Questions about British Styles and Titles

[branchg]

Most accounts have stated The Queen was willing to allow Diana to remain HRH after the divorce, but Diana decided to relinquish it in favor of a larger financial settlement and the freedom to live her life without constant oversight from the Palace. Others have stated Diana refused to settle for "HRH Princess Diana" and demanded to be "HRH Diana, Princess of Wales", which is technically the style of the wife of The Prince of Wales, and was declined by The Queen.

Either way, she did remain a Princess, although downgraded by the loss of her royal rank.

[HRHThePrince]

From what I've read, the Queen is all about continuity & tradition. Is there any particular reason why Prince Michael of Kent was never granted a peerage on marriage, other than being the youngest son of King George V's youngest son?

I'm sure The Queen wasn't to thrilled with him marrying a Catholic. Could this be the reason?

[NGalitzine]

I think the reason he has no peerage is because he is the younger son, he was never expected to undertake any official engagements, and there simply was never a reason to give him a peerage when he married. She also never gave Prince Richard of Gloucester a peerage when he married. Richard was a younger son expected to continue with his private career as an architect and not undertake royal engagements. Also in both cases their children would not be princes needing a terratorial designation but would be using the Windsor surname.

[McKeen]

Originally Posted by branchg

The idea of creating a female heir "Princess of Wales" in her own right was discussed when The Queen turned 18. George VI declined to consider it, stating the title was for the wife of The Prince of Wales and pointing out a female heir would still take the style and title of her husband upon marriage.

But was the Queen ever known as the Duchess of Edinburgh before she became Queen? I thought she was always called Princess Elizabeth, even after she was married.

[Artemisia]

Originally Posted by McKeen

But was the Queen ever known as the Duchess of Edinburgh before she became Queen? I thought she was always called Princess Elizabeth, even after she was married.

The Queen was indeed called the Duchess of Edinburgh until she ascended to the Throne.
For instance, when the birth of Prince Charles was announced, she was called "Her Royal Highness Princess Elizabeth, Duchess of Edinburgh" - the standard form of address of the Princess Elizabeth from the point of her marriage to the Duke of Edinburgh and until her accession to the Throne.

http://www.britishpathe.com/video/a-prince-is-born

[Warren]

Posts discussing Diana's loss of the HRH at her divorce have been moved to the Diana's Styles and Titles thread;
Posts discussing the future of the Prince of Wales and Duke of Cornwall titles have been moved to the Impacts and ramifications of the proposed legislation thread.

[McKeen]

Originally Posted by branchg

...The Government and the Dominions agreed the wife of The King is automatically Queen in her own right and no other style or title applies.

Doesn't that mean then that Camilla cannot use the title Princess Consort when Charles becomes King?

[Iluvbertie]

As the situation currently exists Camilla will be Queen because to do anything else means establishing the concept of Morganatic marriage in the UK and that will take legislation.

Now - whether she is known as Queen Camilla or Princess Camilla is a different point - she can use any title she likes but that doesn't mean she won't be The Queen.

[Artemisia]

Originally Posted by McKeen

Doesn't that mean then that Camilla cannot use the title Princess Consort when Charles becomes King?

That's the understanding as things are right now.
Regardless of how Camilla is referred to she will legally be the Queen Consort.

One loophole I see (if they are hell bent for Camilla to be styled as The Princess Consort while legally remaining the Queen Consort) is for King Charles to make Camilla The Princess Consort in her own right. In that case, Camilla will legally have both titles and can choose to be known under the lesser of the two, rather like she is known under the lesser of her two titles right now. In that case, she should be referred to as The Queen Consort on all official (state) events but can probably be addressed to as The Princess Consort on more private or semi-official ones.

If, however, the title of The Princess Consort isn't granted to Camilla in her own right, she will have as much right to call herself one as I can call myself Queen of Armenia - none.


This whole mess could have been avoided if they hadn't made the ridiculous Princess Consort announcement in the first place; I understand the reasoning behind it but really!

[Artemisia]

Originally Posted by Iluvbertie

As the situation currently exists Camilla will be Queen because to do anything else means establishing the concept of Morganatic marriage in the UK and that will take legislation.

Now - whether she is known as Queen Camilla or Princess Camilla is a different point - she can use any title she likes but that doesn't mean she won't be The Queen.

Apart from the concept of morganatic marriage not existing in Britain, they can't go via that rout any more; by being accepted as The Princess of Wales, The Duchess of Cornwall, etc, Camilla has already been established as non-morganatic (equal) wife of the Prince of Wales.

As for Camilla using any title she likes - she can only use those titles she will legally have. As wife of the King, she will automatically be Queen Consort. But she will not be Princess Consort and cannot just use the style out of blue. In order for Camilla to have the right to the title, she will have to be created The Princess Consort in her own right, enabling her to use the lesser of her two titles whenever needed.

[Iluvbertie]

For her not to use the title Queen they do have to pass legislation to make the marriage unequal and as Charles won't have the title 'Prince' she will also cease to have the style 'Princess'. As a result she will have to move up to the style of Queen but the intention is that she won't do that.

