Questions about British Styles and Titles 1: Ending 2022

[Osipi]

But there is a difference between the expressed opinions of Buckingham Palace in relation to the Wessex children and the Sussex children. Buckingham Palace has said they believe the Wessex children are not legally princess and prince (even though some interpret it differently), but that Archie will become legally a prince even if he is not known as such.

This is true and we have no clue what is going to happen in the future when Charles becomes King. Most likely though, this will happen while Archie is still very much a minor and the fact remains that until Archie reaches 18 years old, he will also be a citizen of the US. It will be up to him personally to either keep or revoke his US citizenship. Prince Albert of Monaco did as an adult. Queen Noor did also and so did Elizabeth Taylor when she married Richard Burton. (Taylor though became a US citizen again when she married John Warner) This is what I believe is the difference between the Wessex and the Sussex children. The dual nationality.

Using "Master" Archie as a child right now, to me, is his parents embracing the fact that their son has dual nationalities. In time, Archie will decide for himself what fits him best. All we can do now is sit back and watch and see what develops over the years. We know Archie is entitled to use his father's secondary title as a courtesy but, for now, he won't. With the Queen in on any decision made in this regard, I have to believe that these people know what they are doing.

 

[Iluvbertie]

This is true and we have no clue what is going to happen in the future when Charles becomes King. Most likely though, this will happen while Archie is still very much a minor and the fact remains that until Archie reaches 18 years old, he will also be a citizen of the US. It will be up to him personally to either keep or revoke his US citizenship.

He could even decide to renounce his British citizenship and only keep his US citizenship if he wants.

By the time he is 18 his grandfather will be King, if not his Uncle and he may very well decide he would rather not have anything to do with the entire royal 'scene' and embrace the opportunity of leaving the UK and living permanently in the US or someone else as a US citizen.

 

[jacqui24]

He could even decide to renounce his British citizenship and only keep his US citizenship if he wants.

By the time he is 18 his grandfather will be King, if not his Uncle and he may very well decide he would rather not have anything to do with the entire royal 'scene' and embrace the opportunity of leaving the UK and living permanently in the US or someone else as a US citizen.

While I think it’d be interesting to see how the public reacts to someone this close to the royal family renouncing U.K. citizenship in favor of US citizenship, I don’t see why it would happen even if he chooses to live in US. There is a very specific reason why US citizens living abroad renounce their citizenship, and that’s the worldwide tax imposed on US citizens. Not the same case in Britain.

Although, I think we can assume that his name will be the same on his U.K. birth certificate and US proof of citizenship with him not using a courtesy title. Imagine the pain in the Behind of having to enter US with passport with one name and going back to U.K. using passport with another.

 

[Somebody]

I apologize for my mistake. And my hysterical response. ?

But the power & prestige of the hereditary peerage have steadily eroded over the past 100 years, beginning with the passage of the Parliament Act of 1911, followed by (among others) the Life Peerages Act of 1958, the Peerage Act of 1963 (allowing hereditary peers to disclaim their title), and the House of Lords Act of 1999. In the past 54 years only four hereditary peerages have been created outside the Royal family, the last in 1984. I've read that some members of Parliament refuse to consider the idea of amending peerages to allow daughters to succeed because they prefer to see the titles die out. It is no longer expected that members of the RF marry into a titled family, in fact the Queen's grandson and eventual heir married into a wealthy but middle class family. In 1963 Princess Alexandra's husband refused a peerage followed (reportedly) by Princess Anne's in 1973. And the government has also imposed death duties which have whittled away at the wealth of many titled families, forcing many to sell their estates.

It is clear that many *big* steps have already been taken (long before we were even born) that might eventually bring the system down.

You are right, it is part of a bigger picture. I am not sure that the queen's grandson should be one to add to it

Yes, and the 1917 LPs were clear about how William's children should have been styled but the Queen chose to override them by issuing new LPs. Now that Harry & Meghan have chosen not to follow them for their own child, I guess we can say the 1917 LPs are *consistently* being ignored as they apply to great-grandchildren of the Sovereign in the male line. ?

?

In the case of William and Catherine's children there was a very good reason to override as the rules were about to change regarding an older sister becoming the future Sovereign instead of a younger brother. So, they were still in line with the reasoning behind the LPs; i.e., that a future Sovereign should be born as HRH.

