Diana's Styles and Titles

[bigheadshirmp]

i think charles would do everything he can when he becomes King...to make Camilla Queen of Great Britian! he already tries to get her the Order of the Garter ..but i doubt the queen is going to give that to her

 

[Elspeth]

Heavens, they've only been married a couple of months; it's a bit soon to be wanting her to be made a Lady of the Garter. Where did you read that?

 

[Reina]

Well I probably asked this question b/f, but what do you guys think the Queen Mum's view was toward Diana at the end of both of their lives?

 

[branchg]

Camilla cannot use the title of princess of Wales, if charles becomes king either will be able to use the queen title.

Camilla could chose to be known as HRH the Princess of Wales at any time because she IS Princess of Wales. For the sake of the public acceptance of the marriage, she, Charles and the Queen all agreed it would be best for her to be known by her secondary title, Duchess of Cornwall, instead.

The issue of Camilla becoming Queen Consort was already made clear when the Cabinet was questioned by MP's. The marriage is valid under British law and Camilla will become Queen when Charles ascends the throne unless the Government passes legislation preventing this. In addition, any nation in the Commonwealth with the British Sovereign as Head of State would also have to be consulted under the present constitutional system.

In reality, the issue has already been decided and Camilla will be Queen Consort if and when Charles becomes King. There is no doubt in my mind the Government approved the marriage knowing this would be the case. I doubt any future Cabinet, Parliament or Prime Minister would be willing to introduce the necessary legislation, any more than they were in 1936 in the case of King Edward VIII.

Either she is worthy now to be Charles' consort or she is not. The decision is made already.

 

[branchg]

Well I probably asked this question b/f, but what do you guys think the Queen Mum's view was toward Diana at the end of both of their lives?

Again, hopefully someday we will know for sure when the Queen allows a royal biographer full access to the royal archives to write a biography of the Queen Mother.

We do know the Queen Mother, like most members of the royal family, was greatly relieved when Diana realigned her behavior and attitude towards preserving the monarchy after the divorce. Instead of leaking to the press and talking to Richard Kay, the Princess was much more interested in preserving whatever rank and position she could salvage in the aftermath, rather than manipulating to try and put pressure on the Palace all the time.

It was said the Queen Mother was very much in favor of preserving Diana's role and precedence as the mother of a future king after the divorce. She felt this would help keep Diana "under control" and give the Queen some authority over her activities in the future. Given the eventual settlement agreement, it was clear this was accomplished in the end.

 

[Reina]

Thank you for clarifying. And yes it woudl be great if there was an official biography on her.

 

[Idriel]

The marriage is valid under British law and Camilla will become Queen when Charles ascends the throne unless the Government passes legislation preventing this.
In reality, the issue has already been decided and Camilla will be Queen Consort if and when Charles becomes King.

The wedding is actually not legal under British law, but under European law. British law state that a royal wedding is legal only when religious (which is understandable since the King/Queen is sacred and head of Anglican church). BUT Charles and Camilla are protected (like any citizen of the European union) by the European declaration of human rights who state that a civil wedding is legal for everyone. And as you know, the European court is the ultimate authority in the EU now...
After the engagement, it has been announced that Camz will be Princess consort, not Queen Consort. But I have no doubt they will upgrade her to Queen Consort when and if (as you rightly say) Charles become King.

 

[Reina]

The law that PCharles despised, was the law that made his marriage possible.

 

[Idriel]

The law that PCharles despised, was the law that made his marriage possible.

Indeed! At the time, the British press (which has been really cruel about all the things that went wrong before the wedding) made a lot of fun of that "detail".

 

[Elspeth]

After the engagement, it has been announced that Camz will be Princess consort, not Queen Consort. But I have no doubt they will upgrade her to Queen Consort when and if (as you rightly say) Charles become King.

According to the royal family website, she'll be known as Princess Consort. Unless all sorts of special legislation is passed, she'll be Queen Consort, regardless of what she's known as. I assume everybody involved in this situation is hoping that the day is far enough off that she can just become Queen without very much fuss being raised.

I'll be interested to see how long that statement about being known as Princess Consort survives on that website. Something tells me that that isn't actually the plan.

 

[Reina]

I am glad they still have the pic of PDiana and the two boys and PCharles on that ship. It is a nice pic and I like the color of PDiana's dress.

