The Royal Forums Coat of Arms

Go Back   The Royal Forums > Reigning Houses > British Royals

Join The Royal Forums Today
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #1901  
Old 02-17-2013, 11:48 AM
4Pam's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: N/A, United States
Posts: 2,782
I find the titles & precedence a lot more confusing than a math class. Thank goodness there are so many who are so patient and knowledgeable to explain. :)
__________________

__________________
Absence is, in my opinion, important to find out whether something in your life is meaningful and important! It may be difficult to endure, but the end result is always revealing.
Reply With Quote
  #1902  
Old 02-17-2013, 11:57 AM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: , United States
Posts: 2,736
Quote:
Originally Posted by Osipi View Post

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.
Parliament had no say in what status, rank or style the former King would hold upon abdication. The Act of Abdication simply stated Edward was relinquishing his right, and that of any future descendants, to the throne. It also stated he would not be subject to the Royal Marriages Act. What he would be was entirely within the gift of The Sovereign.

Under the 1917 Letters Patent, he was automatically "HRH The Prince Edward" as a son of George V. George VI declared he would create his brother a Royal Duke and announced he would be known as "HRH The Duke of Windsor". In March 1937, Letters Patent were issued creating the Dukedom officially.

The issue of status for his future wife was addressed with Letters Patent issued a week before their wedding in May 1937. While Wallis would automatically assume the title of Duchess of Windsor as the wife of a Peer, her rank was limited to a Duchess, rather than a Princess, and she would not be HRH. The King took the position that Edward's wife and children could never succeed to the throne and royal rank was therefore limited to him as a son of The Sovereign.

The Duke never accepted the validity of the Letters Patent, stating he was entitled to HRH by right of his birth and there was no question his wife was entitled to share his rank. But the rank and style can be bestowed or removed at any time by The Sovereign, so that was the end of that.

Technically, the marriage was morganatic because legally The Duke's wife and any future children were prohibited from sharing his rank. But they could share his title as a Peer and the Dukedom was hereditary to the male heirs of the body.
__________________

__________________
Reply With Quote
  #1903  
Old 02-17-2013, 12:14 PM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: , United States
Posts: 2,736
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ish View Post

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.
Her rank is equal as "HRH The Princess Charles" the wife of a son of The Sovereign. As the eldest son and heir to the throne, Charles holds many titles, which Camilla also shares as his wife. At her choice, she used her ducal title as her style, but remains HRH no matter which title she is using.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #1904  
Old 02-17-2013, 03:11 PM
Ish's Avatar
Ish Ish is online now
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Vancouver, Canada
Posts: 2,164
Quote:
Originally Posted by branchg View Post

Parliament had no say in what status, rank or style the former King would hold upon abdication. The Act of Abdication simply stated Edward was relinquishing his right, and that of any future descendants, to the throne. It also stated he would not be subject to the Royal Marriages Act. What he would be was entirely within the gift of The Sovereign.

Under the 1917 Letters Patent, he was automatically "HRH The Prince Edward" as a son of George V. George VI declared he would create his brother a Royal Duke and announced he would be known as "HRH The Duke of Windsor". In March 1937, Letters Patent were issued creating the Dukedom officially.

The issue of status for his future wife was addressed with Letters Patent issued a week before their wedding in May 1937. While Wallis would automatically assume the title of Duchess of Windsor as the wife of a Peer, her rank was limited to a Duchess, rather than a Princess, and she would not be HRH. The King took the position that Edward's wife and children could never succeed to the throne and royal rank was therefore limited to him as a son of The Sovereign.

The Duke never accepted the validity of the Letters Patent, stating he was entitled to HRH by right of his birth and there was no question his wife was entitled to share his rank. But the rank and style can be bestowed or removed at any time by The Sovereign, so that was the end of that.

Technically, the marriage was morganatic because legally The Duke's wife and any future children were prohibited from sharing his rank. But they could share his title as a Peer and the Dukedom was hereditary to the male heirs of the body.
The Duke never accepted it, and as a morganatic marriage was deemed impossible through the questioning of whether or not the Duchess could marry the Duke and have him remain King, then the validity of the LPs stating that she was not an HRH are questionable. Yes, they were issues, yes they were followed in Britain (the Duke himself insisted that his wife be treated as an HRH while they lived in France), but that doesn't mean they were legal.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #1905  
Old 02-17-2013, 03:16 PM
Ish's Avatar
Ish Ish is online now
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Vancouver, Canada
Posts: 2,164
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dman View Post
I'm not sure Camilla will be called Duchess of Lancaster. I think The Duke of Lancaster only extend to the King or Queen.
I think the only reason why the Duchess of Lancaster thing came up because we were looking for an alternative to Princess Consort. The consensus here seems to be that no one likes the idea of Camilla being called Princess Consort (alternatively because it's ridiculous, it's morganatic, it's too complicated, and it's given too much to the late Diana who would not have been Queen herself), but are willing to see Camilla take one of Charles' lesser titles as the title she is commonly known by, as she's done now. Duchess of Lancaster simply got tossed in because HM is the Duke of Lancaster and while it's debatable whether that's a valid title or an honorary one, it's still one that exists already.

