The Monarchy under Charles

[Daenerys Targaryen]

I would like to believe that Charles was being sincere when he made the statement that she will be Princess Consort (as is still on the BRF website), and not saying anything that would get the marriage accepted. So, I choose to take him at his word. I also think it's quite possible that Camilla does not want to be Queen.

As far as precedent of the wife taking the husband's rank and style, within the BRF, it was not that long ago when HRH the Duke of Windsor's wife was NOT an HRH with it's attendant bowing/curtseying. As HRH the Princess Consort, Camilla would of course, be curtseyed to, as she is now.

 

[Iluvbertie]

The difference with the wife of the Duke of Windsor was that she was specifically denied that right under the LPs issued to create the title and because she gained that position AFTER the king had abdicated. They didn't stop her using the female form of her husband's title but treated her more like the husband of an HRH rather than the wife of one e.g. neither of Anne's husbands gained HRH on marriage.

In this case they are denying the right of the wife to take the feminine form of her husband's title - something every other woman in the land is entitled to do. The very idea of her not being Queen makes the marriage morganatic and in 1936 it was determined that Britain doesn't recognise morganatic marriages, during the Abdication Crisis.

 

[VictoriaB]

Just as your President's wife is known as FLOTUS so too has the wife of the King in Britain been known as Queen.

Ill thought-out concessions were made when when Charles and Camilla married. But just as time has passed I believe most everyone in politics and the diplomatic service are hoping that hysteria has turned to reality and the UK doesn't get to "lose face" internationally.

Can you imagine how people will despise TPTB in the UK when they have to explain that . . . "well, you see, Charles and Camilla had an adulterous affair and this is her punishment, she only get's to be Princess Consort, yes, I know his ex wife was having affairs but, well, you know. No, of course having an affair is not grounds for punishment in the UK, but this is and exception. The King? Oh he doesn't get punished . . .

The reality of the whole farce will set the position of women as second class citizens back fifty years or more and make half the orders signed by the UK in the UN an exercise in totally hypocrisy.

So you see, it's not just Camilla that will be affected. The UK may not be an empire any more, but they don't want to be a joke either.

Thank you Marg. I have duel British-Australian citizenship and live in Queensland, Australia so I don't have a FLOTUS.

I'm sorry but have to respectfully disagree with you. I understand your argument but remain of the opinion that in the greater scheme of things, the title of the wife of the King impacts that person only. I hope Camilla is Queen or, at least if she is relegated to Princess Consort, that it is the title for Catherine & George's wife as well. It's not something I'm going to lie awake at night worrying about though unlike other things happening in the world at this time.

 

[MARG]

I have no problem with King Charles wife Camilla being the Princess Consort as long as every other wife of a sovereign is that too. That is to say, King William and his wife Princess Catherine.

What I am vehemently opposed to is a change of status that will affect Camilla only. That would be both a travesty and a joke.

 

[Osipi]

What I am vehemently opposed to is a change of status that will affect Camilla only. That would be both a travesty and a joke.

This is the big issue of the whole Princess Consort/Queen thing to me. To make it known that only Camilla will be known as a Princess Consort is blatantly playing a switcheroo that affects only one person and actually when you think about it, there's really no legal reason for it. The wife of a King is a Queen. If they're going to make the big change, it should be that Parliament is defining the title of a monarch and not playing "lets make a deal" with one person's style.

 

[Mbruno]

This is the big issue of the whole Princess Consort/Queen thing to me. To make it known that only Camilla will be known as a Princess Consort is blatantly playing a switcheroo that affects only one person and actually when you think about it, there's really no legal reason for it. The wife of a King is a Queen. .

It was done to Lilian Baels in Belgium in the past and neither she nor her husband had had an affair while married like Charles and Camilla.

 

[Iluvbertie]

Belgium laws and customs about the rights to titles and styles of spouses is probably different to the British ones. What they are proposing it to turn around and say that Charles and Camilla are in an unequal marriage - something that the government said, in 1936, didn't exist in the UK and wasn't possible. It was possible in many European countries throughout the centuries whereas it has never been the case in the UK so it isn't relevant what happens/ed in a European context as the customs and laws are different.

 

[Nico]

It was done to Lilian Baels in Belgium in the past and neither she nor her husband had had an affair while married like Charles and Camilla.