 

[branchg]

The wedding is actually not legal under British law, but under European law. British law state that a royal wedding is legal only when religious (which is understandable since the King/Queen is sacred and head of Anglican church). BUT Charles and Camilla are protected (like any citizen of the European union) by the European declaration of human rights who state that a civil wedding is legal for everyone. And as you know, the European court is the ultimate authority in the EU now...
After the engagement, it has been announced that Camz will be Princess consort, not Queen Consort. But I have no doubt they will upgrade her to Queen Consort when and if (as you rightly say) Charles become King.

This is incorrect. A civil wedding is legal under British law for all citizens of the United Kingdom and royal marriages are legal under the Royal Marriages Act upon approval of the Sovereign. The Queen and the Government both gave their assent to Charles and Camilla marrying and that is the end of it.

The Church of England cannot deny a royal marriage if the Sovereign has given approval. The Crown is the Head of the Church and the Archbishop of Canterbury approved and blessed the marriage. To imply Charles and Camilla's marriage is "illegal" is ridiculous and without merit.

 

[Idriel]

This is incorrect. A civil wedding is legal under British law for all citizens of the United Kingdom and royal marriages are legal under the Royal Marriages Act upon approval of the Sovereign. The Queen and the Government both gave their assent to Charles and Camilla marrying and that is the end of it.

The Church of England cannot deny a royal marriage if the Sovereign has given approval. The Crown is the Head of the Church and the Archbishop of Canterbury approved and blessed the marriage. To imply Charles and Camilla's marriage is "illegal" is ridiculous and without merit.

I, along with several top lawyers in the UK, strongly disagree with you.

 

[branchg]

According to the royal family website, she'll be known as Princess Consort. Unless all sorts of special legislation is passed, she'll be Queen Consort, regardless of what she's known as. I assume everybody involved in this situation is hoping that the day is far enough off that she can just become Queen without very much fuss being raised.

I'll be interested to see how long that statement about being known as Princess Consort survives on that website. Something tells me that that isn't actually the plan.

The Government already made clear that Camilla cannot be known as HRH the Princess Consort without legislation being introduced and passed by Parliament. It was simply agreed no special legislation was required at this time since Camilla is legally Princess of Wales, but choosing to be known as Duchess of Cornwall with the assent of the Sovereign.

This question was settled in 1936 and is not going to change at some future date. The wife of the King is automatically Queen Consort and cannot hold any other title without approval from Parliament. In 1936, Churchill had suggested Wallis could be known as HRH the Duchess of Lancaster, rather than Queen Consort, with the approval of the Prime Minister and the Cabinet.

This argument was rejected by constitutional experts and the Labour Party, who felt it allowed the King, as the fount of honour, to circumvent the role of Parliament and the right of a Prime Minister to exercise the Royal Perogative on behalf of the majority party in the House of Commons.

There is no way a future Government would allow a precedent to be set on this question, not to mention the uncertainty of the Commonwealth crown countries approving it as well. Camilla will be Queen Consort.

 

[Idriel]

to be more precise, Charles, as the heir to the throne, is not a "normal" British citizen. His wedding is ruled by special laws. I can assure you that the British law is very clear about royal weddings. They must be religious. I maintain that this wedding is not legal under British law. BUT I said it was legal under European law so, since the UK are part of the EU, it is legal in the UK as well eventually. But again, this is an European law who allowed the wedding, not a British one.

The fact that the Queen approve a royal wedding does make it automatically legal. The Queen is not above the laws. Or is she? In this case I have really underestimated the extend of her powers.
You seems to say that I wrote that the wedding is illegal now. I never said that: I said that, if it wasn't for the EU, this wedding would not be legal. But of course, it is.
Beside, I've never understood by they did not simply religiously marry in Scotland like Ann as it would have stopped any kind of discussions.

 

[branchg]

I, along with several top lawyers in the UK, strongly disagree with you.

Yes, well let's see if these so-called "top lawyers" in the UK could win such a battle in the Courts. The question is settled and Parliament is the ultimate arbitrator of constitutional law in the British system of government. The matter is closed legally.

 

[Idriel]

This argument was rejected by constitutional experts and the Labour Party, who felt it allowed the King, as the fount of honour, to circumvent the role of Parliament and the right of a Prime Minister to exercise the Royal Perogative on behalf of the majority party in the House of Commons.

You mention the Labour Party, but not the Tory. Does it mean that the Tory were favourable to a wedding between David and Wallis? If yes, what was exactly the extend of this support?