But you are right that for this Sovereign's great-grandchildren the LPs are consistently being ignored, however, many other great-grandchildren of a Sovereign were born in the queen's reign and for all others the rules were consistently applied:
- The eldest sons of the dukes of Gloucester and Kent are known by their courtesy title;
- Their younger siblings are styled as Lord and Lady;
- The children of the younger brother of the Duke of Kent are also styled as Lord and Lady

 

[Abbigail]

ok

My opinion of this issue is as follows


Nobody knows what Prince Charles has in mind for the future, but I truly think He is not the type of person who would differentiate among his grandchildren as far dignities are concerned especially when they are untitled to them in light of the LP of 1917
All the talk about shrinking the firm is just projection. No new LP gonna be issued at the start of his reign

Differences between his grandchildren and Edward's children if there is is not of his doing, but rather Edward and Sophie's choices

All his grandchildren is male line will be HRH
Camilla will Be Queen Consort, there will be no such thing as Princess Consort

What is happening now is just a trick, without any title they are shielding Archie from the press

I don't know if "trick" is the word I would use but I share all of your thoughts on this.

I also saw Robert Jobson on one of the morning shows the other day and he is convinced Archie will become HRH. I'm not sure how reliable he is but I think that's more likely to happen than Charles issuing LP to prevent it from happening. I just don't see Charles doing that unless Harry and Meghan really wanted it and if that were the case, I think the Queen would have done so herself already.

 

[Sterling3763]

I also saw Robert Jobson on one of the morning shows the other day and he is convinced Archie will become HRH. I'm not sure how reliable he is but I think that's more likely to happen than Charles issuing LP to prevent it from happening. I just don't see Charles doing that unless Harry and Meghan really wanted it and if that were the case, I think the Queen would have done so herself already.

The Queen did not act because there's no reason for her to do so. Under the 1917 LP, Archie isn't a prince. If H&M don't want him to be one, well, they won't be during her reign. Mission accomplished.

It's only when Charles becomes King that this becomes an issue. Therefore, the Queen will allow Charles (with input from H&M) to sort it out. There's no reason for her to make this her problem.

I can really see this going both ways.
On the one hand, H&M have set the stage to allow Charles to issue new LP that only give HRH to heirs of the heir. The entire family can say this is consistent with H&M's desires and point to the fact that from birth they have eschewed all titles for Archie.

On the other hand, if the RF knows that eventually the child will be HRH Prince Archie of Sussex, why let the public and the media get used to referring to him as Archie, Earl of Dumbarton/Archie Dumbarton? Just wait a few years and he'll be "Prince Archie of Sussex" forevermore. Also, will Charles really want his first acts to be (i) making Camilla Queen, while (ii) denying his grandson a princely title? Weird dichotomy.

 

[Nice Nofret]

Charles doesn't have to make Camilla Queen - she will be the moment Elisabeth closes her eyes for ever.

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

But there is a difference between the expressed opinions of Buckingham Palace in relation to the Wessex children and the Sussex children. Buckingham Palace has said they believe the Wessex children are not legally princess and prince (even though some interpret it differently), but that Archie will become legally a prince even if he is not known as such.
http://www.theroyalforums.com/forum...sh-styles-and-titles-258-219.html#post2220514

How can James, born to a Sovereign's son, not legally be a prince while Archie, born to a future Sovereign's son, will legally become a prince?

Maybe it is me, but where is the logic in that?

 

[Curryong]

Perhaps because of the statement issued at the time of the Wessex wedding, with regard to their future children. No such statement was issued last May about any the styling for Harry and Meghan's offspring.

I was just wondering the other day as to whether Archie being a dual citizen until he is 18 would affect his being given an HRH at the beginning of Charles's reign? Or indeed his use of an earldom now.

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

Perhaps because of the statement issued at the time of the Wessex wedding, with regard to their future children. No such statement was issued last May about any the styling for Harry and Meghan's offspring.

Does a mere "statement" overrule a Letters Patent under the Great Seal of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland?