The point overall, is that if this forum and those engaging in this debate are an adequate representation of people who care about the monarchy, then the title "Princess Consort" is not one that's viewed as palatable.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #1906  
Old 02-17-2013, 03:20 PM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: , United States
Posts: 2,736
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roslyn View Post
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.
The Sovereign is not The Duke of Lancaster and it is impossible for a wife to be known by that title because her husband is not a Duke. It is simply a style used when the monarch decides to use it for him/herself as a point of honour and/or informally (i.e. Queen Victoria liked to travel incognito to Nice as "Countess of Lancaster").

Remember it was proposed in 1936 that Wallis Simpson could become The Duchess of Lancaster if The King married morganatically and this was rejected by the Baldwin Government. Constitutionally, the wife of The King is automatically Queen in her own right by virtue of marriage and remains a queen if she is widowed.

So, the idea that Camilla could be known by some lesser title or style when the time comes ignores the fact that the precedents of 1936 have already established this is not possible without legislation.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #1907  
Old 02-17-2013, 03:30 PM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: , United States
Posts: 2,736
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ish View Post
The Duke never accepted it, and as a morganatic marriage was deemed impossible through the questioning of whether or not the Duchess could marry the Duke and have him remain King, then the validity of the LPs stating that she was not an HRH are questionable. Yes, they were issues, yes they were followed in Britain (the Duke himself insisted that his wife be treated as an HRH while they lived in France), but that doesn't mean they were legal.
It was legal because Letters Patent were issued making it law. Whether it was appropriate or fair is irrelevant because The Sovereign alone decides who may hold royal rank as HRH Prince/Princess of the UK.

Wallis did become a Duchess automatically as the wife of a Peer and the eldest male child would have inherited the Dukedom had there been any children. So from a legal perspective, she held her husband's title and style, but did not enjoy his rank, which was entirely within the gift of The Sovereign.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #1908  
Old 02-17-2013, 04:45 PM
Roslyn's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Tintenbar, Australia
Posts: 2,656
Quote:
Originally Posted by branchg View Post
So, the idea that Camilla could be known by some lesser title or style when the time comes ignores the fact that the precedents of 1936 have already established this is not possible without legislation.
I wonder though, whether on re-examination by different legal minds, and with a different object in mind, there might be a different outcome. I have serious doubts about the soundness of those precedents of 1936.

Sir Walter Monckton told Diana Mosley that nothing and nobody could take away the Duke's title, as son of a sovereign, of Royal Highness, and that being legally married his wife was automatically a Royal Highness too, and that the Duke would have won an action to establish the Duchess' right to be HRH if he were to bring one. "The Duchess of Windsor", Diana Mosley, 1980, as revised 2003, paperback, p. 138.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #1909  
Old 02-17-2013, 04:51 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Toronto (ON) & London (UK), Canada
Posts: 5,261
If she was suitable to become the legal, non-morganatic wife of HRH The Prince of Wales I see no good reason why upon his accession to the throne she should not be HM Queen Camilla. The whole HRH The Duchess of Cornwall bit was to ease over the Dianiacs hysteria and avoid comparissons to his late wife. Diana has been dead for 15 years now, they have been married for nearly 8 years and she seems to have been accepted by most of the public as his wife and as a member of the royal family. No good reason why she should not become Queen.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #1910  
Old 02-17-2013, 04:56 PM
Dman's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Midwest, United States
Posts: 6,747
I think if Camilla wants to be called The Princess Consort, then I think she should be granted to be called HRH The Princess Consort. I wouldn't argue with her on that. I know that debate will come up again in the future though. The press will milk that debate until all members of the royal family run out of Buckingham Palace screaming.

