The Monarchy under Charles

[Mbruno]

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.

In Sweden, the consort of the king is not only known as "queen", but actually as "Queen of Sweden" (Sveriges Drottning) , which is presumably the same title Victoria will have as a reigning queen. That is indeed a mess, which was probably overlooked before 1980 because there could not be female sovereigns in Sweden back then. At least in Denmark, they can make the distinction between Dronning af Danmark for a queen consort (as Queen Ingrid was called) and Dronning til Danmark for a reigning queen (although Queen Margrethe actually calls herself Danmarks Dronning instead).

Belgium, Spain and the Netherlands seem to have taken the alternative route of making the king's consort a queen by courtesy, but not "queen of [country's name]" or "queen of [the country's people]". Queen Máxima is still legally a Princess of the Netherlands and a Princess of Orange-Nassau despite being referred to as queen, as BTW Queen Paola and Queen Mathilde are also still legally Princesses of Belgium.

Note , for example, how King Albert II is referred to in Prince Philippe's marriage certificate below as "Sa Majesté le Roi Albert II etc., Roi des Belges, Prince de Belgique", whereas Queen Paola is cited as "Sa Majesté la Reine Paola etc., Princesse de Belgique", but not "Reine des Belges".

« Acte de mariage
N° 708 L'an mil neuf cent nonante-neuf, le quatre décembre, à dix heures, devant Nous, Messire François-Xavier Chevalier de Donnea, Ministre d'Etat, Membre de la Chambre des Représentants, Bourgmestre de la Ville de Bruxelles, Officier de l'Etat Civil, Grand Officier de l'Ordre de Léopold, assisté de Marceline Van Baerlem, Echevine de la Ville de Bruxelles, comparaissent à l'Hôtel de Ville :
Son Altesse Royale le Prince Philippe Léopold Louis Marie, Duc de Brabant, Prince de Belgique, Sénateur, Grand Cordon de l'Ordre de Léopold, titulaire de diverses distinctions honorifiques étrangères, né à Bruxelles, deuxième district, le quinze avril mil neuf cent soixante, domicilié à Bruxelles, rue Brederode 16, fils majeur de Sa Majesté le Roi Albert II Félix Humbert Théodore Christian Eugène Marie, Roi des Belges, Prince de Belgique, Grand Maître de l'Ordre de Léopold, titulaire de diverses distinctions honorifiques étrangères, et de son épouse Sa Majesté la Reine Paola Margherita Maria-Antonia Consiglia des Princes Ruffo di Calabria, Princesse de Belgique, Grand Cordon de l'Ordre de Léopold, domiciliés à Bruxelles, d'une part;

PS: Still on Duc's point, the way the legislators in Sweden seem to have circumvented the confusion between a reigning queen and a queen consort in the constitutional acts is by using language such as "the King or Queen who occupies the throne", or the "the King or Queen who is the Head of State", or simply "the Head of State" without actually mentioning the word "King" or "Queen".

 

[ladongas]

Whatever the reason for the "it is intended" statement all those years ago, it seems important for Charles to be seen as a man of his word when he ascends the Throne. The great British public is quite capable of saying, 'let the old girl be queen' if they wish.
I always assumed that Charles was hoping for such treatment for his long-term elderly spouse - she could easily be 80 when the day comes, and most will have softened toward her. IMO, Charles should not begin his reign by going back on his word.

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

The King and The Princess Consort, doesn't flow as well as The King and The Queen to me. [.....]

But Her Majesty The Queen and His Royal Highness The Prince is no problem?

The Queen and the Prince (Albert)
The Queen and the Prince (Hendrik)
The Grand Duchess and the Prince (Félix)
The Queen and the Prince (Bernhard)
The Queen and the Prince (Henrik)
The Queen and the Prince (Claus)
The Queen and the Prince (Daniel)

 

[Daenerys Targaryen]

Why not Denville ?

