Charles and Camilla: The Marriage (2005 and on)


If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Personally I refer to Camilla as Princess of Wales if her name comes up in conversation either face to face or in internet forums etc. As the wife of the Prince of Wales, she is the Princess of Wales, even though she chooses to use one of her other titles.
And when Charles becomes King, she will be Queen, unless an official announcement is made otherwise. It may even require an Act of Parliament for her not to be styled Queen. To say differently is to deny the facts.
 
Her/their choice (?) and one I am content to comply with personally.
 
Charles and Camilla, every era brings its own tidings the older generation are dying while the younger generation how they would react to Kings and queens only heaven knows. England was once a Republic As recent as the last century, England had an Empire where the Sun never set. Let us hope the Sun never set on the Kingdom of Great Britain. I would not speculate.
 
Her/their choice (?) and one I am content to comply with personally.
Yes, exactly. The fact is the official position stated at the time of the marriage is that Camilla will be known as Princess Consort. The rest is all wishful thinking.
 
The PM at the time also said that is will take legislation to allow her to not be The Queen from the moment Charles is The King, which means that there are two official statements out there - one from CH and one from the Parliament.
 
I think CH actually said the intent was she would be known as Princess Consort. Intentions can change, just as public opinion can change.
 
Who would actually have to make the change? Parliament? And is it likely that they will actually do it? Or will the status quo (Camilla as Queen) prevail?
 
From what I've come to learn about Camillas character she is probably the last person who wants to be called "Queen". I guess "Princess Consort" will be just fine with her.
 
For her to not be Queen Parliament has to pass legislation to strip her of the right of all wives to take the title and status of her husband.

Being Duchess of Cornwall is still taking the style and title of her husband as he is the Duke of Cornwall and has in fact had that title for longer than Prince of Wales.
 
:previous: Just a thought . . . if Camilla were to become Princess Consort would she not have to curtsy to all Queen Consorts? And wouldn't the UK and the Commonwealth just love that if it were so!!!

Hmm . . . the King's wife curtsying during state visits . . . not a good look for the UK, the Commonwealth, nor the Monarchy!
 
MARG said:
:previous: Just a thought . . . if Camilla were to become Princess Consort would she not have to curtsy to all Queen Consorts? And wouldn't the UK and the Commonwealth just love that if it were so!!!

Hmm . . . the King's wife curtsying during state visits . . . not a good look for the UK, the Commonwealth, nor the Monarchy!

She'd still be the wife of a head of state and I doubt it would affect how she's treated by visiting heads of state.
 
It's not a question of how she's treated but how she would have to treat them. When meeting any Queen Consort, as a Princess Consort, would she not be required to formally curtsy to them rather than share a meeting of equals?
 
Yes she would be required to curtsey to other Queens Consort as they would be Queens and she wouldn't be.
 
:previous: Just a thought . . . if Camilla were to become Princess Consort would she not have to curtsy to all Queen Consorts? And wouldn't the UK and the Commonwealth just love that if it were so!!!

Hmm . . . the King's wife curtsying during state visits . . . not a good look for the UK, the Commonwealth, nor the Monarchy!

I think she is, effectively, a Princess Consort. She is the Princess of Wales.
 
I think she is, effectively, a Princess Consort. She is the Princess of Wales.

That doesn't make her a Princess Consort that title is given to the wife of a sovereign Prince, Charles is not a sovereign Prince. As most often Monarchs use the title King, their wife is a Queen. There are currently only three Princess Consorts, Charlene of Monaco, Marie of Liechtenstein and Princess Lalla Salma of Morrocco.

The BRF website has this on the POW's background page;

After the wedding, Mrs Parker Bowles became known as HRH The Duchess of Cornwall. When The Prince of Wales accedes to the throne, she will be known as HRH The Princess Consort.

It is apparently not just Clarence House who is spinning the line.
 
Last edited:
It's not a question of how she's treated but how she would have to treat them. When meeting any Queen Consort, as a Princess Consort, would she not be required to formally curtsy to them rather than share a meeting of equals?

I'm somewhat certain that Camilla would not be expected to curtsey to any Queen Consort. Infact, I don't think Camilla will curtsey to any consort or royal Head of State and neither should she when her husband is King.

Lalla Salma is Princess Consort of Morocco and she does not curtsey to any royal Head of State or their spouse.

Does the Duke of Edinburgh bow his head to any of Europe's Queen Consorts? I've certainly never seen him do so. He can at times be seen motioning forward and leaning in before 'kissing' their hands (the gentleman that he is) but he does not extend any evident display of reverent protocol.

It is apparently not just Clarence House who is spinning the line.

And the BRF website is definite, so it appears. But of course, Charles isn't King yet so what is stated as being definite in one reign can quite easily change in another.
 
Last edited:
Knowing that the media would simply love it if the BRF website was changed when it comes to that "intent", they of course won't do it as long as the queen is alive. After that Camilla is the wife of the mourning king and thus his queen.
 
The royal website, Charles himself, his advisors and staff can say she'll be Princess Consort until they're blue in the face. I personally feel that, when the time comes, it'll be the government/PM of the day who will state publicly that Camilla should not be denied her rightful title as wife of the new King. Then Charles and his office can say, well we had intended for Camilla to be Princess Consort, but we take the advice of the PM/government who feel that it's more appropriate that she be called Queen.

Bob's your uncle - Camilla's Queen and Charles can say that he didn't renege on his earlier statements. That way everyone's happy, except the Diana fanatics.
 
That way everyone's happy, except the Diana fanatics.

Not so. I'm no "Diana fanatic" and I'm very much in favour of the proposed alternative and have been since it was announced. Not everyone who happens to endorse the proposal should be subject to such whimsical stereotypes.
 
