Questions about British Styles and Titles

[Osipi]

Originally Posted by Ish

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).

I know that and you know that but if/when Kate does become The Princess of Wales, we will still get Princess Kate or Kate Middleton from the press.

I do have to be honest here. If it wasn't for being on this forum and learning from the people here, I would probably also be saying Princess Diana. I do however, think the press and media have been lack on facts and how to present personages. Its too much stuff like Brangelina or Jlo and just presenting people as they want to name them.

[Osipi]

Originally Posted by Ish

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.

Now to be known (styled) as Princess, that would also have to come somewhere from her husband's titles. As King, there wouldn't be one. When Charles becomes King, nowhere in his titles will he be a Prince of anything. For Camilla to be a Princess and even styled as one, she would have to have the masculine form of a husband's title of Prince to take it from. If the option was to make her a Princess in her own right as Queen Elizabeth did with Philip, then her rank and style would be of a Princess of the UK which is below ranking of a King.

I really don't think Charles or the whole slew of folks at CH and BP and wherever thought this through when they said that Princess Consort thing.

[Ish]

Originally Posted by Osipi

Now to be known (styled) as Princess, that would also have to come somewhere from her husband's titles. As King, there wouldn't be one. When Charles becomes King, nowhere in his titles will he be a Prince of anything. For Camilla to be a Princess and even styled as one, she would have to have the masculine form of a husband's title of Prince to take it from. If the option was to make her a Princess in her own right as Queen Elizabeth did with Philip, then her rank and style would be of a Princess of the UK which is below ranking of a King.

Exactly. In the case of Philip, his being a Prince and not King is deliberate because a husband does not take on the titles of their spouse. He is granted all of the precedences of any other monarch's consort, regardless of (or despite) his gender.

I really don't think Charles or the whole slew of folks at CH and BP and wherever thought this through when they said that Princess Consort thing.

In a way, Royalty is kind of like any other fandom. The "creators" (in this case the BRF) say one thing and the fans (us) go insane analyzing (and over analyzing) its meaning. A lot of authors and TV personnel have said that they suspect their fans know more about the world they created than they themselves do. I doubt we know more about the BRF than they do, but we definitely have the analysis down pat.

[Osipi]

Originally Posted by Ish

\In a way, Royalty is kind of like any other fandom. The "creators" (in this case the BRF) say one thing and the fans (us) go insane analyzing (and over analyzing) its meaning. A lot of authors and TV personnel have said that they suspect their fans know more about the world they created than they themselves do. I doubt we know more about the BRF than they do, but we definitely have the analysis down pat.

And to think I came here originally for weird looking, funny Ascot hats. Go figure.

[Roslyn]

So.....if Charles is King and Duke of Lancaster, and Camilla is Queen but doesn't call herself Queen and is known as Duchess of Lancaster, there should be no problem, should there? No need for Letters Patent or Act of Parliament, just an announcement from Charles. And we forget all about Princess Consort.

[Osipi]

Then again, going over the link I've posted, it also said this:

"However, the declaration included in the O.D.L.
Report of 1930, the alteration of the laws of succession
in 1936-37 and that of the royal style and titles in 1947
and 1952 suggest that the second paragraph of the
preamble to the Statute should be considered a
constitutional convention rather than a rule of strict law.
The lack of assent to a morganatic marriage by the
Canadian parliament or any other Commonwealth
parliament would have no legal effect.

Color me paisley and trim my eyebrows with a banana. I didn't read far enough.

[DukeOfAster]

i say lets just move forward with the Camillia thing and stop the confusion and let her be the Queen to her husband Queen. lets also honor the fact that before there is a moment of confusion the monarchy will fix the problem in all it's glory. please note that the Queen issued LP allowing for both male and female children of Will and Kate to be prince and princess before they are born so if a future young lady is born she can be Princess thanks to great granny.

[Osipi]

Originally Posted by Roslyn

So.....if Charles is King and Duke of Lancaster, and Camilla is Queen but doesn't call herself Queen and is known as Duchess of Lancaster, there should be no problem, should there? No need for Letters Patent or Act of Parliament, just an announcement from Charles. And we forget all about Princess Consort.

