King Charles and Queen Camilla

[Elspeth]

They announced that Camilla and Charles don't mind if Parliament passes legislation barring her from being Queen Consort to please the public. Since they are already married and she is Princess of Wales, why should be not be Queen?

If there is a public outcry over the issue, then it can be done. But I doubt anyone thinks there will be. Diana died a divorcee and was never going to be Queen anyway.

It's silly and diminishes the monarchy to start up memories of 1936 again. Camilla is the lawful wife of Prince Charles and has every right to be Queen when the time comes.

Exactly. Anything even remotely resembling a morganatic marriage is going to make a total mockery of the abdication. Even if Charles isn't bothered about what that might do to the memories and legacy of the Duke and Duchess of Windsor, I'm sure he isn't going to stand for anything that casts his beloved Grannie in a bad light.

 

[Avareenah]

Whether some people like it or not, she does have every right. She is married to the heir apparent, the Prince of Wales, and she is the Princess of Wales, whether she is known as such or not, and when her husband becomes King, she has the right to be Queen. For her not to become Queen, her current rights will have to be taken away from her by Parliament.

Roslyn, I am speaking from a moral point of view, not a legal one.

 

[Roslyn]

Roslyn, I am speaking from a moral point of view, not a legal one.

The legal one is the only one that matters to me in this context.

 

[Sister Morphine]

Roslyn, I am speaking from a moral point of view, not a legal one.

What does the moral point of view have to do with this? It doesn't matter that they had an affair. That's in the past. A lot of religions frown upon extra-martial fooling around, but that doesn't mean rights are taken away from people because of it. What matters is that they are married now and that she has the legal right to be Queen when Charles ascends the throne.

 

[branchg]

Sure she can. As far as I know, under British law unless there's an intent to defraud or otherwise use the name to engage in criminal activity, people can call themselves whatever they like. It may not be their legal name, but that doesn't mean they can't call themselves HRH the Princess Consort. Or Bozo the Clown, for that matter.

I mean, if HM the Queen Consort announces that she'd like to be known as HRH the Princess Consort, who's going to say, "sorry but you can't, ma'am"? I can't exactly see them throwing her in the Tower because of it.

It is both a constitutional and legal matter for a future Parliament to consider when the time comes. Camilla could not simply announce "I will be known as HRH The Princess Consort" the moment her husband becomes King because she has no legal right to determine her style and title under the succession.

Legally, she would already be HM The Queen under the constitutional precedents of the monarchy as recognized by Parliament and the Crown Commonwealth. As we saw with Queen Caroline, not even the King can remove his wife's rank and title, only Parliament can. Again, the precedents cannot be ignored, as was made clear when the wedding was announced.

There is no such title as Princess Consort nor has it ever been used for the wife of the King. If Parliament agrees the King has the right to determine his wife's style and title irrespective of her legal rank as Queen Consort, then he is free to issue letters patent and create it. I highly doubt they will agree the Sovereign can do this without legislation being passed.

This is the only legal way to allow Camilla not to be known as Queen.

 

[Avareenah]

What does the moral point of view have to do with this? It doesn't matter that they had an affair. That's in the past. A lot of religions frown upon extra-martial fooling around, but that doesn't mean rights are taken away from people because of it. What matters is that they are married now and that she has the legal right to be Queen when Charles ascends the throne.

Yes, she does and I don't dispute that. When I speak about the "moral" point of view, I'm referring to the sensitivities of public opinion which, when the time comes, these two will simply have to take into account whether they like it or not, if they want to be accepted by the majority of their subjects. Simple as that.

I am not saying that the past is not in the past and that they don't have the right to "move on" with their lives, but there are still many people who resent their past behaviour and the way in which Camilla came to the place she is in today and this is simply FACT.

 

[branchg]

In my opinion, the "moral question" was solved and addressed by Tony Blair, The Queen and the Archbishop of Canterbury all approving the marriage of Camilla Parker-Bowles to HRH The Prince of Wales. The public was prepared to accept a marriage, knowing full-well this meant Camilla would eventually become Queen.

If there really was a "moral" objection, then Charles should never have been allowed to marry her and retain his right to the succession. He simply could have told The Queen he was prepared to marry Camilla and renounce his rights to do so and Parliament could have passed an Act confirming William was now the heir to the throne.

That didn't happen, so we have to accept that she is Princess of Wales and a future Queen Consort when the time comes.

 

[love_cc]

Yes, she does and I don't dispute that. When I speak about the "moral" point of view, I'm referring to the sensitivities of public opinion which, when the time comes, these two will simply have to take into account whether they like it or not, if they want to be accepted by the majority of their subjects. Simple as that.