"[.....] It is declared by the Letters Patent that the children of any Sovereign of the United Kingdom and the children of the sons of any such Sovereign shall have and at all times hold and enjoy the style, title or attribute of Royal Highness with their titular dignity of Prince or Princess [.....] "

Source: https://www.heraldica.org/topics/britain/prince_highness_docs.htm#1917_2

 

[Abbigail]

The Queen did not act because there's no reason for her to do so. Under the 1917 LP, Archie isn't a prince. If H&M don't want him to be one, well, they won't be during her reign. Mission accomplished.

It's only when Charles becomes King that this becomes an issue. Therefore, the Queen will allow Charles (with input from H&M) to sort it out. There's no reason for her to make this her problem.

I can really see this going both ways.
On the one hand, H&M have set the stage to allow Charles to issue new LP that only give HRH to heirs of the heir. The entire family can say this is consistent with H&M's desires and point to the fact that from birth they have eschewed all titles for Archie.

On the other hand, if the RF knows that eventually the child will be HRH Prince Archie of Sussex, why let the public and the media get used to referring to him as Archie, Earl of Dumbarton/Archie Dumbarton? Just wait a few years and he'll be "Prince Archie of Sussex" forevermore. Also, will Charles really want his first acts to be (i) making Camilla Queen, while (ii) denying his grandson a princely title? Weird dichotomy.

Yes I know the Queen didn't *have* to act. I'm saying that if Harry and Meghan were so strongly against it or had made up their minds, I think we would know, be it through LP or a statement confirming that Archie won't become HRH. It's because HRH would automatically apply that I don't think they would leave it for Charles. Indeed, it seems like an unnecessary problem to hand him, given everything else that'll be on his table and particularly if Harry and Meghan's intentions are already set and clear.

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

[.....] Harry and Meghan's intentions are already set and clear.

I doubt their intentions are clear. The Prince accepted peerages and is now the Duke of Sussex, Earl of Dumbarton and Baron Kilkeel. As a result Archie is what he is: the future Duke.

In due time Harry will be a Sovereign's son. As a result Archie will be what he will be: a prince of the United Kingdom.

If the intentions of the parents were so clear, they could have started with the three peerages of Harry himself. Just refuse. Like Mark Phillips did. Like Sir Angus Ogilvy did. Moreover: Harry and Meghan can have intentions, but Archie can have his own opinion about the matter. The legality of the Letters Patent is as enforceable to him, as it is to his father. Sussex, Dumbarton and Kilkeel are not "Harry's titles". They are much the titles of Harry, Archie and the male heirs after them. Harry can not take a decision in 2019 which affects Archie's rights in 2043. Impossible.

 

[jacqui24]

Does a mere "statement" overrule a Letters Patent under the Great Seal of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland?

"[.....] It is declared by the Letters Patent that the children of any Sovereign of the United Kingdom and the children of the sons of any such Sovereign shall have and at all times hold and enjoy the style, title or attribute of Royal Highness with their titular dignity of Prince or Princess [.....] "

Source: https://www.heraldica.org/topics/britain/prince_highness_docs.htm#1917_2

I THINK, with some of the discussion I've seen here, that was a question posed to BP by someone here (Iluvbertie?) if the Wessex children are technically HRHs just not using their title since no LP was issued. The answer was that the Queen's wish was enough to take it away, and the statement at the time of the Wessex wedding was enough to consider as the Queen's wish. So LP isn't necessary.

What's awkward here is that while Archie isn't an HRH in this reign, he automatically becomes an HRH when Charles ascends to the throne under the 1917 LP. And then Charles has to take it away after he's had it. So why not preempt it like they did with the Wessex children if they can. I don't know if the Queen has the power to take away an HRH under the next reign without changing the LP. I would think so given that she can simply issue an LP and limit it for the next reign as well.

I was surprised BP didn't announce a clear decision on this right now. I just figured they would want one less issue at the beginning of Charles III's reign. While I understand that Archie's status and Camilla's are separate, that's not how it'll be viewed. Taking away his grandson's title while going back on his word regarding Camilla's, albeit well-deserved, title? It has the potential to rile up those that do not support Camilla.

I was just wondering the other day as to whether Archie being a dual citizen until he is 18 would affect his being given an HRH at the beginning of Charles's reign? Or indeed his use of an earldom now.