Nonsense. Lilian Baels was not Princess consort. Leopold III basically created for her the more or less fantasy title of Princess de Rethy, with the assurance to the Belgian Government that the children of the second marriage will not be in line to the throne.
A such Leopold III set a precedent, allowed by the Belgian law, of a morganatic marriage.
Morganatic marriage simply does not exist under the British law. As such Camilla is de jure Princess of Wales, but she wants to be known as Duchess of Cornwall. So, de jure, she will be Queen automatically. If she wants to be known as the Princess Consort is a personnal choice, not the law.

 

[Mbruno]

Nonsense. Lilian Baels was not Princess consort. Leopold III basically created for her the more or less fantasy title of Princess de Rethy, with the assurance to the Belgian Government that the children of the second marriage will not be in line to the throne.
A such Leopold III set a precedent, allowed by the Belgian law, of a morganatic marriage.
Morganatic marriage simply does not exist under the British law. As such Camilla is de jure Princess of Wales, but she wants to be known as Duchess of Cornwall. So, de jure, she will be Queen automatically. If she wants to be known as the Princess Consort is a personnal choice, not the law.

If their marriage was indeed morganatic as you say, why were their children princes of Belgium under KIng Leopold II's 1891 royal decree ? And why was Prince Alexandre in the line of succession to the throne (a position he lost only when he married later without royal consent) ?

From Wikipedia:

In the context of royalty, a morganatic marriage is a marriage between people of unequal social rank, which prevents the passage of the husband's titles and privileges to the wife and any children born of the marriage.

 

[Nico]

If their marriage was indeed morganatic as you say, why were their children princes of Belgium under KIng Leopold II's 1891 royal decree ? And why was Prince Alexandre in the line of succession to the throne (a position he lost only when he married later without royal consent) ?

From Wikipedia:

Their children were indeed titled Princes of Belgium by their father but i can assure you that Prince Alexandre was not in the line of succession . It was part of the deal with the Belgian Government. So the marriage with Lilian was indeed morganatic, as the children didn't have the same rank than their half siblings.
At some point Alexandre and his sisters were not seen as part of the Royal Family at all.
As such they were indeed HRH, but excluded from the main and reigning branch. It's still the case for the princesses Marie-Christine, Esmeralda and Léa.

The marriage was unequal and allowed as such by the Belgian law at this time. As pointed out previously, unequal marriage doesn't exist under the bristish law.

 

[Iluvbertie]

The problem with basing the argument on Camilla using Duchess of Cornwall as setting a precedent for her being Princess Consort is that it ignores the fact that she is married to the Duke of Cornwall and so is still using the feminine form of Charles' titles.

When Charles is King he will stop being a Prince and so she should stop being a Princess and move up to Queen with him.

That is a different situation to using the feminine form of a different title. She does use both Duchess of Rothesay in Scotland and Countess of Chester when in Chester while Charles uses Duke of Rothesay and Earl of Chester respectively.

It is only the Wales title she isn't using but she is using the feminine form of all of his other titles.

By asking to be Princess Consort she would be saying, loud and clear, I was never good enough to be his wife and then there has to be the question asked - well why was she good enough to use the female form of his titles while he was heir apparent but not now that he is King?

To me they have to sort this out before the situation arises and do so with legislation: have a law that says - regardless of gender the spouse will always remain HRH Prince/Princess Consort - so have Philip use that title and then Camilla and Kate and George's wife etc. No difference - and use the argument that as Philip has done such a fantastic job as the consort there is no need for a woman to have a style that is seen as 'senior' to that of a male consort and so for equality's sake all future spouses will be 'Prince/Princess Consort' and thus 'Queen' will only be held by a regnant and not a consort.

 

[Denville]

I would like to believe that Charles was being sincere when he made the statement that she will be Princess Consort (as is still on the BRF website), and not saying anything that would get the marriage accepted. So, I choose to take him at his word. I also think it's quite possible that Camilla does not want to be Queen.