Last edited:
I agree EIIR, if a government felt she was acceptable to be his wife it would be hard in a few years time she is not acceptable to be his Queen. The UK has never had the concept of a morganatic marriage and women always take the female version of their husbands title. When he succeeds to the throne I beleive most people will think it perfectly natural that his wife is his Queen. There will be those who will disagree but my guess is they will be a minority. Time will tell, and it likely will not that many years in the future.
 
Not so. I'm no "Diana fanatic" and I'm very much in favour of the proposed alternative and have been since it was announced. Not everyone who happens to endorse the proposal should be subject to such whimsical stereotypes.

It's impossible to make everyone happy.

It's my personal opinion that the suggestion that the King's wife should be called 'Princess Consort' is a complete and total disgrace. It would be humiliating for Camilla to be denied the title to which she is entitled by law and by convention. It suggests that Camilla is somehow unworthy of the term, that she's somehow defective. I don't feel that she should face the prospect of potentially decades of having to carry that around. She and Charles stood in front of the Archbishop of Canterbury, admitted their sins and asked for forgiveness. Who are we to continue to judge their actions and, in doing so, dictate that Camilla be publicly humiliated by being told she's not worthy of being called 'Queen'?
 
When all is said and done, I do hope that Queen Elizabeth and Camilla are placing bouquet of roses on Wallis Simpson's tomb.
 
Oh good gracious it's been 7yrs since she was married. When the time comes just give her the freakin title of Queen already. It's about time people stop dictating Charles and Camilla's future based on the ghost of his first wife.
 
It's impossible to make everyone happy.

It's my personal opinion that the suggestion that the King's wife should be called 'Princess Consort' is a complete and total disgrace. It would be humiliating for Camilla to be denied the title to which she is entitled by law and by convention. It suggests that Camilla is somehow unworthy of the term, that she's somehow defective. I don't feel that she should face the prospect of potentially decades of having to carry that around. She and Charles stood in front of the Archbishop of Canterbury, admitted their sins and asked for forgiveness. Who are we to continue to judge their actions and, in doing so, dictate that Camilla be publicly humiliated by being told she's not worthy of being called 'Queen'?

I don't at all have an issue with your opinion, I just don't believe it rational to be stereotyped for mine because it's the skapegoat of choice.

Needless to say, I come at it from a different view point and not one that harbours any ill prejudice towards the Duchess.
 
Last edited:
It's impossible to make everyone happy.

It's my personal opinion that the suggestion that the King's wife should be called 'Princess Consort' is a complete and total disgrace. It would be humiliating for Camilla to be denied the title to which she is entitled by law and by convention. It suggests that Camilla is somehow unworthy of the term, that she's somehow defective. I don't feel that she should face the prospect of potentially decades of having to carry that around. She and Charles stood in front of the Archbishop of Canterbury, admitted their sins and asked for forgiveness. Who are we to continue to judge their actions and, in doing so, dictate that Camilla be publicly humiliated by being told she's not worthy of being called 'Queen'?

I could not agree more. It's ridiculous that people are still hung up on the past after all this time. What happened, happened, and it cannot be changed. I think the best thing anyone can do is just move on; Charles, Camila and the rest of the Royal Family certainly did. If she's entitled to be styled as 'Queen' after Charles ascends the throne, then so be it. Why change something that's not broken?
 
Remember that the situation will be as follows:

Queen dies
Charles becomes King and Camilla Queen

Then Parliament, while the nation and Charles are in mourning for the Queen, will have to have a debate on stripping Camilla of her new title, pass that through both houses of Parliament and then ask Charles to sign that legislation.
 
Remember that the situation will be as follows:

Queen dies
Charles becomes King and Camilla Queen

Then Parliament, while the nation and Charles are in mourning for the Queen, will have to have a debate on stripping Camilla of her new title, pass that through both houses of Parliament and then ask Charles to sign that legislation.

Just out of interest, what about the other countries of which Charles would be king? We've heard that the proposals for succession based on primogeniture rather than gender will have to be approved by the parliaments of all those countries, will they also have to pass legislation stripping Camilla of her title?
 
Remember that the situation will be as follows:

Queen dies
Charles becomes King and Camilla Queen

Then Parliament, while the nation and Charles are in mourning for the Queen, will have to have a debate on stripping Camilla of her new title, pass that through both houses of Parliament and then ask Charles to sign that legislation.
Actually, there is an alternative. Camilla is granted the title "The Princess Consort" (female equivalent of Prince Albert's "Prince Consort") in her own right and then can chose to be known under that title - while legally and officially remaining a Queen.

Now, I happen to agree completely with EIIR: if Camilla is known, officially or privately, as anything but Her Majesty The Queen, that will be quite derogatory. Unless, of course, the Parliament passes a legislation whereby the wives of all future Kings will be Princesses Consort; that I would be perfectly fine with.
 
Just out of interest, what about the other countries of which Charles would be king? We've heard that the proposals for succession based on primogeniture rather than gender will have to be approved by the parliaments of all those countries, will they also have to pass legislation stripping Camilla of her title?
Definitely. In fact, as long as the Union of Crowns exists, a decision like that would have to be unanimously approved by every single country of the Realm.
For instance, when Edward VIII abdicated, Acts from each of Dominions were required. Had even one of them not given their consent, there could be a situation when the Duke of Windsor was no longer King of the United Kingdom, but remained Monarch of, say, Canada. That would break the Union of Crowns (although since he died childless, Elizabeth II would have restored the Union anyway).

This is assuming Acts of Parliament will be passed at all; as I said in my previous post, it is possible to go ahead with the whole Princess Consort situation without resorting to it.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom