The Royal Forums Coat of Arms


Join The Royal Forums Today
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #1001  
Old 09-15-2015, 07:34 PM
Pranter's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Midwest, United States
Posts: 3,021
If memory serves, in the past, the wife of the king is not automatically the queen. She had to actually be named and go thru the ceremony....

At what point did this change?


LaRae
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #1002  
Old 09-15-2015, 08:00 PM
Skippyboo's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Atlanta, United States
Posts: 3,331
Quote:
Originally Posted by Honeybees View Post
Skippyboo first chance I get I will hit Hansards and the law books and get back to you but my understanding is that in English law there is no such thing as Common Law wife or Common Law husband and nothing to state that a wife take her husband's name.

Not common law wife or husband, common law - law based on historical customs and traditions and judicial precedents not statues

http://royalcentral.co.uk/blogs/expl...lip-king-22725




Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #1003  
Old 09-15-2015, 08:08 PM
Courtier
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 645
Quote:
Originally Posted by Skippyboo View Post
Not common law wife or husband, common law - law based on historical customs and traditions and judicial precedents not statues

Why isn’t Prince Philip King?




Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community
. This could be because I am reading from my phone but I see no mention of Hansard Reports or the authors legal qualification so I will have a check on the Hansard Reports and law books, first chance I get. Thanks for that.
Reply With Quote
  #1004  
Old 09-15-2015, 08:13 PM
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 1,878
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cris M View Post
Change what? No more Queen consorts? So Catherine will not be Queen as well, nor will George's wife. Or things should be changed just for the duration of the reign of King Charles III?

No change it for all not just Charles wife.


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community
Reply With Quote
  #1005  
Old 09-15-2015, 08:18 PM
Roslyn's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Tintenbar, Australia
Posts: 3,937
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pranter View Post
If memory serves, in the past, the wife of the king is not automatically the queen. She had to actually be named and go thru the ceremony....

At what point did this change?


LaRae
Around 1066, I think.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Skippyboo View Post
Not common law wife or husband, common law - law based on historical customs and traditions and judicial precedents not statues

Why isn’t Prince Philip King?
There is no law requiring a woman to take her husband's surname. It was just an incident of coverture.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Skippyboo View Post
You change it for one, it changes for all. No Duchess to Dukes, Princess to Princes, Sir to Lady. In the future, it's HM King George VII and Ms. Olivia Smith.
Sounds good to me. Though I think it highly unlikely that any king's consort would be simply Ms, or even Mrs. I think it would be reasonable for them to be created a Duchess or Princess or something in their own right. I think Princess Consort would be a good idea. And a male consort would be Prince Consort.
__________________
"That's it then. Cancel the kitchen scraps for lepers and orphans, no more merciful beheadings, -- and call off Christmas!!!"
Reply With Quote
  #1006  
Old 09-15-2015, 08:41 PM
Skippyboo's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Atlanta, United States
Posts: 3,331
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roslyn View Post
Around 1066, I think.



There is no law requiring a woman to take her husband's surname. It was just an incident of coverture.

Not talking about surnames but style and title. The HRH Duchess of Kent goes by Katherine Kent but she is still HRH The Duchess of Kent.

Camilla can wake up and decide that she is sick of Royal life and retires to Ray Mill House and is going to go by Camilla Mountbatten Windsor or even her maiden name. She is still technically the female counterparts to all of Charles's titles whether she uses them or not.



Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community
Reply With Quote
  #1007  
Old 09-15-2015, 08:50 PM
Courtier
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 645
The Duchess of Kent only went by Katherine Kent during her 'undercover' years as a music teacher which as I understand it, was at her request. She remains The Duchess of Kent.
Reply With Quote
  #1008  
Old 09-15-2015, 08:59 PM
Skippyboo's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Atlanta, United States
Posts: 3,331
Exactly because she is married to the Duke of Kent. So the same thing applies to Camilla. She becomes Queen because she is married to the King. Charles as King can still create her Princess Consort through a LP but she is still Queen whether she uses it or not. Just like now Camilla is Princess of Wales but she doesn't go by that. It's still her title.


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community
Reply With Quote
  #1009  
Old 09-15-2015, 09:04 PM
Courtier
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 645
Well she could use her maiden name, she is from a very distinguished family. There is no legal imperative for her to use her husband's name but there is also a possibility of their being issues with the current D.O.C becoming Queen. Why does she not currently use the Princess of Wales title?
Reply With Quote
  #1010  
Old 09-15-2015, 09:13 PM
Pranter's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Midwest, United States
Posts: 3,021
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roslyn View Post
Around 1066, I think.