As far as precedent of the wife taking the husband's rank and style, within the BRF, it was not that long ago when HRH the Duke of Windsor's wife was NOT an HRH with it's attendant bowing/curtseying. As HRH the Princess Consort, Camilla would of course, be curtseyed to, as she is now.

he was saying something diplomatic to soften the blow to Diana fans about the second marriage. She may not be that keen on being queen and I think the present queen was a bit uneasy, but I believe that they made the announcement that she would be called Duchess of C and later Prsss Consort, to stave off any more fuss aobut the marriage. I think they believed that as time passed Camilla would be accepted as his wife and as a good consort and that in a long time later, when the queen died, people would be fine with the idea of Camilla being queen. And I think that's happened. Tehy've been married for 12 years, they are accepted as a couple and as working together for the RF and I don't think that many people are bothered now that she will take the full title of queen.

 

[wyevale]

ALL it would take is for HMQ to insert into a speech " when my Son and Daughter-in-law are King and Queen", or[better] for William to say " When my Stepmother is Queen"...

Short sentences that would utterly silence those in opposition to the 'natural order of things' in these Kingdoms, and end the uncertainty definitively..

 

[Denville]

ALL it would take is for HMQ to insert into a speech " when my Son and Daughter-in-law are King and Queen", or[better] for William to say " When my Stepmother is Queen"...

Short sentences that would utterly silence those in opposition to the 'natural order of things' in these Kingdoms, and end the uncertainty definitively..

the queen is not goign to say anyting like htat!!!

 

[wyevale]

Why not Denville ?

It's not political, nor particularly controversial [imo]

 

[Denville]

Their children were indeed titled Princes of Belgium by their father but i can assure you that Prince Alexandre was not in the line of succession . It was part of the deal with the Belgian Government. So the marriage with Lilian was indeed morganatic, as the children didn't have the same rank than their half siblings.
At some point Alexandre and his sisters were not seen as part of the Royal Family at all.
As such they were indeed HRH, but excluded from the main and reigning branch. It's still the case for the princesses Marie-Christine, Esmeralda and Léa.

The marriage was unequal and allowed as such by the Belgian law at this time. As pointed out previously, unequal marriage doesn't exist under the bristish law.

well yes what happens in Belgium or anywhere else isn't a precednet for other royal families, including the British one. in Belgium at the time it was very class conscious and I suppose a morganatic marriage was the only way that the King could marry Liliane. Like the Swedish prince Bertil had a long standing affair with his ladyfriend, and only married her late in life.. because if he'd married her when younger he would have had to step out of the succession and he was needed as a possible regent.
Similarly David and Wallis Simpson aren't a precedent because he had abdicated and was only made DOW as a way of keeping him out of politics. If he was a royal duke he could nt stand for parliament. And the RF clearly felt that since he had decided not to be a king, his wife should not be HRH

 

[Mbruno]

he was saying something diplomatic to soften the blow to Diana fans about the second marriage. She may not be that keen on being queen and I think the present queen was a bit uneasy, but I believe that they made the announcement that she would be called Duchess of C and later Prsss Consort, to stave off any more fuss aobut the marriage. I think they believed that as time passed Camilla would be accepted as his wife and as a good consort and that in a long time later, when the queen died, people would be fine with the idea of Camilla being queen. And I think that's happened. Tehy've been married for 12 years, they are accepted as a couple and as working together for the RF and I don't think that many people are bothered now that she will take the full title of queen.

So, again, why is the announcement that Camilla is "intended" to be known as HRH The Princess Consort still on the PoW's official website ? If Charles had any intention to retreat from his previous statement, I'd imagine that the aforementioned announcement would have been taken down from the site, which it was not.

Going back to Belgium, King Leopold announced that his second wife had chosen not to be called queen and announced she intended her to be known as HRH The Princess of Réthy. That was to be formalized after the war, but never was, as there was never a royal decree (countersigned by Belgian ministers as required by the constitution) creating the title of Princess of Réthy for Lilian. The title, therefore, although used throughout Lilian's life, was purely informal. I suspect something similar might happen to HRH The Princess Consort in the UK, but, in any case, I can't see how Charles can go back on his "intention" now, especially as he still mantains publicly that the intention still stands.

 

[Denville]

Why not Denville ?

It's not political, nor particularly controversial [imo]

She's not going to refer to her death.....

So, again, why is the announcement that Camilla is "intended" to be known as HRH The Princess Consort still on the PoW's official website ? If Charles had any intention to retreat from his previous statement, I'd imagine that the aforementioned announcement would have been taken down from the site, which it was not.

can go back on his "intention" now, especially as he still mantains publicly that the intention still stands.

