wife to be queen, the 'default' option for people becomes to say they want to go along with that tradition. Only if you truly object to that idea because of a specific reason will you pick the other option. I don't think that those who object to queen but for another reason than Diana will suddenly pick 'queen' over 'princess'.

However, if you are just randomly asked what you think it should be (keeping in mind that people have been used to a PRINCE consort next to the queen over many decades), people might pick either queen (because they are aware of the tradition and agree with it) or princess (because of Diana or because that seems fair given that Philip was only a prince or for any other reason (which might include the earlier announcement) - in at least some cases not being even aware that traditionally the title would be queen). The fact that the question is asked, suggest that this is apparently not set in stone but a matter of opinion.

And after the announcement of Elizabeth II's wishes, the polling results (February 7) have undergone a dramatic change, which would back up the hypothesis that the previous strong preference for Princess Consort had more to do with following the announced wishes of Prince Charles than with the late Diana, Princess of Wales.

https://yougov.co.uk/topics/arts/survey-results/daily/2022/02/07/8cfa7/1

If Prince Charles becomes King, do you think his wife Camilla should become Queen Consort, or Princess Consort?

Queen Consort 41%
Princess Consort 10%
Neither 15%
Don’t know or don’t care 34%​

There are major differences in age and politics. Those answering "Queen Consort" skewed older (including 58% of 65%+ year olds) and Conservative (60%), while those answering "Don't know or don't care" skewed younger (including 55% of 18-24 year olds) and Labour (a plurality of 45%).

Of course, now the queen herself expressed her desire for Camilla to be known by the traditional title of queen, the majority of the people goes along with that (or doesn't care one way or the other) - as that's the reference point that has been indirectly provided by asking the question at this point in time.

 

[Mbruno]

I personally don't think that the difference is in the answers but in the question. If you first prime people with the idea that it is traditional for a king's wife to be queen, the 'default' option for people becomes to say they want to go along with that tradition. Only if you truly object to that idea because of a specific reason will you pick the other option. I don't think that those who object to queen but for another reason than Diana will suddenly pick 'queen' over 'princess'.

However, if you are just randomly asked what you think it should be (keeping in mind that people have been used to a PRINCE consort next to the queen over many decades), people might pick either queen (because they are aware of the tradition and agree with it) or princess (because of Diana or because that seems fair given that Philip was only a prince or for any other reason (which might include the earlier announcement) - in at least some cases not being even aware that traditionally the title would be queen). The fact that the question is asked, suggest that this is apparently not set in stone but a matter of opinion.



Of course, now the queen herself expressed her desire for Camilla to be known by the traditional title of queen, the majority of the people goes along with that (or doesn't care one way or the other) - as that's the reference point that has been indirectly provided by asking the question at this point in time.

It is somewhat interesting that previous polls gave respondents an option between "Queen" and "Princess Consort" whereas this new poll uses "Queen Consort" vs "Princess Consort" instead. I wonder if that had any impact on the results. In other words, is "Queen Consort" somehow more acceptable to the public than "Queen" as far as Camilla's title is concerned.

 

[victor1319]

Well, from Mistress to Queen... They are back again, the jolly Royals! I hope it will not end with a beheading like at the Tudor times... Just kidding!

But I think, it is a shame, that Her Majesty's say is treated as a mere suggestion, if I understand this right. The Royals can't keep up their "namelines" anymore, their dynasties, at least not for real... and they have no say in the titles of their spouses, which make no difference, anyway.

So, what have is left? The right and duty to serve the country?

If I were of high British Nobility, I would prefer to be a Lord - One has all the fun there is and away from the press and the public. Being a Royal has lost much of it's glamour. The downsides are overwhelming.

 

[Osipi]

If I were of high British Nobility, I would prefer to be a Lord - One has all the fun there is and away from the press and the public. Being a Royal has lost much of it's glamour. The downsides are overwhelming.

I'd pick being landed gentry somewhere in the country if it was up to me Waitaminute here.... that'd mean a lot of land and a "pile" I'd have to upkeep. Nevermind.