If she's called Her Majesty The Queen, I wouldn't argue with that either. I think the best thing is to let it go and let it be once the time comes.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #1911  
Old 02-17-2013, 05:34 PM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: City on islands, Sweden
Posts: 1,086
Should the right to be called Her Majesty The Queen for the spouse of a monarch to be some kind of beauty or popularity contest?? I don't see any reason for Camilla not to accept the title queen when her husband ascends the throne. That she was to be called the duchess of Cornwall when married in 2005 was due to the fact that the death of Diana was still fairly recent, but I think Camilla have done a great job as consort to Charles and should have the right to the title queen as every other female spouse to British kings have had.

Or should the title queen be reserved for the first spouse of a king, and that every time in the future a king for some reason remarries, be it due to divorce or the death of a wife, a second wife would have to accept a lesser title?
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #1912  
Old 02-17-2013, 05:38 PM
cepe's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 4,413
Quote:
Originally Posted by Meraude View Post
Should the right to be called Her Majesty The Queen for the spouse of a monarch to be some kind of beauty or popularity contest?? I don't see any reason for Camilla not to accept the title queen when her husband ascends the throne. That she was to be called the duchess of Cornwall when married in 2005 was due to the fact that the death of Diana was still fairly recent, but I think Camilla have done a great job as consort to Charles and should have the right to the title queen as every other female spouse to British kings have had.

Or should the title queen be reserved for the first spouse of a king, and that every time in the future a king for some reason remarries, be it due to divorce or the death of a wife, a second wife would have to accept a lesser title?
Great post. Charles should not fudge it - she's his wife; she is queen - end of story. There will not be riots in the streets; some unknown MPs will tut-tut in the House but the fact is divorce is acceptable these days; they are married - just get on with it.

I also think that his rating will, in the long term, improve if he is seen not to compromise in any way.
__________________

This precious stone set in the silver sea,......
This blessed plot, this earth, this realm, this England,
Reply With Quote
  #1913  
Old 02-17-2013, 05:46 PM
Ish's Avatar
Ish Ish is online now
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Vancouver, Canada
Posts: 2,164
There are 2 other issues related to this topic that we haven't discussed.

1. If William and Harry can accept Camilla as their step-mother (and by many accounts they have), then what right do we have to deny her the right to be recognized as her husband's equal wife? Regardless of whatever title she uses, her role will be the same, so why make a fuss and change things out of what seems like a tribute to Diana?

2. The current attempts to change the succession laws have to be approved in 16 independent realms. There have been reports that some of those realms have not necessarily been eager to embrace such a change. When Edward VIII wished to make Wallis Simpson his wife it was debated in each of his realms. Thus if it would take an Act of Parliament to change the title of Camilla, doesn't it then reason that it would require an Act of Parliament in all 16 realms? And what happens if they donn't all pass it - is she going to be the Princess Consort of the UK while also the Queen of Canada?
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #1914  
Old 02-17-2013, 06:15 PM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: , United States
Posts: 2,736
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roslyn View Post

I wonder though, whether on re-examination by different legal minds, and with a different object in mind, there might be a different outcome. I have serious doubts about the soundness of those precedents of 1936.

Sir Walter Monckton told Diana Mosley that nothing and nobody could take away the Duke's title, as son of a sovereign, of Royal Highness, and that being legally married his wife was automatically a Royal Highness too, and that the Duke would have won an action to establish the Duchess' right to be HRH if he were to bring one. "The Duchess of Windsor", Diana Mosley, 1980, as revised 2003, paperback, p. 138.
The Duke never lost his right to be HRH because his brother reaffirmed his right to hold royal rank as a son of George V. He chose not to allow his wife and future children to hold it by issuing Letters Patent stating as much. Once that happened, The Duke never had a legal position because the right of The Sovereign to regulate the rank and style of HRH is indisputable.

The issue of her title was automatic in law as the wife of a Peer.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #1915  
Old 02-17-2013, 08:50 PM
Baroness of Books's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Bookstacks, United States
Posts: 5,772
Camilla will be Queen Consort when Charles ascends the throne since it is her right as his spouse to automatically assume that title. It would take a lot of legislation to change this, so popularity contest aside, the title cannot be denied her. And why should it?
__________________
A book should be either a bandit or a rebel or a man in the crowd..... D.H. Lawrence
Reply With Quote
  #1916  
Old 02-17-2013, 09:05 PM
cepe's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 4,413
[QUOTE=Baroness of Books;1518264]Camilla will be Queen Consort when Charles ascends the throne since it is her right as his spouse to automatically assume that title. It would take a lot of legislation to change this, so popularity contest aside, the title cannot be denied her. And why should it?[/QUOTE]

well... we need an Artemesia or Iluvbertie to answer this but I can give a heads up.

