Camilla and The Public

[Curryong]

May be not posted on the site yet. We're still only at the beginning of the month. The Daily Fail would hardly report a non-existent poll involving a respected company.

 

[Curryong]

When Charles is crowned it will be an unprecedented event, a divorced monarch with a divorced second wife. Unique in the history of the British royals.

 

[teeyah]

Curryong, in the Daily mail article, is There a link that takes you straight to YouGov's website and shows this poll, the Daily mail states the poll is by YouGov, where is the proof on their website? it only shows the one in June 2014 is the current one which 52% wanted Camilla as Queen consort, why will it all go back to the 16% which was two or three years ago results.

I don't believe this poll is accurate, the Daily Mail is obviously known for making up lies and creating articles for hits, this article is one of it. Also I remember in 2012, they recycled an article in 2005, which was about the Duchess choosing not to be Queen consort, they had a whole lot of comments for it.

It's what the Daily mail wants..and of course a negative article about Camilla will provide it. It's a tabloid after all..this is how it works and sadly some people believe it.

Again where is this poll on YouGov's website, The Daily mail should put a link there? YouGov would have posted this before the Daily mail, how come they are the only website with the results.

 

[Moonmaiden23]

It has been an interesting argument, and vehement at some phases, but as my Mother just passed away, suddenly, I think of my grandmother's expression Man plans and God laughs. All this angst, one or the other may not be alive at that time. No one knows. The polls, as I see it, as just there in case they have to make a quick decision, as to which will be more popular.

COUNTESS, I am very sad to read about the loss of your mother. I hope her life was long and full.

 

[rmay286]

Even 52% support for Camilla as Queen isn't a lot, though. I think she's still fairly unpopular.

 

[teeyah]

52% might not be much, but's its a big rise from the 7% who wanted her to be Queen in 2005, and 16 or 17% who wanted her to be queen three years ago... and considering the media/public scorn many years ago or now on her, 52% is a very big rise because I never thought it would happen.

 

[Lady Nimue]

When Charles is crowned it will be an unprecedented event, a divorced monarch with a divorced second wife. Unique in the history of the British royals.

How about Henry VIII? And I suppose the 'convenient death' of a spouse in order for the widowed lady to be available to the king to marry doesn't count? I for one am heartened to know that Mr Parker-Bowles still lives.

 

[Curryong]

Yes, I know about Henry VIII and his multiple spouses! And I'm sure Andrew PB is very glad, he's alive, too! I was just pointing out that, with the future Queen Consort divorced too, we have a unique set of circumstances here.

While I am sure that the memory of the widespread mourning for Diana was the primary reason for the 'grey men' to put forward the Princess Consort proposal, how do we know that the Archbishop of Canterbury wasn't consulted?

If he agreed perhaps that Princess Dowager rather than Queen was the way to go, he might also have suggested changes to the Coronation ceremony.

After all, Charles and Camilla weren't married in an Anglican but a civil ceremony with a religious blessing afterwards.

 

[Ish]

You guys are forgetting Eleanor of Acquitaine. She married Louis VII of France, had a less than happy marriage, allegedly had an incestuous relationship with her uncle, then finally was able to make him divorce her despite even the pope trying to push for a reconciliation, then asked the future Henry II to marry her a grand total of eight weeks after the annulment of her first marriage. She then became Queen of England 2 years later on the ascension of her second husband, some 30 years before her first husband's death. She would then later on encourage her sons from her second marriage to openly revolt against her second husband/their father.

 

[Lady Nimue]

You guys are forgetting Eleanor of Acquitaine. She married Louis VII of France, had a less than happy marriage, allegedly had an incestuous relationship with her uncle, then finally was able to make him divorce her despite even the pope trying to push for a reconciliation, then asked the future Henry II to marry her a grand total of eight weeks after the annulment of her first marriage. She then became Queen of England 2 years later on the ascension of her second husband, some 30 years before her first husband's death. She would then later on encourage her sons from her second marriage to openly revolt against her second husband/their father.

At the risk of a slight thread-nap, I do believe Eleanor and Louis had some pretty steamy nights at the beginning of their marriage. After all, both were teenagers and purportedly quite decent looking, the both of them.

The Pope aided and abetted the idea of divorce by casting it about that Eleanor and Louis were cousins and too close to be legitimately married. The Pope gave it as the cause for them not conceiving a son and heir (as I recall).

The royal past is so scandalous I can't believe that anyone would compare the relatively tame current 'scandals' to the raucous yonder years. Charles and Camilla are paragons by comparison.

 

[Jacknch]

We need to remember that the accession takes place immediately on the death of the reigning monarch by common law and this means Camilla instantly becomes Queen when Charles becomes King. There is no in-between period, Camilla goes from being the Duchess of Cornwall to Queen Consort.

The proclamation of the new monarch itself does not make the sovereign or effect the accession. It is just window dressing and theatre. Charles will be King the instant HM passes and Camilla will instantly be Queen

Correct, but what do we do if Camilla starts referring to herself as Princess Consort and insists on people calling her that?!