You're right that being royal has lost much of its glamor that it once held. The veil has been lifted on the magic surrounding the mystique of the monarchy and it's royal family. Nothing is sacred anymore

 

[victor1319]

I'd pick being landed gentry somewhere in the country if it was up to me Waitaminute here.... that'd mean a lot of land and a "pile" I'd have to upkeep. Nevermind.

You're right that being royal has lost much of its glamor that it once held. The veil has been lifted on the magic surrounding the mystique of the monarchy and it's royal family. Nothing is sacred anymore

Well, there is still some glamour left. There is still this age-old bloodline. And one can, if there is not accidentally a Corona plague, see the folks at Sandringham bringing their sick relatives to the church - an echo from the past with it's healing Royal Touch.

And obviously they are treated by the politicians as if they had still some power left, if they can't call the Consorts a King or a Queen by their own decision!

But the Windsors do their bit to de-glamourize monarchy - at least in my mind. Especially Prince Willam and Catherine with their all-to-human approach.

To go really off-topic here: Don't think too low of the "pile"! When William the Bastard was about to start his campaign to become William the Conqueror in the end, his army had to wait for long weeks on the beaches of Normandy for good winds. And all the horses and men... Well, they collected the manure and brought it far away from the beach and nobody fell sick - World History!

Same in the Second World War: More than 30 percent of Rommel's troops were sick at the time of the Battle of El Alamein. Because they were trained in "Blitzkrieg", the war of fast attacks, and not so much in the right way to "digest" to a good end. While the British: They had explicit rules about it and fell not victim to diarrea. El Alamein decided the Desert War and was almost not won by the Brits. World History!

 

[Osipi]

Well, there is still some glamour left. There is still this age-old bloodline. And one can, if there is not accidentally a Corona plague, see the folks at Sandringham bringing their sick relatives to the church - an echo from the past with it's healing Royal Touch.

And obviously they are treated by the politicians as if they had still some power left, if they can't call the Consorts a King or a Queen by their own decision!

But the Windsors do their bit to de-glamourize monarchy - at least in my mind. Especially Prince Willam and Catherine with their all-to-human approach.

Then there's the opposite side of the coin. With the more human approach that goes with the working royal family members, there is more being seen as them being in service to the people. With the titles and royal way they're addressed comes a duty and a responsibility. I think I'd prefer service over glamor any day. ?

 

[MonacoRoyalFan]

Camilla has never run to the press or a journalist in all these years so why would she start now? This is one thing I admire about Camilla. She goes on and does what she needs to do and isn't bothered by the "noise" or feel that she has to "set the record straight" on things. If that was part of her character makeup, it would have happened years ago. She's secure enough in her own skin to not let "noise" bother her at all. As you said, maybe to close friends and family but *never* outside of her inner trusted circle. That's just Camilla being Camilla.

I’d imagine Camilla has run to the press before, just all off-the-record. Speaks to why the press coverage around her has warmed over years, because I’m sure she actually has quite a good relationship (off-the-record) with many of them.

 

[Somebody]

But I think, it is a shame, that Her Majesty's say is treated as a mere suggestion, if I understand this right. The Royals can't keep up their "namelines" anymore, their dynasties, at least not for real... and they have no say in the titles of their spouses, which make no difference, anyway.

So, what have is left? The right and duty to serve the country?

And obviously they are treated by the politicians as if they had still some power left, if they can't call the Consorts a King or a Queen by their own decision!

I'm trying to grasp what you are saying. Are you suggesting that the queen's desire that Camilla will be styled and addressed as her majesty and queen instead of HRH and princess depends on politicians? I don't think that is the case at all.

Imho, it is phrased this way because 1) the queen will be dead at that time, so cannot make any decision at that point and it would be hard at this point to legally address this as there is nothing that needs to be changed; 2) previously Charles made an intention known that she would NOT be addressed by the style and title that she will be entitled to, which is that of HM and QUEEN; so, now that 'intention' has been reversed by the queen's 'sincere wish'.