I am not saying that the past is not in the past and that they don't have the right to "move on" with their lives, but there are still many people who resent their past behaviour and the way in which Camilla came to the place she is in today and this is simply FACT.

I agree that many people have negative impressions about Charles and Camilla. But I think many people think monarchy is irrelevant today as well. Once Charles becomes King, I think the title of Camilla as Queen Consort will be smoothly solved. She has been already been his legal wife for almost two years and equally share with his rank. Then again why cannot she have her legal right to be called Queen Consort when he ascends his throne? I think this can be a really mocking of many things, Charles's kingship, the monarchy, and the equal rights of a woman being one man's lawful wife and the equal treatment of current wife against former wife.

Personally I think British monarchy will be a laughing stock if Camilla is not being called Queen and her husband is King. As a man, he cannot protect his wife, what on earth can people to expect the kingship and reserve the monarchy?

 

[branchg]

I agree. In a modern society where many people get divorced, I doubt the public will be storming the palace gates demanding The Queen be stripped of her rank and title to please a handful of Diana fanatics who haven't moved on.

If her two sons are able to accept Camilla and be supportive, then that's good enough for me. She should be Queen and that's it.

 

[Sister Morphine]

Yes, she does and I don't dispute that. When I speak about the "moral" point of view, I'm referring to the sensitivities of public opinion which, when the time comes, these two will simply have to take into account whether they like it or not, if they want to be accepted by the majority of their subjects. Simple as that.

I am not saying that the past is not in the past and that they don't have the right to "move on" with their lives, but there are still many people who resent their past behaviour and the way in which Camilla came to the place she is in today and this is simply FACT.

Is Camilla not accepted by the majority of her subjects? People can disapprove of how she came to be Charles' wife all they want. They can resent the way she came to be what she is all they want. The fact of the matter is, they were given permission to wed, and they did. If them getting married was that much of a problem, it wouldn't have happened.


Camilla shouldn't feel like she has to placate the "sensitivities" of the Diana supporters who resent her. Diana is dead. Before she died, she wasn't even his wife anymore. Had he been a widower and he then married Camilla....okay, you'd have a point. However they had been divorced for 5 years by that time. Everyone in the whole picture was to blame for the divorce, not just one party. If you punish Camilla, you must punish Charles and how should the people go about doing that? Pressuring him to abdicate? Storming Buckingham Palace and demanding he divorce her?


All this talk about protecting and recognizing people's sensitivities is ridiculous.

 

[Avareenah]

branchg, what do you mean "the public was prepared to accept the marriage"? The public was not asked. As you said, the marriage went ahead after consultation with the Queen, The Archbishop of Canterbury and the Prime Minister. That these three approved the marriage does not mean that they condoned what was going on up to the time the marriage took place.

Also, why do you keep mentioning "Diana fanatics"? Is it only "Diana fanatics" who disapprove of longstanding extra-marital affairs where the man concerned appears to ignore his own young wife in favour of his mistress? Is it only "Diana fanatics" who are concerned that Charles for many years went against church teaching about the sanctity of marriage, when one day he will be representative of that church? I don't think so.

However, I'm retiring from this discussion now - it's just going round and round in circles without getting anywhere. Fun, though...

 

[love_cc]

According to the recent polls in years about Charles and Camilla's marrige, the majority has no problem against that. Both BBC and other media have proved that. And I think both Buckingham Palace and Clarence House have been aware that and which helps Charles to make decision to marry Camilla while he can retain his succession. Charles and his office knows that. They don't ask people to vote on whether he cannot marry Camilla or not, but they know the tide for their marriage stable now. So Charles and his office made their comments about Camilla and the Queen title. Unfortunately they are wrong or a bit misleading about the matter.So now people are more confused about this matter.

For Camilla's future title, I know both her and Charles can ask the parliament to pass a legislation to use HRH Princess Consort, but why do they want to do that？ And the legal experts think it is not proper to pass a law only for a person. So I think it is better for any person to be realistic about Camilla's future title as Queen Consort. Like or not, people have to accept the fact. If they really hate the idea of King Charles and Queen Camilla, I think the only way is to abolish it.

 

[branchg]

Diana was having affairs too.....it's not fair to blame Charles and Charles alone for the failure of the marriage. Their marriage failed for many reasons and it wasn't just Camilla. It's takes two to make a marriage work and two to make it fail.

Diana has passed away and is now part of history. Camilla is Princess of Wales and a future Queen. It's just the way life turned out.