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

Well, perhaps because Charles, presumably after lengthy and in depth conversations with Camilla, announced that their intention was that she be Princess Consort? I understand that there are some here who seem to take it personally that their favorite be 'deprived' of the title of Queen, but perhaps SHE doesnt want to be and prefers the status quo of the situation?

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.

That is a very cynical view. I would like to believe that he was being truthful and not lying his butt off to get his way in the face of opposition from the government and the public. If that is, in fact, the case that would be deeply distressing and make me not believe anything that came out of his mouth if he was/is prepared to lie like that. I prefer to believe him and take him at his word.

Whatever the reason for the "it is intended" statement all those years ago, it seems important for Charles to be seen as a man of his word when he ascends the Throne. The great British public is quite capable of saying, 'let the old girl be queen' if they wish.
I always assumed that Charles was hoping for such treatment for his long-term elderly spouse - she could easily be 80 when the day comes, and most will have softened toward her. IMO, Charles should not begin his reign by going back on his word.

I agree totally re: Charles not setting off with an outright admission of a manipulation/lie. But some of this may be moot. Camilla's family is not as long lived as the female Windsors. If QEII enjoys the longevity of her mother, Camilla would be into her 80's at the time of Charles' ascension

 

[MARG]

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 think we need to put everything in it's time and place to better understand it's significance. After the death of Diana the Prime Minister, Tony Blair was right up in the BRF's grill. (Don't forget, it was his grandstanding that gave us the title "The People's Princess).

Once he was in, he was hard to get rid of, seeming to think that the BRF was just another goverment department he could order around. Not surprisingly a very chilly relationship between the PM and the BRF ensued. And all was not forgiven when he left office, his absence from the Abbey stuck out like a sore thumb at William's wedding.

 

[Lady Nimue]

It is time to stop punishing Camilla.

Agree. But I also think that Camilla genuinely has no interest in the matter. She is clearly in this to support Charles, not to grandstand a 'perk'. I find her admirable. Charles could not have found a more suitable second wife imo. He has been very lucky in that.

In the end, what eventuates (how Camilla is called) will be what Charles decides, and Camilla is comfortable with. I could see them deciding not to have her be called Queen (though the tabloids will do whatever they want) just as she chooses not to be called The Princess of Wales. Camilla deferring to Diana, the first wife of what will then be a king and mother of a future king, seems reasonable and not a slight against Camilla. Quite the reverse, it speaks volumes regarding Camilla.

However it goes, I think we should want Camilla to be happy and comfortable.

 

[Denville]

well Daenerys, you may believe that Charles never tells a lie.. I don't. I thnk it was spin, and perhaps it would have been more sensible to just say nothing about her future title.. but they did. If he was telling the truth then, why is it that botht he and Camilla have said when asked about the title "we will have to see"? why not a firm "yes of course, in due course she will be Princess Consort just as we said years ago."

 

[muriel]

well Daenerys, you may believe that Charles never tells a lie.. I don't. I thnk it was spin, and perhaps it would have been more sensible to just say nothing about her future title.. but they did. If he was telling the truth then, why is it that botht he and Camilla have said when asked about the title "we will have to see"? why not a firm "yes of course, in due course she will be Princess Consort just as we said years ago."

As I have stated previously, this matter can be easily dealt with within hours of Charles' accession. The government of the day can advise the King that his wife should be styled in line with her legal title, ie HM Queen Camilla.

 

[Denville]

I'm sure that it will be, they are nto going to say anything beforehand.

 

[muriel]

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 have to disagree. The world was very different in early 2005. There were grave questions around the potential acceptance of Camilla as a senior member of the BRF. This was a necessary sop to keep things moving. 12 years on, she is well accepted as Charles' consort, and an active and senior member of the BRF. That we are having this conversation only proves how accepted she is, and when the time comes, the "intention" to make her Princess Consort will be quietly dismissed.

 

[Skippyboo]

With hindsight, it would have been best if they never mentioned the Princess Consort bit. Let's not forget, it was basically Charles that was pushing for acceptance for Camilla and then marriage. I think Camilla would have probably preferred to remain in background as Charles's companion without the spotlight of being his wife and the royal role with it. They could have made some sort of deal that she would try the royal life with a option to withdrawal from royal duties sort like what the Duchess of Kent did.

However, she has grown into her role as a royal and if she is going to alongside King Charles as his partner, she should use her legal title of Queen.

 

[Osipi]

In a recent article that was posted in another thread, it gives details of what is to happen when the time comes and the Queen passes. One section reminded me of this discussion and found it interesting that it stated:

"King Charles is currently expected to introduce Queen Camilla at his Accession Council on D+1. On that day, too, Westminster Hall will be locked, cleaned and its stone floor covered with 1,600 yards of carpet, ready for the lying-in-state. Candles, their wicks already burnt in, will be brought over from the Abbey."

Operation London Bridge: Plans for the Queen's death | Daily Mail Online

No mention of the "intended" Princess Consort. Although, from comments here at TRF, this article was swiped verbatim just about from the Guardian, being the Daily Mail, I half expected a hue and cry in the comment section about Queen Camilla. From what I scanned over, not a mention so in and of itself, that is a good sign. I do think Camilla will be presented as Queen Consort and the whole matter of the "intended" Princess Consort dropped. The reasoning behind the intention may have been sound and logical back in 2005 but as time passed and Camilla found her footing in her royal role and carried them out with grace and warmness, perhaps she as well as the people have come to realize that she'd make one heck of a fantastic Queen at Charles' side.

 

[Spheno]

I have to disagree. The world was very different in early 2005. There were grave questions around the potential acceptance of Camilla as a senior member of the BRF. This was a necessary sop to keep things moving. 12 years on, she is well accepted as Charles' consort, and an active and senior member of the BRF. That we are having this conversation only proves how accepted she is, and when the time comes, the "intention" to make her Princess Consort will be quietly dismissed.

I agree with you. It's enough to read this forum's threads from 2004 or 2005. They are heavy moderated but still you can feel that many royal watchers hated Camilla.
Now people's feelings has completely changed.

 

[Lady Nimue]

I see no contradiction. We all know that Camilla is The Princess of Wales, and can be rightly so referenced, though the preference is The Duchess of Cornwall. Charles introducing Camilla as his Queen does not preclude Camilla being referenced as Princess Consort, though it just occurs to me that it's not a 'legit title' like the Duchess thing is (which has likely already been mentioned) so that is the crux.

 

[Mbruno]

As I have stated previously, this matter can be easily dealt with within hours of Charles' accession. The government of the day can advise the King that his wife should be styled in line with her legal title, ie HM Queen Camilla.

Why would the government do that ? The only titles and styles that are regulated by an act of Parliament in the UK are the titles and style of the sovereign properly. The titles of other members of the Royal Family have long been left to the discretion of the sovereign and I don't see why the government would want to get involved.

 

[Denville]

In a
No mention of the "intended" Princess Consort. Although, from comments here at TRF, this article was swiped verbatim just about from the Guardian, being the Daily Mail, I but as time passed and Camilla found her footing in her royal role and carried them out with grace and warmness, perhaps she as well as the people have come to realize that she'd make one heck of a fantastic Queen at Charles' side.

I think that simply people don't care any more. yes there will be some diehard Diana fans who will but most wont. I think that they wil just go on saying nothing, until after the passing of the queen and then Charles and Camilla will be known as King and QUeen and be on for a coronation in due course. But if they are asked again, I think they'll give vague answers, as they have done before...

 

[Mbruno]

In a recent article that was posted in another thread, it gives details of what is to happen when the time comes and the Queen passes. One section reminded me of this discussion and found it interesting that it stated:

"King Charles is currently expected to introduce Queen Camilla at his Accession Council on D+1. On that day, too, Westminster Hall will be locked, cleaned and its stone floor covered with 1,600 yards of carpet, ready for the lying-in-state. Candles, their wicks already burnt in, will be brought over from the Abbey."