 

[victor1319]

I'm trying to grasp what you are saying. Are you suggesting that the queen's desire that Camilla will be styled and addressed as her majesty and queen instead of HRH and princess depends on politicians? I don't think that is the case at all.

If I understood it right, then the Queen cannot simply declare that Charles' spouse will become a Queen by title. So, who can? The people represented by politicians?

The thing is a bit more complicated, if one considers, that QE II. made her husband Prince Phillip a Prince Consort by decree, albeit her mother, Queen Mom, was a Queen Consort. Why? Because the public opinion might have turned against a Battenberg (German Name) as a King, who might have outlived the Queen?

So, why can't Queen Elizabeth not simply declare by decree, that further on all spouses shall be called King or Queen Consort? It is all politics!

And that leads back to the politicians.

 

[Prinsara]

If I understood it right, then the Queen cannot simply declare that Charles' spouse will become a Queen by title. So, who can? The people represented by politicians?

The thing is a bit more complicated, if one considers, that QE II. made her husband Prince Phillip a Prince Consort by decree, albeit her mother, Queen Mom, was a Queen Consort. Why? Because the public opinion might have turned against a Battenberg (German Name) as a King, who might have outlived the Queen?

So, why can't Queen Elizabeth not simply declare by decree, that further on all spouses shall be called King or Queen Consort? It is all politics!

And that leads back to the politicians.

By British (certainly English) common law, a wife is entitled to use the husband’s rank, titles, feminine forms of address, etc. Not the other way around. Philip was not Prince Consort by decree, simply a Prince. Albert was Prince Consort by decree, not King. And Mrs. Simpson was deemed unacceptable because she would have been Queen and the people and realms wouldn’t have stood for it.

It’s a mix of royal decree and what people (Parliament) want.

 

[Somebody]

If I understood it right, then the Queen cannot simply declare that Charles' spouse will become a Queen by title. So, who can? The people represented by politicians?

Camilla IS queen the moment Charles ascends the throne. There is nothing ADDITIONAL that can/needs to be done. Would you suggest the queen first strips all future wives of kings from the title by having the law changed so that wives of kings no longer are queens, so next she can specifically decree that she actually wants Camilla to be queen, a title that Camilla would otherwise have automatically received?!

The thing is a bit more complicated, if one considers, that QE II. made her husband Prince Phillip a Prince Consort by decree, albeit her mother, Queen Mom, was a Queen Consort. Why? Because the public opinion might have turned against a Battenberg (German Name) as a King, who might have outlived the Queen?

I've never heard that argumentation. I don't think Elizabeth ever considered to make her husband king as that is not the British tradition.

So, why can't Queen Elizabeth not simply declare by decree, that further on all spouses shall be called King or Queen Consort? It is all politics!

And that leads back to the politicians.

What would be the purpose of that decree given that the next 3 monarchs are all MEN, so their wives with automatically be queens. You really think she should try to declare something that is currently no issue at all and at the earliest (if life carries on as normal) might become relevant in the 22nd century? She has always tried to arrange things as they arise, so this would be a huge deviation from her practice regarding titles.

So, no, I don't think politicians have anything to do with the queen's decisions not to try to limit the future king George in his reign (as he might be the first to encounter this issue if his first child happens to be a girl and they want to arrange these things in advance).

 

[Osipi]

Right now, the Queen cannot "declare" that someone will be such and such a title in the future that isn't here yet. That happens the moment that Charles become king. What the Queen is doing is letting her wishes be known that she'd like it be that Camilla is Charles' Queen Consort rather than the "intended" Princess Consort that has been in effect since the time Charles and Camilla married.

Charles couldn't change anything right now either, himself, as he is not the king yet. However, the "Firm" is laying the groundwork so that there will be no surprises at the onset of Charles' reign. This takes a load off Charles too as at that time, he's going to be in mourning for his mother.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

On a different note: as SHSG is not a name but just a derivation of the place the family used to own, so just a dynastic term, could prince Charles of the UK as son of Philip SHSG, prince of Greece and Denmark, decided that from him onwards, the House of Windsor consists now of the House of SCG (the queen) and of SHSG (his father)? (He is a historian, I mean...)