A woman takes her husbands titles and styles and Chalrles will no longer be a "Prince" so Camilla will cease to be a "Princess". That leaves her with a couple of options - take the style Queen Camilla, revert to Camilla Parker-Bowles, revert to Camilla Shand.

To give her the title Princess Consort the marriage will have to be declared morganatic and that will take parliament to pass legislation to strip her of the title The Queen and that will then be the case. The fact that they didn't do in 2005 only complicates the situation but they can still do that in the future.

[Artemisia]

I don't see how giving Camilla the title of The Princess Consort in her own right will make the marriage morganatic. As wife of the King, Camilla will be Queen Consort but, having the title of the Princess Consort in her own right, she will have the use of both titles and can choose to be known under her second-highest one. Being known as the Duchess of Cornwall didn't turn the marriage into a morganatic one, did it?

A woman takes her husband's titles and styles but that doesn't mean she loses the ones she has in her own right (although they are rarely used after marriage). Princess Alexandra didn't stop being a Princess after marrying Angus Ogilvy. Another very, very rough example (and yes, I know the circumstances are very different): when Grand Duchess Maria Alexandrovna married Prince Alfred, Duke of Edinburgh, she immediately took her husbands styles and titles and became HRH The Duchess of Edinburgh. However, she also maintained the style she was hers in her own right - Imperial Highness. What I mean to say with this example, if Camilla is created a Princess Consort in her own right, she will remain one regardless of the fact Charles will cease to be a Prince the moment he ascends to the Throne.

Of course, legally Camilla will be The Queen Consort unless Acts of Parliament in the UK and other countries of the Realm are passed - and I don't see that happening.

[Dman]

I must say, I think a great deal of people isn't looking forward to the day when the world will have to deal with Camilla's title once Charles come to the throne. Of course Camilla will be Queen Consort when Charles become King. As she is legally HRH The Princess of Wales.

I totally respect her with to only be called HRH The Duchess of Cornwall. I think it's a title that fits her and she has worked very hard on representing The Queen, Britian and Commonwealth under that name. I think if she wishes be titled HRH The Princess Consort when Charles comes to the throne, I think her wish should be respected and granted. Then again, if she and Charles decided she should be called Her Majesty The Queen, then I will respect that too.

I'm just not looking forward to that future debate. I think it's going to be a palace PR mess when the time comes.

[Dman]

I think both Charles, Camilla, the royal family and palace officials knows it.

[Australian]

The fact is....when Charles becomes King, she becomes Queen. It's just the way it is.
Whether she deserves the title or not is irrelevant, she is who she is.

[wbenson]

Originally Posted by Iluvbertie

For her not to use the title Queen they do have to pass legislation to make the marriage unequal and as Charles won't have the title 'Prince' she will also cease to have the style 'Princess'. As a result she will have to move up to the style of Queen but the intention is that she won't do that.

People in the United Kingdom have the right to call themselves whatever they wish, so I'd think all she has to do to not use the title Queen is choose not to use it. I think in theory anybody could ask to be called "HRH the Princess Consort" and it would be perfectly legal.

[Artemisia]

What about the other Realms though?
It would have been rather strange to be known as The Princess Consort in one realm and The Queen Consort - in fifteen others.

[Kataryn]

Take Australia for example. AFAIK the only have an (Australian) title for the souverain - which in case of a king is hared by his wife as Queen Consort of Australia. But they don't have Australian titles for the Royal family, they use their British titles as courtesy titles and award them honours as family and representatives of their souverain.

What if Camilla decides to be known not as queen? Then the Australians have a title for her she doesn't want to use, so they have to use her British title as courtesy instead? Wouldn't that be an insult to the Australian nation? That the wife of their king does not want to become their queen but opts instead for a British title? IMHO better to avoid such potential anger in Australia...

[Kataryn]

Thought about is some more:
if the Queen really did not want Camilla to become queen, she would create her a princess in her own right as "The Princess Camilla", just like she created Philip a Prince of the Uk. Only then Camilla had the choice of titles after her husband's ascension. With this HMe would surely force Charles' hand as she would give the public a clear understanding of her wishes - a lot of media outlets would have arguments for their outcry about "Queen Camilla".

OTOH the fact that nothing besides the publishing of this "intention" ever happened is a clear sign that the queen does not want Charles' reign to be any different from that of his ancestors. IMHO, of course.

[branchg]

It has already been clearly established by the precedents in 1936 with Edward VIII that the wife of The King is automatically Queen and no other title or style applies.

In order for Camilla to be styled "HRH The Princess Consort", a title she is not entitled to hold as the wife of The Sovereign, legislation would have to be passed in Parliament and the Crown Commonwealth nations that she will not hold the title and rank of Queen.

I think there is zero chance any future Parliament would agree to pass legislation consenting to this, so Camilla will indeed be "HM The Queen" when her husband becomes King.