I would think so given Meghan is an HRH. Although it would've been interest to see how his name appear on his US documents had they used the courtesy title (Archie Dumbarton or Archie Mountbatten Windsor). Not that we would ever see it either way. But let's say if Harry passes before Archie turns 18. Has there been a Duke with American citizenship before? Interesting stuff.

Charles doesn't have to make Camilla Queen - she will be the moment Elisabeth closes her eyes for ever.

While that's normally the case. A statement was released, at the time of their wedding, that she'd be styled as Princess Consort. Now, there has been signs they might have changed their minds on that. While I think Camilla certainly deserves the title, and I do believe Charles would want his wife to have the title as well, it need to be addressed when the time comes.

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

I THINK, with some of the discussion I've seen here, that was a question posed to BP by someone here (Iluvbertie?) if the Wessex children are technically HRHs just not using their title since no LP was issued. The answer was that the Queen's wish was enough to take it away, and the statement at the time of the Wessex wedding was enough to consider as the Queen's wish. So LP isn't necessary to override it.

The LP uses the word any two times in one sentence: "children of any Sovereign, and children of sons of any such Sovereign". And the same LP uses the phrase at all times: "at all times hold and enjoy the style, title or attribute of Royal Highness with their titular dignity of Prince or Princess".

If true it is remarkable (and hard to believe) that such a carefully worded legal document, which is the foundation of the titulature of the royal family, can be swept aside with "a statement".

 

[Abbigail]

I doubt their intentions are clear. The Prince accepted peerages and is now the Duke of Sussex, Earl of Dumbarton and Baron Kilkeel. As a result Archie is what he is: the future Duke.

In due time Harry will be a Sovereign's son. As a result Archie will be what he will be: a prince of the United Kingdom.

If the intentions of the parents were so clear, they could have started with the three peerages of Harry himself. Just refuse. Like Mark Phillips did. Like Sir Angus Ogilvy did. Moreover: Harry and Meghan can have intentions, but Archie can have his own opinion about the matter. The legality of the Letters Patent is as enforceable to him, as it is to his father. Sussex, Dumbarton and Kilkeel are not "Harry's titles". They are much the titles of Harry, Archie and the male heirs after them. Harry can not take a decision in 2019 which affects Archie's rights in 2043. Impossible.

I understand why they may not have refused, as Meghan would have been known as Princess Henry. That said, I don't see much reason to believe they have any qualms with Archie becoming DoS or HRH. That's my point.

I THINK, with some of the discussion I've seen here, that was a question posed to BP by someone here (Iluvbertie?) if the Wessex children are technically HRHs just not using their title since no LP was issued. The answer was that the Queen's wish was enough to take it away, and the statement at the time of the Wessex wedding was enough to consider as the Queen's wish. So LP isn't necessary.

What's awkward here is that while Archie isn't an HRH in this reign, he automatically becomes an HRH when Charles ascends to the throne under the 1917 LP. And then Charles has to take it away after he's had it. So why not preempt it like they did with the Wessex children if they can. I don't know if the Queen has the power to take away an HRH under the next reign without changing the LP. I would think so given that she can simply issue an LP and limit it for the next reign as well.

I was surprised BP didn't announce a clear decision on this right now. I just figured they would want one less issue at the beginning of Charles III's reign. While I understand that Archie's status and Camilla's are separate, that's not how it'll be viewed. Taking away his grandson's title while going back on his word regarding Camilla's, albeit well-deserved, title? It has the potential to rile up those that do not support Camilla.

I too was surprised we did not get a clear decision. Though one could argue that they learned from the Camilla situation and decided just to not say anything. But the simplest explanation imo is that Archie will become HRH. Charles likely won't be taking any action.

 

[jacqui24]

The LP uses the word any two times in one sentence: "children of any Sovereign, and children of sons of any such Sovereign". And the same LP uses the phrase at all times: "at all times hold and enjoy the style, title or attribute of Royal Highness with their titular dignity of Prince or Princess".

If true it is remarkable (and hard to believe) that such a carefully worded legal document, which is the foundation of the titulature of the royal family, can be swept aside with "a statement".

On top of that, what is the point of a LP if you are just going to keep overriding it? At that point, just issue a new LP.

 

[Rudolph]

The LP uses the word any two times in one sentence: "children of any Sovereign, and children of sons of any such Sovereign". And the same LP uses the phrase at all times: "at all times hold and enjoy the style, title or attribute of Royal Highness with their titular dignity of Prince or Princess".

