Questions about British Styles and Titles

[NGalitzine]

Just curious, but what has Camillas title as wife of the future King got to do with the Succession to the Crown Act? I have read the act and see no mention of titles at all.

[Ish]

Originally Posted by Iluvbertie

It would take an Act of Parliament to deny her the right to use her husband's styles and titles.

She also can't use a style or title that isn't her husbands at the time she is using it.

We aren't talking about an ordinary person but the wife of the Head of State whose title would be used officially and that needs to be clear.

A wife doesn't have to use her husband's styles or titles but that doesn't mean they don't hold them and doens't mean that in official records they aren't referred to by the styles and titles from their husbands e.g. The Duchess of Kent has asked to be called Katherine but in the CC she is always referred to as HRH The Duchess of Kent. Carole Middleton, when she is with the royal family and wears a name tag she is referred to as Mrs Michael Middleton - because that is her official title.

Camilla can't remain a Princess or Duchess of Cornwall when her husband is no longer a Prince or Duke of Cornwall. She has to take his styles and titles offiially or be formally stripped of those titles by an Act of Parliament - which would make the marriage less than equal. Only then can Charles give her a lower title.

I donn't think anyone is disagreeing with you here. No one seems to have suggested that she remain Duchess of Cornwall, but rather that she use the female equivalent of one of her husband's other titles - i.e. Duchess of Lancaster. When he becomes King, Charles will be the Duke of Lancaster, therefore it stands that Camilla will be the Duchess.

Question: currently, in the CC is Camilla referred to as The Princess of Wales or The Duchess of Cornwall? If it's The Duchess then it means that there is precedent in them for a wife to be referred to by one of her husband's lesser titles instead of the main title in the CC - as there is in regular use as few refer to Camilla as the Princess of Wales even though she does hold that title.

Originally Posted by NGalitzine

Just curious, but what has Camillas title as wife of the future King got to do with the Succession to the Crown Act? I have read the act and see no mention of titles at all.

Nothing, really. We've gotten off topic.

[Iluvbertie]

The CC refers to her as The Duchess of Cornwall - the oldest of Charles' titles except in Scotland where she is referred to as The Duchess of Rothesay.

Charles it The Prince of Wales, except in Scotland where he is The Prince Charles, The Duke of Rothesay and in Cornwall (or other property that belongs to the Duchy) when he is The Duke of Cornwall.

[Ish]

Originally Posted by Iluvbertie

The CC refers to her as The Duchess of Cornwall - the oldest of Charles' titles except in Scotland where she is referred to as The Duchess of Rothesay.

Charles it The Prince of Wales, except in Scotland where he is The Prince Charles, The Duke of Rothesay and in Cornwall (or other property that belongs to the Duchy) when he is The Duke of Cornwall.

So Camilla as Queen Consort could use the female equivalent of another of her husband's titles when he is King officially, without needing any LPs or Acts of Parliament or what have you. As such, this whole Princess Consort issue sounds like it's really just unnecessary fuss. She could be called the Duchess of Lancaster far more easily than Princess Consort.

[Roslyn]

Originally Posted by Iluvbertie

It would take an Act of Parliament to deny her the right to use her husband's styles and titles.

She also can't use a style or title that isn't her husbands at the time she is using it.

We aren't talking about an ordinary person but the wife of the Head of State whose title would be used officially and that needs to be clear.

A wife doesn't have to use her husband's styles or titles but that doesn't mean they don't hold them and doens't mean that in official records they aren't referred to by the styles and titles from their husbands e.g. The Duchess of Kent has asked to be called Katherine but in the CC she is always referred to as HRH The Duchess of Kent. Carole Middleton, when she is with the royal family and wears a name tag she is referred to as Mrs Michael Middleton - because that is her official title.

But isn't this only tradition, or custom, not law? Traditions can be broken and new ones set. I am not aware of any law preventing Carole Middleton from wearing a name tag identifying her as Ms, or Mrs, Carole Middleton, she is only tagged as being an extension of her husband because that is the traditional way of identifying a married woman, and because I am sure HM wants it that way.

If Camilla does not want to insist on her right to use Charles' styles and titles, surely no-one can force her to do so, and there will be no need for Parliament to intervene. It will be official if that is what she, as the king's wife, does, and as long as it is clear that is the way he wants it, that is the way it will be, officially.

[Roslyn]

Originally Posted by Ish

So Camilla as Queen Consort could use the female equivalent of another of her husband's titles when he is King officially, without needing any LPs or Acts of Parliament or what have you. As such, this whole Princess Consort issue sounds like it's really just unnecessary fuss. She could be called the Duchess of Lancaster far more easily than Princess Consort.

This indeed seems to be the case.

[Artemisia]

It's actually not that simple at all.

Camilla can't be the Duchess of Lancaster because for one thing, the female form of the title simply doesn't exist. Even the Queen is The Duke - and not Duchess - of Lancaster. The same goes for the Duke of Normandy title. Lord of Mann is reserved for the island's Lord Proprietor only and no female form currently exists anyway.

And what other titles does the Monarch have for his Queen to use?

[Roslyn]

I can understand HM calling herself Duke of Lancaster because she is the monarch, but why can't the wife of the holder of those titles be Duchess? Why can't a precedent be established? Is there a reason other than it hasn't been done before?

[Iluvbertie]

Queen Victoria set the precedent that the monarch is both Duke and Duchess as she was officially The Duke of Lancaster but used Duchess of Lancaster on occasions.

[Iluvbertie]

Not allowing a wife to use her husband's titles and styles says that the marriage is unequal - that has already been established as not existing in the UK in 1936 when Edward VIII suggested that he marry Wallis morganatically.

At the time of the engagement it was announced in Parliament that she would be Queen Consort unless legislation was introduced to deprive her of that title by the then PM.

To suggest that Carole Middleton, officially would use any other title than her correct one is also wrong. Mrs Carole Middleton would indicate that she is divorced. That is the legal way of things - a wife takes her husband's names and titles and only uses her own again when she is divorced.

[branchg]

Originally Posted by Iluvbertie

Queen Victoria set the precedent that the monarch is both Duke and Duchess as she was officially The Duke of Lancaster but used Duchess of Lancaster on occasions.

Yes, but that is simply a style used by tradition when the monarch is in the Duchy on official business. The Sovereign is not The Duke of Lancaster in title or rank because the fount of honour cannot be a Peer. It merged with the Crown centuries ago.

[VictoriaB]

Originally Posted by MarNoe

Will there come a time when Kate is referred to as "Princess Kate" or "Princess Catherine" rather than always as the "Duchess of Cambridge".

I must admit I don't like it when tabloids and newspapers still call her "Kate Middleton". She is the "former" Kate Middleton.

If William becomes Prince of Wales I imagine the press will decide to call her Princess Catherine in the same way they did with Diana. Officially I can't see it happening.

[Roslyn]

Originally Posted by Iluvbertie

To suggest that Carole Middleton, officially would use any other title than her correct one is also wrong. Mrs Carole Middleton would indicate that she is divorced. That is the legal way of things - a wife takes her husband's names and titles and only uses her own again when she is divorced.

I take issue with this. I believe it is only tradition, not law. And traditions can be changed; it only takes people to start to act differently.

I have never used my husband's surname and am not legally obliged to do so. If people ask me my name I tell them it is Ms Roslyn ----. If I am given a namecard attributing my husband's surname to me, I cross that surname out and write in my own.

I'm not suggesting my example is going to have any effect whatsoever anywhere outside my backyard, but the more people do it, the more tradition changes, and in any event it is not a universal tradition that women change their surname on marriage.

And yes, this is completely off-topic.

[Ish]

Originally Posted by Artemisia

It's actually not that simple at all.

Camilla can't be the Duchess of Lancaster because for one thing, the female form of the title simply doesn't exist. Even the Queen is The Duke - and not Duchess - of Lancaster. The same goes for the Duke of Normandy title. Lord of Mann is reserved for the island's Lord Proprietor only and no female form currently exists anyway.

And what other titles does the Monarch have for his Queen to use?

It has been said numerous time that the wife of a titles person in Britain receives the female equivalent of their titles. The King's wife is the Queen, the Prince of Wales' wife the Princess of Wales, the Duke of Cornwall's wife the Duchess of Cornwall. Therefore it stands to reason that if this is true in all cases then if there is a Duke of Lancaster then, in cases where the holder of that title is male, his consort can be styled Duchess of Lancaster. Just because it has not happened before (owing to the fact that previously the Duke of Lancaster's wife had always been called the Queen) does not mean that it cannot happen.

If the female form of the title truly does not exist then LPs can be issues stating that that is what Camilla will be known as - far easier than issuing an Act of Parliament and LPs to change her title from Queen Consort to Princess Consort. Furthermore, the title "Duchess of Lancaster" has been used before, just not by a Queen Consort.

The reason why HM is called the Duke and not the Duchess is, to quote the Duchy of Lancaster's website, because "Queen Victoria considered that the title 'Duke' was the proper title for the holder of a Dukedom whether man or woman, that of a Duchess being a courtesy title for the consort of a Duke."

HM is Queen of 16 realms, Duke of Normandy, Lord of Mann, and Duke of Lancaster. 3 of those titles do not have King/Queen.

[Tiggersk8]

Originally Posted by MarNoe

Will there come a time when Kate is referred to as "Princess Kate" or "Princess Catherine" rather than always as the "Duchess of Cambridge".

I must admit I don't like it when tabloids and newspapers still call her "Kate Middleton". She is the "former" Kate Middleton.

It drives me crazy too. Even more so when it's someone like Anderson Cooper. Not only as one of the more well known and watched journalists, but also as the son of Gloria Vanderbilt who *would* know that was wrong, Anderson's one of those who *really* should know better.

However...

[Osipi]

Basically I think with a title like The Princess of Wales, and it happens to be Diana or Camilla or Catherine, like all news folks do, they condense. Easier to type Princess Kate than Catherine who is The Princess of Wales. Just as its easier to put in Camilla Parker-Bowles than The Duchess of Cornwall who is the former Camilla Parker-Bowles. They use short cuts that identify the personage as they have mostly been known in the press.

[Ish]

Originally Posted by Osipi

Basically I think with a title like The Princess of Wales, and it happens to be Diana or Camilla or Catherine, like all news folks do, they condense. Easier to type Princess Kate than Catherine who is The Princess of Wales. Just as its easier to put in Camilla Parker-Bowles than The Duchess of Cornwall who is the former Camilla Parker-Bowles. They use short cuts that identify the personage as they have mostly been known in the press.

I understand what you're saying, and agree, but one thing. Catherine is not currently The Princess of Wales. She is the Duchess of Cambridge and the Princess William of Wales (lowercase t in both cases). The Princess of Wales is Camilla, who is also The Duchess of Cornwall (capital T in both cases).

[Osipi]

Originally Posted by Roslyn

Why is it that parliament would have to so act? It is not a legal requirement that a married woman use her husband's style and titles, just custom. Why is it different in the case of the king's wife? Isn't it the monarch who makes these decisions about styles and titles, not parliament?

Relaxing with a good cup of tea, I did some looking into this as the term "morganic" sprung into my head. A good explanation I found comes actually from Canada in 2005.

"This article examines the constitutional
implications, for Canada and the other members of the
Commonwealth, of a morganatic marriage in the
British royal family. The Germanic concept of
“morganatic marriage” refers to a legal union between
a man of royal birth and a woman of lower status, with
the condition that the wife does not assume a royal title
and any children are excluded from their father’s rank
or hereditary property.
For such a union to be celebrated in the royal
family, the parliament of the United Kingdom would
have to enact legislation. If such a law had the effect of
denying any children access to the throne, the laws of
succession would be altered, and according to the
second paragraph of the preamble to the Statute of
Westminster, the assent of the Canadian parliament and
the parliaments of the Commonwealth that recognize
Queen Elizabeth II as their head of state would be
required.

http://lawjournal.mcgill.ca/document..._Pelletier.pdf

I think this is why there were specific letters patent drawn up and with Parliament's approval, Wallis Simpson was denied a HRH but was able to take on her husband's title of Duke of Windsor. That marriage was not morganic, but she was denied the HRH.

In Charles and Camilla's case, when Charles becomes King, there are no titles of his that he could pass Princess onto Camilla. She is his Queen by law. He could issue Letters Patent that she'd be known as Princess Consort and maybe even make her a Princess in her own right (which to my knowledge hasn't ever been done.. even with Princess Alice) but Parliament would have to approve it as it would then be a morganatiic marriage with the wife ranked lower than her husband.

I do think Camilla's best bet is that if she doesn't want to be known as Queen, the Duchess of Lancaster is her best bet as Duke of Lancaster will be one title Charles will hold as King.

[Roslyn]

Originally Posted by Osipi

In Charles and Camilla's case, when Charles becomes King, there are no titles of his that he could pass Princess onto Camilla. She is his Queen by law. He could issue Letters Patent that she'd be known as Princess Consort and maybe even make her a Princess in her own right (which to my knowledge hasn't ever been done.. even with Princess Alice) but Parliament would have to approve it as it would then be a morganatiic marriage with the wife ranked lower than her husband.

Great sleuthing, Osipi!

Is it still morganatic if she has a royal title, just not the equal of her husband's? If she has a royal title, even though not Queen, Letters Patent would seem to be enough and parliament would not need to be involved. The succession issue isn't relevant in her case.

[Ish]

Originally Posted by Roslyn

Great sleuthing, Osipi!

Is it still morganatic if she has a royal title, just not the equal as her husband's? If she has a royal title, even though not Queen, Letters Patent would seem to be enough and parliament would not need to be involved. The succession issue isn't relevant in her case.

It's morganatic if she has a title that is not equal to her husband's. It is not morganatic if she has a title that is equal but choses to use instead a title that is lesser.

Currently, she known as a Duchess which is less than her husband's title of Prince of Wales. It is not morganatic, however, because she also has the title of Princess of Wales but choses not to use it.