I just think whatever it is going to be is going to have to be decided on soon. Its not going to do the nation or anyone good to have this big anchor around the neck kind of thing happening when HM passes and that's when its going to start up. She's either Queen or whatever other title the powers that be can all decide on. This isn't picking out an online persona.

Most people in the world wouldn't see why Princess Consort wouldn't work for Camilla and to be honest, I think Camilla herself would be happy with it. She's not in this for the fame and glory and tiaras and stuffs and the public life but stands by her man. That's what a best friend does. She'd rather really be the consort and not the queen. Like Philip is. Two steps behind with a tickle when he needs it.

I can't imagine that the implications of this title of Princess Consort have totally escaped Charles' mind and if its to be so, this is the man that will delve into the legalities and the how does one do it. We just really have to wait and see. In the meantime, we find out a lot of things we didn't know before.

[Roslyn]

Originally Posted by Osipi

I just think whatever it is going to be is going to have to be decided on soon. Its not going to do the nation or anyone good to have this big anchor around the neck kind of thing happening when HM passes and that's when its going to start up. She's either Queen or whatever other title the powers that be can all decide on. This isn't picking out an online persona.

Yes. The last thing anyone will want when the family and the nation is grieving over Elizabeth's death is a petty fight about what to call the woman who will already, the moment HM dies and Charles becomes King, be Queen. If it's left till then and she is not to be Queen, she will have to be stripped of that title and demoted.

Most people in the world wouldn't see why Princess Consort wouldn't work for Camilla and to be honest, I think Camilla herself would be happy with it. She's not in this for the fame and glory and tiaras and stuffs and the public life but stands by her man. That's what a best friend does. She'd rather really be the consort and not the queen. Like Philip is. Two steps behind with a tickle when he needs it.

Agreed. If indeed that's what she wants, I say let her have it. Though I do have a preference for Duchess of Lancaster.

I can't imagine that the implications of this title of Princess Consort have totally escaped Charles' mind and if its to be so, this is the man that will delve into the legalities and the how does one do it. We just really have to wait and see. In the meantime, we find out a lot of things we didn't know before.

I am constantly learning new things because of this forum.

[wbenson]

Originally Posted by Ish

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.

"Is" is a strong word for the two ducal titles. While she holds the duchy of Lancaster there's debate on whether it's correct for her to be called the "Duke of Lancaster." In any case she's consented to the title's use in the loyal toast when given in Lancaster, but actually being her own duke is a little harder. (Which I think might provide a lesson. There's a well-established principle that the sovereign can't be a peer, but the Queen and several of her predecessors have decided to allow the use the title anyways.)

And the title of Duke of Normandy is also on quite shaky ground.

[Osipi]

Originally Posted by Roslyn

Yes. The last thing anyone will want when the family and the nation is grieving over Elizabeth's death is a petty fight about what to call the woman who will already, the moment HM dies and Charles becomes King, be Queen. If it's left till then and she is not to be Queen, she will have to be stripped of that title and demoted.

She'd actually not be demoted if she was to be declared as being known as Her Majesty, The Duchess of Lancaster. The press and public might see it that way though.

It would right royal throw the media in the a constant loop and comfuzzlement as they try to figure it all out. The King is the Duke of Lancaster? Why didn't we know this? What?? HM the Queen was the Duke too?

Actually it might serve for them to get some facts right for once.

[Osipi]

Originally Posted by wbenson

There's a well-established principle that the sovereign can't be a peer, but the Queen and several of her predecessors have decided to allow the use the title anyways.)

So, following this principle, Camilla couldn't hold the title of Duchess of Lancaster then correct?

[Iluvbertie]

I will take the Court Circular's opinion of whether or not The Queen is Duke of Lancaster as she signs off on what is in that - and they says that she is.

[Ish]

Originally Posted by wbenson

"Is" is a strong word for the two ducal titles. While she holds the duchy of Lancaster there's debate on whether it's correct for her to be called the "Duke of Lancaster." In any case she's consented to the title's use in the loyal toast when given in Lancaster, but actually being her own duke is a little harder. (Which I think might provide a lesson. There's a well-established principle that the sovereign can't be a peer, but the Queen and several of her predecessors have decided to allow the use the title anyways.)

And the title of Duke of Normandy is also on quite shaky ground.

Originally Posted by Iluvbertie

I will take the Court Circular's opinion of whether or not The Queen is Duke of Lancaster as she signs off on what is in that - and they says that she is.