There is a constitutional school of thought that states Charles was not in a position to marry Camilla -ordinary mortals yes; heirs to the throne no. All around the fact that she is a divorcee. This is a proverbial can of worms because you know what happens when 3 constitutional experts get in a room - 7 opinions!

Charles had to fight to marry Camilla - absolutely not negotiable - but he needed to soothe/smooth the angst and he stated at the time that she would not be Queen but princess consort.

Now I may have this wrong and have merged separate events but this is how I remember it. I think he should have kept quiet but the detail of the time eludes me and there may have been a lot of pressure.

I am in need of an expert. so expert alert!
__________________

This precious stone set in the silver sea,......
This blessed plot, this earth, this realm, this England,
Reply With Quote
  #1917  
Old 02-17-2013, 09:14 PM
Baroness of Books's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Bookstacks, United States
Posts: 5,772
Oy, too convoluted for me! Nothing is ever as it seems. Expert alert indeed!
__________________
A book should be either a bandit or a rebel or a man in the crowd..... D.H. Lawrence
Reply With Quote
  #1918  
Old 02-17-2013, 09:35 PM
cepe's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 4,413
Quote:
Originally Posted by Baroness of Books View Post
Oy, too convoluted for me! Nothing is ever as it seems. Expert alert indeed!
It stemmed from the fact he married through a civil service rather than through the CoE - and negative press in the UK at the time said that the uncertainty was one of the reasons QEII didn't go to the Guildhall service, but only the blessing.

As usual in the UK getting the clear facts as opposed to personal opinion from the press is almost impossible.
__________________

This precious stone set in the silver sea,......
This blessed plot, this earth, this realm, this England,
Reply With Quote
  #1919  
Old 02-17-2013, 09:58 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Toronto (ON) & London (UK), Canada
Posts: 5,261
Well a civil marriage is a legal marriage in the UK so she is his lawful wife and the Archbishop of Canterbury did say he was pleased with the decision to marry and indeed he performed the Service of Blessing for the marriage in the very CofE St Georges Chapel so neither the state nor the Church can claim she is not his lawful wife and if she were not his wife why is she HRH The Duchess of Cornwall GCVO?
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #1920  
Old 02-17-2013, 10:02 PM
Baroness of Books's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Bookstacks, United States
Posts: 5,772
Let's hope it plays out the same way with the greater title, otherwise why such palaver over her being denied queen consort.
__________________

__________________
A book should be either a bandit or a rebel or a man in the crowd..... D.H. Lawrence
Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
british royal family, consort, spouse, styles and titles


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Titles and Styles of Harry, his Future Wife and Children Aussie Princess Prince Harry and Prince William 1110 07-12-2014 10:00 PM
Questions About [non-British] Styles and Titles Lord Sosnowitz Royal Ceremony and Protocol 717 05-17-2014 05:44 PM
Diana's Styles and Titles florawindsor Diana, Princess of Wales (1961-1997) 573 11-14-2013 11:59 AM
Styles and Titles Nahla10 Ruling Family of Dubai 36 08-08-2013 12:05 PM
Abdication Beatrix and Inauguration WA: Titles, Names, Succession, Precedence Princess Robijn Abdication & Inauguration 2013 67 05-24-2013 03:14 PM




Additional Links
Popular Tags
birth charlene chris o'neill crown prince frederik crown prince haakon crown princess letizia crown princess mary crown princess mette-marit current events duchess of cambridge dutch royal history engagement fashion grand duchess maria teresa grand duke henri hohenzollern infanta sofia jewellery jordan kate middleton king abdullah ii king carl xvi gustav king felipe king felipe vi king harald king juan carlos king philippe king willem-alexander luxembourg nobility olympic games ottoman pom president hollande president komorowski prince albert prince albert ii prince carl philip prince felipe prince floris prince maurits prince pieter-christiaan princess anita princess astrid princess beatrix princess charlene princess laurentien princess letizia princess mabel princess madeleine princess margriet princess mary princess mary fashion queen anne-marie queen letizia queen mathilde queen maxima queen rania queen silvia queen sofia royal royal fashion russia sofia hellqvist spain state visit sweden visit wedding winter olympics 2014



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 08:05 AM.

Social Knowledge Networks

eXTReMe Tracker
Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2014
Jelsoft Enterprises

Royal News Delivered to your Email!

You can get the latest Royal News right in your inbox.

unsusbcribe at anytime with one click

Close [X]