I rather thought I read somewhere that when asked about it a year or 2 ago, whether Camilla would be queen, he said something like "we'll have to see".
I should say he is just leaving things as they are and waiting until the queen passes away and then it will be quietly forgotten about.

 

[Osipi]

So, again, why is the announcement that Camilla is "intended" to be known as HRH The Princess Consort still on the PoW's official website ? If Charles had any intention to retreat from his previous statement, I'd imagine that the aforementioned announcement would have been taken down from the site, which it was not.

For all we know, its still up on the website for the same reason that the court circular is very sketchy with its updates.

There have been a few times, as Denville has brought up, where either Charles or Camilla were asked about Camilla becoming Queen with a vague answer given "we'll just have to wait and see" or something similar.

With stating the word "intended", that means nothing is really written in stone of what is to be. A lot of things may be different now than 12 years ago. Camilla may be finding that her role is a fulfilling one for her rather than something that may have scared the beejeebees out of her at the time of their marriage. People have come to see Camilla as a warm, down to earth person that has transformed Charles into a very happy man rather than the picture she had painted of her as a private citizen and Charles' friend. As I see it today, Camilla is the epitome of the description of what a Queen Consort is. If she is to be his Princess Consort, the best message is there in the word "consort".

All of this title for Camilla stuff isn't something that is on the front burner and I would imagine that very few Brits even think about it. We do because things like this interest us. The changes Charles may make when he ascends the throne, his way of running the "Firm" and even the little details of what his coronation will be like is why we have this thread in the first place. Someday there will be a thread "The Monarchy under William". I just hope I'm around to participate.

 

[Denville]

I think that they always hoped that if the queen lived many more years, it would give time for Camilla to settle in as Charles' wife and co worker for the RF and that people would get to like her and see that she was not a monster.. and by the time the question of her being queen was "there", people except for hardline Diana fans, would say "yes of course why shouldn't she be queen? She's Charles' wife. She does the job of consort OK, its been years since Diana died.."
But JUST in case there was a lot of feeling about her becoming queen, if say QEII had passed away in a year or 2, they ahd a plan in place that she would be in essence queen but known as Princess Consort. but IMO they gambled on having plenty of time to let the public get used to Camilla and they've won their gamble. If I was right in remembering that Ch and Camilla have given vague replies of "wait and see" about the question.. (as seems to be the case) then I think that they are just opening the door towards "yes she will be officialy queen" when the queen pases away.

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

The problem with basing the argument on Camilla using Duchess of Cornwall as setting a precedent for her being Princess Consort is that it ignores the fact that she is married to the Duke of Cornwall and so is still using the feminine form of Charles' titles.

When Charles is King he will stop being a Prince and so she should stop being a Princess and move up to Queen with him.

That is a different situation to using the feminine form of a different title. She does use both Duchess of Rothesay in Scotland and Countess of Chester when in Chester while Charles uses Duke of Rothesay and Earl of Chester respectively.

It is only the Wales title she isn't using but she is using the feminine form of all of his other titles.

By asking to be Princess Consort she would be saying, loud and clear, I was never good enough to be his wife and then there has to be the question asked - well why was she good enough to use the female form of his titles while he was heir apparent but not now that he is King?

To me they have to sort this out before the situation arises and do so with legislation: have a law that says - regardless of gender the spouse will always remain HRH Prince/Princess Consort - so have Philip use that title and then Camilla and Kate and George's wife etc. No difference - and use the argument that as Philip has done such a fantastic job as the consort there is no need for a woman to have a style that is seen as 'senior' to that of a male consort and so for equality's sake all future spouses will be 'Prince/Princess Consort' and thus 'Queen' will only be held by a regnant and not a consort.

I wholeheartedly agree with your last alinea. With male consorts coming up in Sweden, Norway, the Netherlands, Belgium and Spain, it is time to make the title of a consort gender-neutral.

In the Netherlands Máxima is -de jure- Princess of the Netherlands. I hoped the Government would stick to that. But "the longstanding social custom that a wife of a titled gentleman can be addressed by her husband's title" has been used as Government thought it was "undesirable" that Princess Máxima would have a "lesser" title than her counterparts. Why this undesireable situation did not stretch out to the three successive male predecessors of Princess Máxima was not mentioned...