There is no law requiring a woman to take her husband's surname. It was just an incident of coverture.

No it was well after that, the kings wife had to go thru the coronation ceremony before she was named queen (at the king's direction). Just marrying the king didn't 'crown' her.


LaRae
Reply With Quote
  #1011  
Old 09-15-2015, 09:36 PM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 10,194
Quote:
Originally Posted by Skippyboo View Post
Exactly because she is married to the Duke of Kent. So the same thing applies to Camilla. She becomes Queen because she is married to the King. Charles as King can still create her Princess Consort through a LP but she is still Queen whether she uses it or not. Just like now Camilla is Princess of Wales but she doesn't go by that. It's still her title.


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community

Creating her a Princess in her own right would be to demote her from the title of Queen however.

Not using one of Charles' titles - as she does now - is different to not using the only title a person has. Her alternatives are really her maiden name - Miss Camilla Shand, or Mrs Mountbatten-Windsor or The Queen. Otherwise she isn't using a name from her own birth or her marriage to Charles.

Princess Consort would be a clear demotion to an unequal position to her husband and thus a morganatic marriage - which is was argued in 1936 wasn't possible in the UK.
Reply With Quote
  #1012  
Old 09-15-2015, 09:40 PM
Courtier
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 645
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iluvbertie View Post
Creating her a Princess in her own right would be to demote her from the title of Queen however.

Not using one of Charles' titles - as she does now - is different to not using the only title a person has. Her alternatives are really her maiden name - Miss Camilla Shand, or Mrs Mountbatten-Windsor or The Queen. Otherwise she isn't using a name from her own birth or her marriage to Charles.

Princess Consort would be a clear demotion to an unequal position to her husband and thus a morganatic marriage - which is was argued in 1936 wasn't possible in the UK.
Well it is heading towards a century ago and the country has changed a tad.
Reply With Quote
  #1013  
Old 09-15-2015, 10:06 PM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: many places, United States
Posts: 1,321
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roslyn View Post
Of course it's outdated. Sexist and outdated. It is this way because of coverture: the doctrine that on marriage a woman's rights and identity were subsumed by those of her husband. She got to share his styles and titles because she was legally considered part of him...the lesser part.

I've rattled on about coverture at length here before. I won't do it again now, but look it up. It will make any woman with feminist notions of equality cringe, and maybe spit and hiss a bit and even throw things.
Yes things do seem to be outdated in many countries, but if they don't want to change them themselves, there is really nothing the rest of us can do. I know that some countries only have the husband's name on the deed to their homes. This to me is degrading to the wife but that is just the way their country sees it.
__________________
Forgiveness is the fragrance the violet shed on the heel that crushed it - Mark Twain
Reply With Quote
  #1014  
Old 09-15-2015, 10:36 PM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Spring Hill, United States
Posts: 2,822
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iluvbertie View Post
Creating her a Princess in her own right would be to demote her from the title of Queen however.

Not using one of Charles' titles - as she does now - is different to not using the only title a person has. Her alternatives are really her maiden name - Miss Camilla Shand, or Mrs Mountbatten-Windsor or The Queen. Otherwise she isn't using a name from her own birth or her marriage to Charles.

Princess Consort would be a clear demotion to an unequal position to her husband and thus a morganatic marriage - which is was argued in 1936 wasn't possible in the UK.
It was, also, argued that he couldn't marry a divorced woman, with living husbands.
Reply With Quote
  #1015  
Old 09-15-2015, 10:37 PM
Gentry
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: Lisboa, Portugal
Posts: 75
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iluvbertie View Post
Creating her a Princess in her own right would be to demote her from the title of Queen however.

Not using one of Charles' titles - as she does now - is different to not using the only title a person has. Her alternatives are really her maiden name - Miss Camilla Shand, or Mrs Mountbatten-Windsor or The Queen. Otherwise she isn't using a name from her own birth or her marriage to Charles.

Princess Consort would be a clear demotion to an unequal position to her husband and thus a morganatic marriage - which is was argued in 1936 wasn't possible in the UK.
I think Camilla will be Queen. Charles will want his wife to have the title of Queen Consort, I'm sure of that, and that's what makes the most sense.
Reply With Quote
  #1016  
Old 09-15-2015, 10:42 PM
MARG's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Christchurch, New Zealand
Posts: 6,048
If Charles is my King, Camilla will be my Queen. No ifs, no buts, no maybes.
__________________
MARG
"Words ought to be a little wild, for they are assaults of thoughts on the unthinking." - JM Keynes
Reply With Quote
  #1017  
Old 09-16-2015, 02:11 AM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 3,189
Historically, there have only been a few wives of English kings who were never crowned Queen Consort. They were all known as the Queen, though.

King Henry VII, who won the throne by conquest of course, delayed his wife Elizabeth's Coronation till two years after his own, in 1485.

Only the first two of Henry VIII's six wives were crowned Queen Consort.

Charles I and Charles II's wives were Roman Catholic and could not take part in the Anglican Coronation ritual.
Reply With Quote
  #1018  
Old 09-16-2015, 06:16 AM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: *******, Canada
Posts: 4,385
When a man marries a princess or a queen, does he take his wife's rank?


When a man marries a princess or a queen, he does not take his wife's rank and become automatically a prince or a king. In (English) common law a man retains his name upon marriage.

Conversely, when a woman marries a prince or a king, she becomes automatically a princess or a queen; this is in keeping with (English) common Law whereby a woman is entitled to her husband's name.
If the husband of a queen were permitted to be known as king, he would then technically rank higher than his wife the queen.

The husband of a princess or a queen can have a peerage or a title conferred upon him by the Sovereign. ]


Three examples when a peerage or a title was bestowed on the spouse of a princess or a queen 1961: when Antony Armstrong-Jones, husband of HRH Princess Margaret, was created a peer when he was made Earl of Snowdon on 6 October 1961 (Antony and Margaret had been married since 6 May 1960)


1947: when Lieutenant Philip Mountbatten, husband of HRH Princess Elizabeth (later Queen Elizabeth II), was created a peer when he was made Duke of Edinburgh on 20 November 1947 the day of his wedding (N.B.: Philip received the style Royal Highness the day before on 19 November, and was made a Prince of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland on 22 February 1957)#
#
1857: when Prince Albert of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha, husband of Queen Victoria, was granted the title Prince Consort on 26 June 1857 (N.B.: Albert received the style Royal Highness on 6 February 1840 four days before his marriage)


It is worth noting that the British Constitution does not make any provision for the position of a husband to a Queen (see the question:A man who marries a princess who later becomes queen or who marries a queen regnant, does not become king. Queen Victoria succinctly summarized the situation:
'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



When a woman marries a prince, why does she use her husband's Christian name in her title instead of her own name?

The wife of a prince takes her husband's Christian name in her title as do all married royal women. This is because it is the correct style for any married woman ('Mrs' followed by her husband's Christian name and then his surname.) When a woman is known as 'HRH Princess [her Christian name] of [Gloucester, or Great Britain, or Kent, or York, etc...]', this indicates she is a princess by birth. When a woman is known as 'HRH Princess [her husband's Christian name] of [Gloucester, or Great Britain, or Kent, or York, etc...]', this indicates she is a princess by marriage. That is why it is correct for the former Baroness Marie-Christine von Reibnitz to be known as 'HRH Princess Michael of Kent' instead of being known as 'HRH Princess Marie-Christine of Kent'.

The situation is slightly different when a woman is married to a prince who happens to be a royal duke or the Prince of Wales. When a woman is married to a royal duke she is known, for example, as 'HRH The Duchess of Kent', not 'HRH Duchess [her husband's or her Christian name] of Kent'. When a woman is married to the Prince of Wales, she is known as 'HRH The Princess of Wales', not 'HRH Princess [her husband's or her Christian name] of Wales'.

The ways of addressing royal women change once there is a divorce. In the case of the late Diana, Princess of Wales, Diana was entitled to 'HRH The Princess of Wales' while she and Charles were married. Following her divorce, Diana ceased to be both a Royal Highness and a princess because she was no longer married to a Royal Highness and prince. (These were hers only by marriage not by birthright.) Accordingly, Diana became known by the name 'Diana, Princess of Wales'.

In the case of Sarah, Duchess of York she was entitled to be known as 'HRH The Duchess of York' while she and Andrew were married. Following her divorce, she too ceased to be both a Royal Highness and a princess because she was no longer married to a Royal Highness and a prince. (Again, these were hers only by marriage not by birthright.) Sarah is therefore known by the name 'Sarah, Duchess of York'.

This style is common to divorced wives of British peers which was the situation in which Diana and Sarah were in August and May 1996, respectively. (Note, however, that Sarah is not addressed as 'Your Grace'
Reply With Quote
  #1019  
Old 09-16-2015, 09:29 AM
Osipi's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: On the west side of North up from Back, United States
Posts: 6,635
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rudolph View Post
[LEFT]
The ways of addressing royal women change once there is a divorce. In the case of the late Diana, Princess of Wales, Diana was entitled to 'HRH The Princess of Wales' while she and Charles were married. Following her divorce, Diana ceased to be both a Royal Highness and a princess because she was no longer married to a Royal Highness and prince. (These were hers only by marriage not by birthright.) Accordingly, Diana became known by the name 'Diana, Princess of Wales'.