Operation London Bridge: Plans for the Queen's death | Daily Mail Online

No mention of the "intended" Princess Consort. Although, from comments here at TRF, this article was swiped verbatim just about from the Guardian, being the Daily Mail, I half expected a hue and cry in the comment section about Queen Camilla. From what I scanned over, not a mention so in and of itself, that is a good sign. I do think Camilla will be presented as Queen Consort and the whole matter of the "intended" Princess Consort dropped. The reasoning behind the intention may have been sound and logical back in 2005 but as time passed and Camilla found her footing in her royal role and carried them out with grace and warmness, perhaps she as well as the people have come to realize that she'd make one heck of a fantastic Queen at Charles' side.

Clarence House has already refuted that article as nonsense, In any case, it is extremely unlikely that Charles would use his accession speech, i.e. his first act as king, to talk about Camilla's title.

The official position remains that Camilla is intended to be known as HRH The Princess Consort and I don't see any credible evidence that Charles has backed down from that statement, or that he can realistically change it after sticking with it for so many years.

 

[hel]

I agree totally re: Charles not setting off with an outright admission of a manipulation/lie. But some of this may be moot. Camilla's family is not as long lived as the female Windsors. If QEII enjoys the longevity of her mother, Camilla would be into her 80's at the time of Charles' ascension

As DT points out, there is a reasonable chance that Charles will be ascending the throne as a twice-widowed man, as sad as that is. So I personally can't get that invested in the outcome of a decision that may not even be necessary.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

Clarence House has already refuted that article as nonsense, [...]

Which article, and what was the statement from Clarence House?

 

[wyevale]

Clarence House has already refuted that article as nonsense,

ONLY because Clarence House doesn't like the death of the Present Monarch being under discussion [understandably, since losing ones Mother is a painful prospect], and [laughably] the plans for it are meant to be 'secret'...

 

[Rudolph]

I'm not sure everyone understands, but common law is the law. Just because there's no statute governing a consorts title, doesn't mean Charles is free to do what he wants in this regard.

Britain has a constitution and not even the King is allowed to just ignore it.

As Queen Victoria said when talking about Prince Albert:

'It is a strange omission in our Constitution that while the wife of a King has the highest rank and dignity in the realm after her husband assigned to her by law, the husband of a Queen regnant is entirely ignored by the law.'



The title 'Princess Consort' doesn't exist in Britain. The highest rank and dignity in the realm after HM The King is HM The Queen.

 

[muriel]

Why would the government do that ? The only titles and styles that are regulated by an act of Parliament in the UK are the titles and style of the sovereign properly. The titles of other members of the Royal Family have long been left to the discretion of the sovereign and I don't see why the government would want to get involved.

It would be very much with the agreement of Charles, so that the issue of Princess Consort is buried once and for all.

 

[Countessmeout]

As DT points out, there is a reasonable chance that Charles will be ascending the throne as a twice-widowed man, as sad as that is. So I personally can't get that invested in the outcome of a decision that may not even be necessary.

Reasonable chance of him being twice widowed when he is king

Seems highly unlikely. If the queen is like her mum, we could have ten years. So in ten years Camilla dies, Charles remarries, and his third wife must also die in your time frame. Is Charles the male version of a black widow?

Charles is not a widower. He and Diana were divorced before she died. You are only a widower if your wife dies when married. So for him to be twice widowed Camilla would need to die soon so she can marry and have a third wife die,

It's also highly unlikely he will be widowed once. Things can always happen. But Camilla is a healthy 69 year old. Save some tragedy, there is no reason to believe she won't outlive her ninety year old mother in law.

 

[hel]

Reasonable chance of him being twice widowed when he is king

Seems highly unlikely. If the queen is like her mum, we could have ten years. So in ten years Camilla dies, Charles remarries, and his third wife must also die in your time frame. Is Charles the male version of a black widow?