So I still hope that indeed in all monarchies the consort will become known as HRH The Prince / HRH The Princess. This is crisp, clear, fair, transparent and logic.

 

[Stefan]

I wholeheartedly agree with your last alinea. With male consorts coming up in Sweden, Norway, the Netherlands, Belgium and Spain, it is time to make the title of a consort gender-neutral.

And give them the Title of King-Consort. For Spain that wold be nothing new but following their tradition and not change it.

 

[Mbruno]

And give them the Title of King-Consort. For Spain that wold be nothing new but following their tradition and not change it.

Spain, however, has recently changed its own tradition as the Royal Decree 1368/1987 says that the consort of the Queen of Spain shall have the dignity only of "Prince" with the style "Royal Highness", whereas the wife of the King of Spain shall have the dignity of "Queen" (but not "Queen of Spain") with the style "Majesty".

Curiously, the husband of the titular Princess of Asturias is still to be known as "Prince of Asturias" with the same style, titles and dignity as his wife.

 

[Nico]

It's pretty clear that back in 2005 Clarence House more or less shot itself in the foot with the "Princess consort" thing.
I always thought that the perfectly legit title of "Queen Consort" would have been a better choice.

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

And give them the Title of King-Consort. For Spain that wold be nothing new but following their tradition and not change it.

For the Netherlands, and probably for more monarchies, it would clash with the Constitution where it is worded that the Bearer of the Crown is King, and no one else. When the Netherlands got a female monarch (for 123 consecutive years...) a special law was needed: "When the kingship is executed by a Queen, all references to The King in all acts, decrees, treaties, must be read as "The Queen" including all necessary grammatical and linguïstic changes as a consequence of this".

I think it is easier in all monarchies, for sure now Sweden, Norway, Belgium and Spain will see male consorts too, that this title is made gender neutral and not the same as he one used by the bearer of the crown.

 

[Stefan]

Spain, however, has recently changed its own tradition as the Royal Decree 1368/1987 says that the consort of the Queen of Spain shall have the dignity only of "Prince" with the style "Royal Highness", whereas the wife of the King of Spain shall have the dignity of "Queen" (but not "Queen of Spain") with the style "Majesty".

Curiously, the husband of the titular Princess of Asturias is still to be known as "Prince of Asturias" with the same style, titles and dignity as his wife.

This is why i said follow their traditions and not change it. We don't know what will hapen when Leonor ascends the throne. Perhaops then a new Royal Decree will issued which given her Consort the Title of King Consort. I think when the Royal Decree in 1987 was published the did not expect a reigining Queen in the near future as there was a male Heir and the succession law was (and still is) male primogenitur.

 

[tommy100]

It's pretty clear that back in 2005 Clarence House more or less shot itself in the foot with the "Princess consort" thing.
I always thought that the perfectly legit title of "Queen Consort" would have been a better choice.

I actually think it would have been best for Clarence House to say nothing at all. Clarence House has always refused to comment on anything that will happen when Charles is King saying its "inappropriate to comment on what would happen as it means the death of his mother". They should have said the same about Camilla's title. They didn't because they engaged in a campaign to try remove any obstacles or objections to the wedding and thought it would help but didn't think longer term.

 

[wyevale]

I think most people in the UK [who care] would be appalled if they thought Catherine would be 'Princess Consort' when/if William becomes King. They would see it as a 'demotion'..
The LAW and tradition here is that a wife takes the female form of her husbands title, and I can see no earthly reason to change that...

 

[royalistbert]

The King and The Princess Consort, doesn't flow as well as The King and The Queen to me. I don't want 1000 years of history destroyed for the sake of Camilla. I don't want Catherine to be HRH Princess William, The Princess Consort.

 

[Countessmeout]

It is time to stop punishing Camilla. I am all for a gender neutral title, don't get me wrong. But not just for Camilla. If Camilla is only princess consort, then when William is king, Kate should be princess consort, and George's wife after. Otherwise it seems a petty punishment.

HRH princess Charles or HRH Prince William, princess consort though wouldn't work. Neither man would be a prince anymore, so the title would be wrong.

How Philip was handled seems the best option. When their husband comes to the throne, the wife is made a princess in her own right. Camilla when Charles is king becomes HRH Princess Camilla, princess consort. And so on.

But however it is handled, it needs to be done for generations to come. Not simply for Camilla to appease Diaba fans.