In the case of Sarah, Duchess of York she was entitled to be known as 'HRH The Duchess of York' while she and Andrew were married. Following her divorce, she too ceased to be both a Royal Highness and a princess because she was no longer married to a Royal Highness and a prince. (Again, these were hers only by marriage not by birthright.) Sarah is therefore known by the name 'Sarah, Duchess of York'.

This style is common to divorced wives of British peers which was the situation in which Diana and Sarah were in August and May 1996, respectively. (Note, however, that Sarah is not addressed as 'Your Grace'
This is where a lot of people get totally mixed up. Most of the time these days with Sarah still being called The Duchess of York. With the divorced styling of Sarah, Duchess of York, it denotes that at one time Sarah did hold the title of The Duchess of York by being married to Andrew. The divorce styling which just says Duchess of York after her name denotes that she was at one time A Duchess of York. Theoretically, should Andrew remarry, his wife would be The Duchess of York while Sarah could still use the divorced styling of Sarah, Duchess of York.

Perhaps some of these discussions over titles should be moved to the British Title and Styles thread? There's probably a wealth more of information regarding titles and Camilla's title after ascension there also.
__________________
“When I was 5 years old, my mother always told me that happiness was the key to life. When I went to school, they asked me what I wanted to be when I grew up. I wrote down ‘happy’. They told me I didn’t understand the assignment, and I told them they didn’t understand life.”
― John Lennon
Reply With Quote
  #1020  
Old 10-10-2015, 01:15 AM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Waterford, United States
Posts: 1,455
It's possible this link is somewhere in the thread already...

...but it's interesting enough to be repeated.

http://www.vanityfair.com/style/2001...n-200110:bang:

John Bowes-Lyon, who was also at Tom’s wedding, told me that Camilla reminds him of the Queen Mother, who was a first cousin of his father’s. “The Queen Mother had such a sense of humor about herself and about everything that happened in her life. She was also totally foot-on-the-ground. She hated any pomposity. Camilla’s got the same sort of sense of humor and a very individual character. I’m sure as time goes on the British people will take her to their hearts. I’m not a clairvoyant, but I suppose, in the natural course of events, there’s nothing to stop her from becoming Queen.”

This is merely the last paragraph, but the whole article is definitely worth reading.
__________________

__________________
"If you look for the bad in people expecting to find it, you surely will.”

Abraham Lincoln
Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
camilla, duchess of cornwall, public opinion


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

Advanced Search
Display Modes

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

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





Popular Tags
ascot 2016 best gown best gown september 2016 best hat best outfit catherine middleton style coup d'etat crown prince haakon crown princess mary crown princess mary fashion crown princess mette-marit current events danish calendar duchess of cambridge e-mail fashion poll grand duke jean greece hereditary grand duchess stéphanie's fashion & style ingrid alexandra kate middleton king abdullah ii king felipe king felipe vi king willem-alexander member introduction monarchy movies new zealand nobel gala norway november 2016 october 2016 opening of parliament picture of the week prince bernhard prince charles princess madeleine princess marie princess mary princess mary daytime fashion princess mary fashion princess mary hats queen letizia queen letizia casual outfits queen letizia daytime fashion queen letizia fashion queen letizia style queen mathilde queen mathildes outfits queen maxima queen maxima casual wear queen maxima daytime fashion queen maxima fashion queen maxima hats queen maxima style queen rania queen rania casual outfit royal fashion september 2016 sheikha moza state visit state visit to denmark succession sweden the duchess of cambridge the duchess of cambridge casual wear the duchess of cambridge daytime fashion the duchess of cambridge fashion the duchess of cambridge hats


Our Communities

Our communities encompass many different hobbies and interests, but each one is built on friendly, intelligent membership.

» More about our Communities

Automotive Communities

Our Automotive communities encompass many different makes and models. From U.S. domestics to European Saloons.

» More about our Automotive Communities

Marine Communities

Our Marine websites focus on Cruising and Sailing Vessels, including forums and the largest cruising Wiki project on the web today.

» More about our Marine Communities


Copyright 2002- Social Knowledge, LLC All Rights Reserved.

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 03:42 PM.

Social Knowledge Networks

eXTReMe Tracker
Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2016
Jelsoft Enterprises