Theoretically, I don't see any legal reason why Charles as King could not declare the name(s) of the royal house to be anything he wishes, regardless of where the name derives from.

 

[Mbruno]

Out of curiosity, is there an estimate of how many hereditary titles actually exist in the different peerages of the British Isles, including subsidiary titles?

Wikipedia says there are currently 30 dukes, 34 marquesses, 191 earls, 111 viscounts, and 443 barons in the UK, but those figures refer, I think, only to the titles that are officially listed in the Roll of the Peerage, which excludes subsidiary titles. Although it is an accurate figure for the number of peers, it underestimates the actual number of existing titles as many peers, especially in the higher ranks of duke, marquess or earl, usually hold more than one title.

 

[CyrilVladisla]

Charles Armstrong-Jones, Viscount Linley is the son of The Earl of Snowdon. Is Charles' title of Viscount counted in the 111 viscounts that Wikipedia mentioned?

 

[Denville]

Charles Armstrong-Jones, Viscount Linley is the son of The Earl of Snowdon. Is Charles' title of Viscount counted in the 111 viscounts that Wikipedia mentioned?

its only a courtesty title

 

[Tatiana Maria]

I've heard this too, and George VI's reasoning makes sense to me. Curiously though, Edward was actually introduced by Sir John Reith of the BBC as "His Royal Highness Prince Edward", not "His Royal Highness THE Prince Edward". I was always curious about the omission of the "The". Was it just an oversight or is it common to omit it when introducing, even though it signifies that the Prince or Princess is the child of a monarch?

At the time, the inclusion or omission of "The" did not signify whether the Prince or Princess was or was not the child a monarch. That distinction was established later (during the reign of Elizabeth II, I believe).

Out of curiosity, is there an estimate of how many hereditary titles actually exist in the different peerages of the British Isles, including subsidiary titles?

Wikipedia says there are currently 30 dukes, 34 marquesses, 191 earls, 111 viscounts, and 443 barons in the UK, but those figures refer, I think, only to the titles that are officially listed in the Roll of the Peerage, which excludes subsidiary titles. Although it is an accurate figure for the number of peers, it underestimates the actual number of existing titles as many peers, especially in the higher ranks of duke, marquess or earl, usually hold more than one title.

Are the listings at The Peerage useful for your purposes?

 

[Iluvbertie]

Charles Armstrong-Jones, Viscount Linley is the son of The Earl of Snowdon. Is Charles' title of Viscount counted in the 111 viscounts that Wikipedia mentioned?

No

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_...ritain_and_Ireland#Viscounts_of_Great_Britain

This list doesn't include Viscount Linley or Viscount Severn.

They are subsidiary titles to the Earl of Snowdon and Earl of Wessex titles.

The current uses of those titles also aren't the holders of the titles. They are using them as a courtesy but their fathers hold the titles along with their Earldoms.

 

[Princess B]

The children of the monarch are The Prince ABC or The Princess ABC. Is this forever or only until their parent is king/queen?

 

[Tatiana Maria]

King Charles will have the legal authority to make decisions on how to style his siblings. According to the website of the British royal family, Queen Elizabeth's sister was still known as The Princess Margaret.

On most occasions, I expect King Charles' siblings will continue to be simply The Earl of Wessex and The Princess Royal.

 

[Iluvbertie]

The children of the monarch are The Prince ABC or The Princess ABC. Is this forever or only until their parent is king/queen?

Once they are a 'The' they are a 'The' for life.

e.g. Princess Margaret - who was the last 'The' whose monarch parent died remained HRH The Princess Margaret, The Countess of Snowdon until she died. She didn't drop the 'The' when her sister ascended the throne.

The same with The Queen's aunt and uncles - they kept the 'The' into her father's and then her reign.