 

[branchg]

to be more precise, Charles, as the heir to the throne, is not a "normal" British citizen. His wedding is ruled by special laws. I can assure you that the British law is very clear about royal weddings. They must be religious. I maintain that this wedding is not legal under British law. BUT I said it was legal under European law so, since the UK are part of the EU, it is legal in the UK as well eventually. But again, this is an European law who allowed the wedding, not a British one.

The fact that the Queen approve a royal wedding does make it automatically legal. The Queen is not above the laws. Or is she? In this case I have really underestimated the extend of her powers.
You seems to say that I wrote that the wedding is illegal now. I never said that: I said that, if it wasn't for the EU, this wedding would not be legal. But of course, it is.
Beside, I've never understood by they did not simply religiously marry in Scotland like Ann as it would have stopped any kind of discussions.

In a strict constitutional sense, the Sovereign is above the law. However, in reality and practice, not to mention centuries of parliamentary precedents, the Prime Minister exercises the royal perogative in the name of the party holding a constitutional majority in the House of Commons. The Sovereign reigns, but does not rule. She may consult, she may warn, she may advise, but must always heed the advice of the Prime Minister and the Government.

This is the very heart of the British system of constitutional monarchy and parliamentary government. There is no debate that once a Prime Minister advises the Sovereign on a matter, the Crown must accept the advice as law.

 

[Idriel]

Yes, well let's see if these so-called "top lawyers" in the UK could win such a battle in the Courts. The question is settled and Parliament is the ultimate arbitrator of constitutional law in the British system of government. The matter is closed legally.

Of course they could not win. They could possibly win the case in the Uk but then Charles and Camilla would appeal to the European Court of Justice and would win their appeal.
Again, I've never said the wedding is not legal in general. I said it's not legal regarding the British law alone.

 

[branchg]

You mention the Labour Party, but not the Tory. Does it mean that the Tory were favourable to a wedding between David and Wallis? If yes, what was exactly the extend of this support?

No, the Tories were opposed to the marriage, as were the Unionists. Baldwin had the support of all parties in denying the King his approval for the marriage and refusing to introduce legislation in Parliament allowing Wallis to assume a lesser title. The Dominions of Canada, New Zealand, Australia, and South Africa were also opposed. There was no way out for Edward except to abdicate.

 

[branchg]

Of course they could not win. They could possibly win the case in the Uk but then Charles and Camilla would appeal to the European Court of Justice and would win their appeal.
Again, I've never said the wedding is not legal in general. I said it's not legal regarding the British law alone.

EU law has no jurisdiction over the Royal Marriages Act or the position of Parliament and the Crown in settling these matters. There is no question about the matter and The Church cannot overrule the Queen or Parliament on a royal marriage. The Crown is the Crown.

 

[Idriel]

No, the Tories were opposed to the marriage, as were the Unionists. Baldwin had the support of all parties in denying the King his approval for the marriage and refusing to introduce legislation in Parliament allowing Wallis to assume a lesser title. The Dominions of Canada, New Zealand, Australia, and South Africa were also opposed. There was no way out for Edward except to abdicate.

Thank you. Are you an historian?

 

[Elspeth]

The Government already made clear that Camilla cannot be known as HRH the Princess Consort without legislation being introduced and passed by Parliament. It was simply agreed no special legislation was required at this time since Camilla is legally Princess of Wales, but choosing to be known as Duchess of Cornwall with the assent of the Sovereign.

This question was settled in 1936 and is not going to change at some future date. The wife of the King is automatically Queen Consort and cannot hold any other title without approval from Parliament. In 1936, Churchill had suggested Wallis could be known as HRH the Duchess of Lancaster, rather than Queen Consort, with the approval of the Prime Minister and the Cabinet.

This argument was rejected by constitutional experts and the Labour Party, who felt it allowed the King, as the fount of honour, to circumvent the role of Parliament and the right of a Prime Minister to exercise the Royal Perogative on behalf of the majority party in the House of Commons.

There is no way a future Government would allow a precedent to be set on this question, not to mention the uncertainty of the Commonwealth crown countries approving it as well. Camilla will be Queen Consort.

You should take that up with the webmaster of the official royal family website, then. It says there at least twice that when Prince Charles becomes King, it's intended that she'll be known as HRH Princess Consort. I assume they know as well as you do what the government has said on the matter, yet they're still maintaining that this is the case.