If true it is remarkable (and hard to believe) that such a carefully worded legal document, which is the foundation of the titulature of the royal family, can be swept aside with "a statement".

We need to be careful using the word 'legal' when it comes to royal titles.

Francois Velde, and expert in the field had this to say:

"At the time, many people have expressed the notion that a press release was not sufficient to modify the Letters Patent of 1917, and that Louise could not be deprived of her "rights" without letters patent."

"The fact is that royal styles and titles are a matter of royal prerogative, that does not require the advice of the government (the Letters Patent of 1917 were issued without any such advice). "

"The sovereign's will and pleasure is all that matters, and she can change styles and titles as she pleases."

"How that pleasure is publicized, by letters patent, warrant, press release or verbal declaration, is immaterial."

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

We need to be careful using the word 'legal' when it comes to royal titles.

Francois Velde, and expert in the field had this to say:

"At the time, many people have expressed the notion that a press release was not sufficient to modify the Letters Patent of 1917, and that Louise could not be deprived of her "rights" without letters patent."

"The fact is that royal styles and titles are a matter of royal prerogative, that does not require the advice of the government (the Letters Patent of 1917 were issued without any such advice). "

"The sovereign's will and pleasure is all that matters, and she can change styles and titles as she pleases."

"How that pleasure is publicized, by letters patent, warrant, press release or verbal declaration, is immaterial."

Thanks. By doing so BP takes the unclarity and public discussion for granted, so it seems. Of course, the advantage of being vague is that you can move into any desired direction.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

Here is the answer Iluvbertie received from Buckingham Palace:

The letter said that Louise and James are not HRHs as The Queen's Will, that they aren't holders of that styling, has been made known via the announcement made on Edward's wedding day.

The letter is as follows:

Dear xxxxx (sorry not making public my name)

Thank you for your request for clarification about the question of the styling of the children of HRH The Earl of Wessex.

You are correct in your interpretation of the announcement made in 1999.

The Queen's Will was made known on HRH The Earl of Wessex's wedding day and as such none of his children do now, nor will in the future, have the style of HRH Prince or Princess. As Her Majesty is the fount of all honours all that is needed for a style to be given or taken, except for a substantive peerage, is that Her Majesty's Will is made known.

Thank you for your interest in this subject.

I too was surprised we did not get a clear decision. Though one could argue that they learned from the Camilla situation and decided just to not say anything. But the simplest explanation imo is that Archie will become HRH. Charles likely won't be taking any action.

Strangely, they apparently did say that Archie would become a Royal Highness, but for whatever reason said it to royal correspondents via an anonymous "senior royal source" instead of a clear public announcement.

http://www.theroyalforums.com/forum...sh-styles-and-titles-258-219.html#post2220514

 

[jacqui24]

Strangely, they apparently did say that Archie would become a Royal Highness, but for whatever reason said it to royal correspondents via an anonymous "senior royal source" instead of a clear public announcement.

http://www.theroyalforums.com/forum...sh-styles-and-titles-258-219.html#post2220514

I don't if I would say that as they said it to royal correspondents. It's not any different than other rumors that gets published. There are other sources that are saying Sussexes has not expressed opinion on this matter either way.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

I don't if I would say that as they said it to royal correspondents. It's not any different than other rumors that gets published. There are other sources that are saying Sussexes has not expressed opinion on this matter either way.

That is true; other correspondents were apparently told that Archie would be allowed the use of HRH Prince under the Letters Patent in Charles' reign but no decision had been taken. It is strange that different correspondents seem to have been supplied with different answers by the royal source/s.

 

[Abbigail]

Strangely, they apparently did say that Archie would become a Royal Highness, but for whatever reason said it to royal correspondents via an anonymous "senior royal source" instead of a clear public announcement.

http://www.theroyalforums.com/forum...sh-styles-and-titles-258-219.html#post2220514

Victoria Murphy and Jobson, in particular, seem sure of this but as other reporters are saying no preference has been expressed, I don't think we can say this came directly from BP.

 

[loonytick]

That is true; other correspondents were apparently told that Archie would be allowed the use of HRH Prince under the Letters Patent in Charles' reign but no decision had been taken. It is strange that different correspondents seem to have been supplied with different answers by the royal source/s.