Charles is not a widower. He and Diana were divorced before she died. You are only a widower if your wife dies when married. So for him to be twice widowed Camilla would need to die soon so she can marry and have a third wife die,

It's also highly unlikely he will be widowed once. Things can always happen. But Camilla is a healthy 69 year old. Save some tragedy, there is no reason to believe she won't outlive her ninety year old mother in law.

I apologize for not speaking precisely and regret deeply leaving an opening for pedantry and mockery to be the reply to my post. With that said, in the eyes of the church, his first marriage was only sundered upon Diana's death, no? In 1997, when she passed, the CoE still didn't allow remarriage in church.

 

[Countessmeout]

Agree. But I also think that Camilla genuinely has no interest in the matter. She is clearly in this to support Charles, not to grandstand a 'perk'. I find her admirable. Charles could not have found a more suitable second wife imo. He has been very lucky in that.

In the end, what eventuates (how Camilla is called) will be what Charles decides, and Camilla is comfortable with. I could see them deciding not to have her be called Queen (though the tabloids will do whatever they want) just as she chooses not to be called The Princess of Wales. Camilla deferring to Diana, the first wife of what will then be a king and mother of a future king, seems reasonable and not a slight against Camilla. Quite the reverse, it speaks volumes regarding Camilla.

However it goes, I think we should want Camilla to be happy and comfortable.

Why would she even have to defer to Diana? Even if Diana was alive, she was never going to be queen. Camilla is certainly not the first second wife of a king. Was it disrespect to her stepchildren, for Louise Mountbatten to be queen Louise of Sweden? I a, sorry but saying she can't have her husband's title as it is disrespectful to Diana when Charles dies, she would simply be dowager queen and not queen mother.

They need to send a clear message. Camilla is his wife and consort. If she is princess consort, then that should bevthevonesbe if all kings wives to come. Otherwise it simply seems a snub.

Camilla isn't called princess of Wales out of respect to Diana, but that doesn't hold water here. Diana was never queen, never would be.

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

For law the Prince of Wales was a divorced man, for Church he was a widower. I assume it was like that.

 

[Countessmeout]

No. There is a difference between the church recognizing divorces, and allowing remarriages. The COE may not have allowed a remarriage in 1997, but they did recognize civil divorces as legal. So even in the eyes of the church. Charles was not a widower. He was legally divorced.

 

[ladongas]

The real issue...

...IMO...is not Camilla nor Diana nor tradition regarding titles. It's Charles, and whether he means what he says.

There will be roughly a year between accession and coronation. Camilla can be referred to, and introduced as, the Princess Consort during that year. If there is a general and widespread outcry in her favor, then Charles can do as he wishes, and he can't be called a liar.

 

[Rudolph]

The accession is governed by common law. The instant the Queens dies, Charles becomes King and his wife becomes Queen. There is no grace period.

The only way that doesn't occur is if the government enacts legislation before the accession and lays down Camilla's title in statute as 'Princess Consort'

 

[Lady Nimue]

Why would she even have to defer to Diana?

I meant it in the most benign of ways. Not in any sense that Camilla is of lesser status, only that I really don't think Camilla is of the the character that wants to be party to all this controversy, and for her sake alone I said what I did. Who would need such at that age? Especially when it's not a driving force of the character? Enough is enough. Let her be, I say.

Diana was never queen, never would be.

True enough given how it all went down. As others who know have mentioned, Camilla will be Queen, but she can be referenced any way Charles decides (without being accused of lying, because times and conditions do change, after all). I would suspect he will consult with Camilla when he makes his decision (though maybe not). It will be sad if Diana's shadow continues to haunt the monarchy after so many decades. And referencing her as 'Princess Consort' will be a haunting, a daily reminder of that sad, disjointed time for all of them, and the country. Why do it?