 

[sara1981]

You should take that up with the webmaster of the official royal family website, then. It says there at least twice that when Prince Charles becomes King, it's intended that she'll be known as HRH Princess Consort. I assume they know as well as you do what the government has said on the matter, yet they're still maintaining that this is the case.

i would agree with Elspeth!

because Camilla cant become Princess of Wales! because many people cant acceptance Camilla as POW but i tell you many times about that i told members about Camilla cant become POW since Diana got become Princess of Wales since her marriages to Prince Charles in 1981-1996 but Diana would known as Diana,Princess of Wales and Camilla will known as Duchess of Cornwall and if Charles will become King of England Camilla will known as Princess of Consort! but how my feelings between Diana and Camilla?

Sara Boyce

 

[Elspeth]

You mention the Labour Party, but not the Tory. Does it mean that the Tory were favourable to a wedding between David and Wallis? If yes, what was exactly the extend of this support?

The Tory Prime Minister, Stanley Baldwin, was very strongly opposed. Winston Churchill seemed to be in favour, but it isn't clear whether he was motivated by a romantic desire to see love conquer all, an ethical feeling that Edward was being ill treated, or a mischievous impulse to be a thorn in Baldwin's side.

 

[Idriel]

I found some articles who show the debates who too place during the engagement period. I thought it would be interesting to produce them.

Charles relies on rights law he despised to validate marriage
By Tom Baldwin and Frances Gibb February 24, 2005
TImes Online

Lord Chancellor announces that wedding is legal but lawyers still warn of challenge

THE legality of the Prince of Wales’s wedding plans were declared to be “beyond doubt” last night under a law that he once denounced as leading to “the stultification of human relationships”.

In an emergency parliamentary statement, the Lord Chancellor sought to quash fears of a gathering constitutional crisis over whether the Prince is allowed to marry Camilla Parker Bowles in a civil ceremony.

Lord Falconer of Thoroton announced that the Government was satisfied that the wedding was legal in accordance with the Marriage Act of 1949. But, even as he dismissed the alternative views taken in the past as overcautious, lawyers insisted that the couple are still at risk of a legal challenge to the validity of the union and that the Government should clarify existing legislation.

The Lord Chancellor said: “We also note that the Human Rights Act has, since 2000, required legislation to be interpreted wherever possible in a way that is compatible with the right to marry and with the right to enjoy that right without discrimination. This, in our view, puts the modern meaning of the 1949 Act beyond doubt.”

The Lord Chancellor’s decision to cite the Human Rights Act in aid of the royal wedding is a sharp contrast to the spat between his predecessor and the Prince four years ago over the same piece of legislation.

In a June 2001 letter to Lord Irvine of Lairg, the Prince said: “The longer-term effect of the Human Rights Act will be to provide opportunities which . . . will only encourage people to take up causes which will make the pursuit of a sane, civilised and ordered existence ever more difficult.” He voiced dread about the development of an American-style personal injury culture that “can only lead, ultimately, to the stultification of human relationships, to an atmosphere of mistrust and suspicion, let alone the real fear of taking decisions that might lead to legal action”.

The Prince added: “Too little is being done to stem the remorseless obsession with rights without there being any corresponding requirement or obligation.” The letter was leaked in September 2002.

At least one government figure privately asked last night if, in view of the Prince’s own “human relationships”, he had since changed his mind about the Act.

Lord Falconer is among a group of ministers who harbour doubts about the long-term future of the monarchy, but has helped to clear the way for the Prince’s wedding. Publication of his advice came amid speculation that fresh legislation might be needed for the wedding — due to be held at Windsor Guildhall on April 8.

Lord Falconer said his statement had been issued “in the light of recent interest in the law surrounding royal marriages”. Aides emphasised later that they expected it to be the final word on the issue.

However, Sir Nicholas Lyell, QC, the former Attorney-General, suggested yesterday that the Lord Chancellor’s arguments were flawed. He said there was still a need for the Government to introduce a short Bill to clarify the legality of the forthcoming marriage.

“The Lord Chancellor’s statement at least clarifies the Government’s thinking, but I fear that responsible lawyers will still regard the argument as rather tenuous,” he said.

“The Human Rights Act, 1998 does help, but it is an unsatisfactory state of affairs when the legality of the marriage of the Prince of Wales has to depend on that.”

David Pannick, QC, an adminstrative law expert, said yesterday that a legal challenge to the wedding would put the Prince in court where he would have to rely on the Act to defend his position. He said the law was still not clear. “It would be far better if the Government clarified this by legislation. If they can pass legislation to tackle suspect terrorists in four days, then there is no reason to think they can’t pass legislation on the validity of the marriage of the heir to the throne.”