 

[Osipi]

Correct, but what do we do if Camilla starts referring to herself as Princess Consort and insists on people calling her that?!

To be honest, I don't think Camilla is the type to insist on anything like a title. Should it be deemed that she is to be called Queen Consort, that's what she'll go as. Should it be Princess Consort that would be fine with her too. Camilla just doesn't go about making waves anywhere. At the time all of this would be going on, it would be at the time of HM's passing and she would know that rocking the boat would only add more stress and troubles for Charles.

 

[Elenath]

To be honest, I don't think Camilla is the type to insist on anything like a title. Should it be deemed that she is to be called Queen Consort, that's what she'll go as. Should it be Princess Consort that would be fine with her too. Camilla just doesn't go about making waves anywhere. At the time all of this would be going on, it would be at the time of HM's passing and she would know that rocking the boat would only add more stress and troubles for Charles.

You are right, she's not. But Clarance House would. And so would prince Charles. They can't prevent people from calling her queen consort but they can announce they (prince Charles and Camilla) want her to be referred to as princess consort and they could refer to her as such.

 

[Pranter]

About Eleanor...she was in her 20's and Henry was in his late teens when they married...I think she was around 8 years older than he was.

I have seen some historians speculate that she and Henry discussed the matter of the marriage much sooner than the 8 weeks time frame...she knew she was gonna be married off again, I think she decided she'd have a say in this one.


LaRae

 

[muriel]

When Charles is crowned it will be an unprecedented event, a divorced monarch with a divorced second wife. Unique in the history of the British royals.

In the eyes of the Church, Charles was widowed, not divorced.

 

[Skippyboo]

You are right, she's not. But Clarance House would. And so would prince Charles. They can't prevent people from calling her queen consort but they can announce they (prince Charles and Camilla) want her to be referred to as princess consort and they could refer to her as such.

But do they really want the Princess Consort title? As point out earlier, Camilla is Queen as soon as Charles is King. Princess Consort is not a secondary title that she would already have. It would have to be created by King Charles III just like he has to create William as Prince of Wales. Creating a new title, doesn't remove the titles a person already had so William is still Duke of Cambridge and Camilla is still Queen even if they don't use those titles as their primary titles.

However, in the case of Camilla if you are going to function as the Queen and legally are the Queen why not use your title of Queen. What spurred Charles to get married to Camilla was that they were going to go to the wedding of the Duke of Westmister's daughter to a Van Custem son and they couldn't sit together because they were married or engaged. Charles was up in the front with the royals and Camilla was further back. So they didn't go and got married. Now after several years after that, why would Charles and Camilla volunteer to use a lower title than the rightful title of Queen Consort?


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community

 

[Rudolph]

She will be HM Queen Camilla. Now if she wants to be called Princess Ariel or the Duchess of Hogwarts I guess is another question but I think Charles has enough common sense to drop this issue completely sooner rather than latter.

As skippyboo says

However, in the case of Camilla if you are going to function as the Queen and legally are the Queen why not use your title of Queen.

 

[Mbruno]

But do they really want the Princess Consort title? As point out earlier, Camilla is Queen as soon as Charles is King.

The succession to the UK throne is regulated by statute, but the titles and styles of the monarch's consort are not. The law guarantees that Charles will become king the moment he survives his mother, but the titles (if any) that Camilla will bear, absent any provision to the contrary in an act of Parliament, are entirely up to Charles to decide as a royal prerogative. If he decides she will be known as "HRH The Princess Consort" from the moment his reign starts, that will be the law of the land.

BTW, a similar discussion took place in the Netherlands when Queen Beatrix announced she would abdicate. Many observers noted that Maxima was not automatically entitled to become queen as there is no such title as "queen consort" in Dutch law. In the end, the Royal House decided Maxima would hold a courtesy title of "Queen" with the accompanying style of "Her Majesty", but would also keep her previous title of "princess of the Netherlands" to which she is still entitled, in this case by law, as the monarch's consort.

 

[Mbruno]

Now after several years after that, why would Charles and Camilla volunteer to use a lower title than the rightful title of Queen Consort?

Maybe the fact that Charles and Camilla had a civil wedding, but were not officially married in the CoE creates problems for the church to crown her. Charles would obviously want to avoid that kind of embarassment. Besides, I suppose Charles believes that a large section of the public might oppose making Camilla queen and he doesn't want to hurt popular support for the monarchy. Last, but not least, although unknown to us, Charles may be acting on ministerial advice on this matter.

 

[Rudolph]

Actually it takes an Act of Parliament to deny Camilla becoming Queen. She takes that title under common law by virtue of being married to the King. The constitution doesn't give Charles the authority to decide otherwise.

The Sovereign has the authority to regulate royal styles and titles but the title of Queen Consort isn't a royal title It can't bestowed nor taken away by royal prerogative.

The only body that can deny Camilla her right to the title Queen under common law is Parliament

Whether she styles herself with another title is a different matter but she will undeniably and legally be Queen

 

[Mbruno]

Actually it takes an Act of Parliament to deny Camilla becoming Queen. She takes that title under common law by virtue of being married to the King. The constitution doesn't give Charles the authority to decide otherwise.