Well, let's use some philosophy here.

1. The Monarch cannot be a peer.
2. The Monarch is considered the Duke of Lancaster.
-- Therefore the Duke of Lancaster is not a peer.

Just because it looks like a duke and quacks like a duck does not mean that it must be a duke.

[Osipi]

Originally Posted by wbenson

"Is" is a strong word for the two ducal titles. While she holds the duchy of Lancaster there's debate on whether it's correct for her to be called the "Duke of Lancaster." In any case she's consented to the title's use in the loyal toast when given in Lancaster, but actually being her own duke is a little harder. (Which I think might provide a lesson. There's a well-established principle that the sovereign can't be a peer, but the Queen and several of her predecessors have decided to allow the use the title anyways.)

And the title of Duke of Normandy is also on quite shaky ground.

It takes a good man to blow my mind and I think you've done it.

So then, if the Duke of Lancaster is just a honorary title for the present monarch, we can rule out the Duchess of Lancaster for Camilla? And by chance, doesn't the monarch get funding from the Duchy of Lancaster such as the Duke of Cornwall does from his duchy?

I can see how it was way back that a king could be a duke elsewhere. There were more kingdoms. I'm still Queen of the realm of bellyachers here but I do travel to relations where I'm just a Grand mother. :)

[wbenson]

Originally Posted by Osipi

So then, if the Duke of Lancaster is just a honorary title for the present monarch, we can rule out the Duchess of Lancaster for Camilla?

What I was getting at was more that we shouldn't make strictly legalistic presumptions about what can and can't happen, because there's very little actual law regarding what people can be called (as opposed to what they are). The title police aren't going to come along and correct your stationery if you call yourself something that, traditionally and customarily, you shouldn't call yourself.

[vkrish]

I wanna suggest a rather simple solution to all this..
When the Queen dies, usually there is no need for any immediate mention of Camilla. The Privy Council and Instrument of Accession are all regarding King Charles III,and his stuff.
So the palace keeps mum on Camilla..
The Prime Minister and Leader of Opposition and a few foreign leaders, in their condolences, will also "wish the new King and Queen" a good reign, once a few people start referring to her as Queen, the newspapers will automatically stick to that.
No one will dare raise a debate on that or organise protests/demonstrations in those mourning days, that she should not be Queen.
Just a few strings with politicians, BBC and ITN presenters, and she will be Queen Camilla forever, straight, simple and perfectly right.
Basically I think this entire "Princess Consort" stuff was unnecessary. They wanted to be too magnanimous and generous at the time of wedding. Whats the need to announce all that then and create such a confusion..
Basically, I dont think it helped anyway. Those who accepted her, would have done that anyway, in the long run.
Those who hate her fanatically will do so even if she becomes a nun and go meditate in Himalayas..
This entire "Princess Consort" thing was not at all my favourite.

[Dman]

I'm not sure Camilla will be called Duchess of Lancaster. I think The Duke of Lancaster only extend to the King or Queen.

[Osipi]

Originally Posted by wbenson

What I was getting at was more that we shouldn't make strictly legalistic presumptions about what can and can't happen, because there's very little actual law regarding what people can be called (as opposed to what they are). The title police aren't going to come along and correct your stationery if you call yourself something that, traditionally and customarily, you shouldn't call yourself.

Actually, the title police (Parliament) did come out full force when Edward VIII abdicated. It was them that decided that he'd be the Duke of Windsor and retain all honors and style and whatnot that a son of a monarch should have and that includes his HRH but not his wife. That was specific. She was The Duchess of Windsor but could not carry the HRH. She wasn't royal and that irked David and he actually insisted on the royal address anyhow.

Very probable too is they're joking in the middle of the night that she's be Queen Gladys and he'll be Fred.

What they can be known as (even perhaps Kermit I for Charles) will take a wee bit of thought with advisors.

Come to think of it.. I like Kermit I. its not easy being green y'know.

[MarNoe]

Originally Posted by Roslyn

But isn't this only tradition, or custom, not law? Traditions can be broken and new ones set.

But that was my point. Traditions are VERY important to royalty. People are trying to impose their personal requirements for 21st century customs on an ancient institution. It just doesn't work that way.