Prince and Camilla marriage 'legal'
Feb 20 2005 Ananova

The Lord Chancellor has defended his view that the Prince of Wales' forthcoming marriage to Camilla Parker Bowles will be legal.
Lord Falconer's comments follow debate over whether the couple's civil marriage is permissible under current legislation.
Some experts claim the present law does not allow civil marriages for members of the Royal Family in England.
But Lord Falconer said: "I remain confident that the Prince and Mrs Parker Bowles can marry in a civil ceremony. We have considered every aspect of this and taken all the appropriate advice."
He told the Mail on Sunday that the 1949 Marriage Act, which updated the law on civil marriages, did not exclude the Royal Family as the 1836 Act had done.
"We have been very thorough and are confident we have got it right. We wish to put no bar in the way of the Royal Wedding," he said.
Sources at Clarence House said the Prince and Mrs Parker Bowles had received legal advice from four different sources. A spokeswoman said: "We are very confident that the advice received from the Government was correct. Comprehensive consultation had already taken place before the announcement was made."
But Dr Stephen Cretney QC, Emeritus Fellow of Legal History, Oxford University, last week cast doubt over the legality of a civil marriage any member of the Royal Family in England.
He told a BBC Panorama investigation: "There is no statutory procedure whereby members of the Royal Family can marry in a register office. Although there may be this ceremony and public rejoicing, it could be the Prince of Wales is not married and Mrs Parker Bowles is not his wife and constitutionally it's important to know whether they are married or not."
The April wedding venue was last week changed from Windsor Castle to the Guildhall in Windsor amid concerns that licensing the royal palace would cause too much disruption. The blessing afterwards will still take place in the Castle's St George's Chapel.

 

[Idriel]

The Tory Prime Minister, Stanley Baldwin, was very strongly opposed. Winston Churchill seemed to be in favour, but it isn't clear whether he was motivated by a romantic desire to see love conquer all, an ethical feeling that Edward was being ill treated, or a mischievous impulse to be a thorn in Baldwin's side.

From what I know about Churchill, I would choose the last option ...

 

[Elspeth]

This is incorrect. A civil wedding is legal under British law for all citizens of the United Kingdom and royal marriages are legal under the Royal Marriages Act upon approval of the Sovereign. The Queen and the Government both gave their assent to Charles and Camilla marrying and that is the end of it.

The Church of England cannot deny a royal marriage if the Sovereign has given approval. The Crown is the Head of the Church and the Archbishop of Canterbury approved and blessed the marriage. To imply Charles and Camilla's marriage is "illegal" is ridiculous and without merit.

It's not quite as easily dismissed as that. At the time it was taken seriously enough that the Lord Chancellor issued a statement about it after legal advice was sought from several prominent lawyers. There was some disagreement among constitutional lawyers whether the 1949 or 1953 Act had actually repealed the 1836 Act or not. The last few paragraphs of his statement suggest that the matter was by no means cut and dried, at least until he'd made his decision.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/4291337.stm

 

[branchg]

You should take that up with the webmaster of the official royal family website, then. It says there at least twice that when Prince Charles becomes King, it's intended that she'll be known as HRH Princess Consort. I assume they know as well as you do what the government has said on the matter, yet they're still maintaining that this is the case.

The key word is "intended". There is no doubt in my mind this means "it will never happen" because of the unprecedented nature of the legislation required to allow Camilla to assume a style and title different than Queen Consort. In my opinion, it is simply PR on the part of the Palace to assuage public feelings at this time.

Camilla will be Queen Consort.

 

[branchg]

It's not quite as easily dismissed as that. At the time it was taken seriously enough that the Lord Chancellor issued a statement about it after legal advice was sought from several prominent lawyers. There was some disagreement among constitutional lawyers whether the 1949 or 1953 Act had actually repealed the 1836 Act or not. The last few paragraphs of his statement suggest that the matter was by no means cut and dried, at least until he'd made his decision.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/4291337.stm

Yes, but the point is the matter was exhaustively investigated and Parliament, the Cabinet, the Prime Minister and the Lord Chancellor were all in agreement that the 1953 Act superseded the 1836 Act and applied to the royal family as well.

Given the agreement of legal precedents by Parliament and the Queen's approval of the marriage under the Royal Marriages Act, it was a foregone conclusion that Charles and Camilla had the right to marry in a civil ceremony.