The Sovereign has the authority to regulate royal styles and titles but the title of Queen Consort isn't a royal title It can't bestowed nor taken away by royal prerogative.

The only body that can deny Camilla her right to the title Queen under common law is Parliament

Whether she styles herself with another title is a different matter but she will undeniably and legally be Queen

The article that was recently linked on this forum says otherwise. It claims the consort's title is a royal prerogative, which overrides the common law. Frankly, I am no legal expert, but it seems clear to me that, in practice, if the Palace calls Camilla "princess" and not "queen", that is how she will be known. Just as Edward's children are styled as children of an earl when, legally, they should be princes of the United Kingdom.

 

[Rudolph]

Legally Edward's children are whatever the Queen decides to call them. In Britain there is no 'right' to be entitled HRH or Prince/ss.

The Queen stated they are to be style as the children of a no-royal earl and she has the final word in this matter because those titles are part of the royal prerogative. She doesn't need the permission of Parliament to grant or withhold either title but Queen Consort is different.

This is a matter of marriage under common law. Its the same with Wallace Duchess of Windsor. Yes the King could restrict her becoming HRH but he had no authority to stop her using her husband name or title.

Look at it this way. Say for the sake of argument that Camilla wanted to be Queen but Charles wanted to deny her this right under common law. It doesn't work this way. Not even the King can meddle with the institution of marriage which has built up over hundreds of years of common law.

The title of Queen Consort has become part of the Constitution by virtue of the fact it has hundreds of years of precedent that the wife of a King is Queen

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

The succession to the UK throne is regulated by statute, but the titles and styles of the monarch's consort are not. The law guarantees that Charles will become king the moment he survives his mother, but the titles (if any) that Camilla will bear, absent any provision to the contrary in an act of Parliament, are entirely up to Charles to decide as a royal prerogative. If he decides she will be known as "HRH The Princess Consort" from the moment his reign starts, that will be the law of the land.

BTW, a similar discussion took place in the Netherlands when Queen Beatrix announced she would abdicate. Many observers noted that Maxima was not automatically entitled to become queen as there is no such title as "queen consort" in Dutch law. In the end, the Royal House decided Maxima would hold a courtesy title of "Queen" with the accompanying style of "Her Majesty", but would also keep her previous title of "princess of the Netherlands" to which she is still entitled, in this case by law, as the monarch's consort.

Indeed, gender neutrality is vested in the laws regarding the titulature of the Royal House, so in Máxima's titles there should be no difference with a male consort (Hendrik, Bernhard, Claus but also Philip, Henrik) whom were all bestowed the title of Prince with the style HRH.

In the case of Máxima the Dutch Court officially obtained gender neutrality: by law it is HRH Princess Máxima of the Netherlands but by courtesy she is referred as "HM Queen Máxima". An inventive loophole, all meant to avoid the "undesirable" situation that in the future a male consort should be called King (or The Prince of Orange when married with Amalia).

So the United Kingdom is not the only monarchy with an official style and a "known as"-style.

 

[Rudolph]

There is a discrepancy in Britain between male and female consorts. In the words of Queen Victoria

'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.'

 

[ROYAL NORWAY]

Rudolph! You are of course free to not like Camilla, we live in democracies, but why are you so against her?

 

[Rudolph]

I'm supporting Camilla insofar as she will be Queen. Everything I'm posting is in effect to support Camilla

 

[Mbruno]

Legally Edward's children are whatever the Queen decides to call them. In Britain there is no 'right' to be entitled HRH or Prince/ss.

I believe there are letters patent issued in 1917 by King George V and stiil in force that grant the title of prince/ss of the United Kingdom to all grandchildren of a monarch in male line.

 

[Rudolph]

"the highest rank and dignity in the realm after her husband assigned to her by law"

So in Britain this is a Queen with the style of Majesty. The title of HRH The Princess Consort doesn't exist in common law. Even if Camilla were created a princess in her own right that doesn't make her Princess Consort. It makes her Princess Camilla. She will still be Queen

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

I believe there are letters patent issued in 1917 by King George V and stiil in force that grant the title of prince/ss of the United Kingdom to all grandchildren of a monarch in male line.

Indeed, legally it is HRH Prince James of Wessex, Viscount Severn and HRH Princess Louise of Wessex. The parents wanted their children "to be known" with the style of children of an Earl. So in daily life it is "Viscount Severn and Lady Louise" instead, despite their official style.

 

[Rudolph]

I believe there are letters patent issued in 1917 by King George V and stiil in force that grant the title of prince/ss of the United Kingdom to all grandchildren of a monarch in male line.

"Still in force" isn't the term I would use. Letters Patent don't bind the monarch with regards to royal syles and titles. She can change them whenever she wants and for whatever reason.

Its the Queen's will and pleasure that matters. Throughout the Queen's reign she has created and revoked the title of prince/ss by LP, by verbal declaration, by mention in the CC and in the case of the Wessex children by press release.

Parliament gives her free reign in this matter