I don't think it's that strange.

We see evidence all the time that some people in royal offices who believe they know everything that's going on actually don't. They say things to the press with great confidence, the press believe them because they don't (and can't) really have adequate information to assess just how inside this person is on this particular issue, and it turns out the real talking on the matter didn't include that staffer.

I suspect it especially happens when, for example, the staff they bring into a certain discussion is all based at BP but the source is of rank at CH or KP. They haven't seen the talks happening in their own office, the news hadn't slipped out to their office that this thing was in the works elsewhere, they assume they have complete info, but...they don't.

 

[muriel]

A statement was released, at the time of their wedding, that she'd be styled as Princess Consort. Now, there has been signs they might have changed their minds on that.

At the time of their engagement the statement said that it was "intended" that, on Charles' accession, Camilla would be styled at the HRH Princess Consort. At time passes, intentions may need to be revisited. Noticeably, in recent years, reference to Prince Consort has been removed from the website of the Prince of Wales.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

I don't think it's that strange.

We see evidence all the time that some people in royal offices who believe they know everything that's going on actually don't. They say things to the press with great confidence, the press believe them because they don't (and can't) really have adequate information to assess just how inside this person is on this particular issue, and it turns out the real talking on the matter didn't include that staffer.

I suspect it especially happens when, for example, the staff they bring into a certain discussion is all based at BP but the source is of rank at CH or KP. They haven't seen the talks happening in their own office, the news hadn't slipped out to their office that this thing was in the works elsewhere, they assume they have complete info, but...they don't.

Thank you for the clarifying perspective. Is it then the most probable scenario that a decision has been made to follow the Letters Patent, but the decision has not been made known to all ranking staffers?

 

[Fem]

At the time of their engagement the statement said that it was "intended" that, on Charles' accession, Camilla would be styled at the HRH Princess Consort. At time passes, intentions may need to be revisited. Noticeably, in recent years, reference to Prince Consort has been removed from the website of the Prince of Wales.

Honestly, I don't mind that happening. Since the wedding Camilla proved more times than we can count what a tremendous asset she is to the BRF, that she's accepted by the family, that her work has solid footing and matters. She's not flashy, she loves her husband, she has good values and ethic.

Though I do understand that making her the Queen Consort would be seen as awful by some people, I think I'd actually like that.

 

[Rudolph]

Camilla clearly will be Charles's Queen. She deserves it

 

[Osipi]

I don't think it's that strange.

We see evidence all the time that some people in royal offices who believe they know everything that's going on actually don't. They say things to the press with great confidence, the press believe them because they don't (and can't) really have adequate information to assess just how inside this person is on this particular issue, and it turns out the real talking on the matter didn't include that staffer.

I suspect it especially happens when, for example, the staff they bring into a certain discussion is all based at BP but the source is of rank at CH or KP. They haven't seen the talks happening in their own office, the news hadn't slipped out to their office that this thing was in the works elsewhere, they assume they have complete info, but...they don't.

I see it as a big game of "telephone". If no one has played this before you sit in circle with a mess of people. One person whispers something to the person on their left and it passes around that circle until it comes back to the starting person. Most times, what is stated that the last person heard is totally different from what the original statement was.

A staff member may have some of the information on a certain thing and another staff member elsewhere has another piece of that information. Unless the staff person is part of the actual decision making conversations, they will not know the full story or all of the information.

Then again, tabloids tend to take the bits of information that will garner them the most clicks and money in their pockets rather than do research and get facts. As a matter of fact, what the media hears the most is "the palace refuses to comment" or "the palace has not returned our calls".

 

[jacqui24]

Thank you for the clarifying perspective. Is it then the most probable scenario that a decision has been made to follow the Letters Patent, but the decision has not been made known to all ranking staffers?

Not necessarily. Another at the office can have the assumption that they've agreed to it if they didn't decline while the couple might just not have declined because they are leaving it open for now.

 

[Lilyflo]

I think it's very likely that Camilla will be styled Queen because Charles clearly adores her & will want his wife to have the proper title rather than a lesser one. He knows that names/titles have strong emotional attachments so BP will probably refer to her as Queen Camilla as much as possible rather than The Queen, at least until people become accustomed to her status.