 

[Warren]

OK, it's time to get off the Charles/Diana/Camilla merry-go-round lest yet another thread succumbs to the inevitable ugliness.

Thanks.

 

[Frothy]

I think I should just point out again that not everybody agrees with either of the following:

a) that legislation will be needed for the queen to be styled as HRH the Princess Consort
b) that Camilla will be known as anything other than HRH the Princess Consort

The matter has been announced and it will require something for it to be altered and for her title as queen ever to be used. Branchq likes to style her Princess of Wales, but whatever she is legally, she is known around the world, in the UK, and even in TRF, as merely "The Duchess of Cornwall". And in exactly the same way, she'll be known as "The Princess Consort", and spin it any which way you like, both titles are demotions of her rank.

She is the first pow in history to be forced to use a lesser title, and it lowers her status in the eyes of all the world.

For her to be known as Queen, Charles will need to backtrack on the current position. I hope that happens, but I am not holding my breath.

 

[BeatrixFan]

1. Everybody does agree that legislation is needed for the Queen Consort to be styled as HRH The Princess Consort as it would mean creating a new office and that is very much a Parliamentary matter.

2. We were told several days after their engagement that it would be impossible for Camilla to be called the Princess Consort without an act of Parliament and the permission and approval of the other Commonwealth realms.

 

[Frothy]

1. Beatrix. By definition, since I do not agree, everybody does not agree. Without wishing to reveal my identity, I am involved in these matters on a professional level and the assertion is simply and factually false. It has been revealed to be false by me, on this thread, quoting a spokeswoman from the Department of Constitutional Affairs. Frankly she knows an awful lot better than Branchq, you or other posters here.

No legislation is required for anything other than the removal of the title and rank of queen. She may use a lesser title.

2. We certainly were not, kindly adduce the source. We were told precisely the opposite.

 

[BeatrixFan]

With respect, "I know something I can't tell you" doesn't qualify as a factual source and we can only go on factual sources. The Department for Constitutional Affairs has said several times that legislation WILL be needed so I'd humbly suggest that there has been some mix up somewhere because not only have Lord Falconer, the Department for Constitutional Affairs, Buckingham Palace, Clarence House and various constitutional experts all said that legislation is a must but you're claim that she may use a lesser title is exactly why legislation IS needed.

Camilla can use a lesser title but only one that exists and the title and office of 'Princess Consort' doesn't exist. To do so in the circumstances, an act of parliament is needed so I'm afraid I'll continue to disagree with you until all those sources who have told us legislation is needed, tell us it isn't, I'll stick with Branchq and the other posters who don't know an awful lot.

 

[Frothy]

Beatrix Fan,

the Dept of C.A. has absolutely not said that whatsoever. Prove it! I have provided quotes and links to support my assertions, but you and Branchq have not. Never, not once.

The only legislation needed would be to deny her her place and rank as queen. No legislation is needed for her to be known as HRH the Princess Consort.

I provided direct proof of that, in this thread. Where is yours to contradict mine?

Legislation is not needed to create a title. The title HRH the Princess Consort does not yet exist and can be created by a simple letters patent. No legislation needed there either. Once that title is created, Camilla can use it all her life, and never be known as HM the Q if she goes by the lesser title. She is not known as the PoW, but only by her lesser title at present.

If you can deny either of these facts I would like to see some proof. I have had nothing but assertions from posters. No links, articles, or quotes from government or royal sources arguing the contrary.

Tell me, when Charles becomes King and Camilla becomes known as HRH the Princess Consort, will I get an apology from the "we all know she'll be called Queen Camilla" faction on TRF? Again, I won't hold my breath!

 

[BeatrixFan]

Okay dear. You're right, the British establishment is wrong and we all apologise.

 

[Frothy]

No Beatrix,

you're wrong, and the British establishment is right:

A Department for Constitutional Affairs spokeswoman confirmed that legislation would be needed for Camilla not to become Queen automatically on Charles's succession.

"I think traditionally that's probably the case because in all similar circumstances in the past in past royal marriages that is what has happened," said the spokeswoman.

"But I think she is not going to be referred to as Queen, she will be referred to as the Princess Consort." Asked about the position of other countries where the Prince of Wales would become head of state on his succession, the spokeswoman replied: "I think you are right in thinking it would require legislation for her not to be Queen."

Evidently this quote needs repeating.

Edit to add:

http://www.royal.gov.uk/output/page5559.asp

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.

Hmm, let me see. That's one government source and one royal source confirming that Camilla will be "known as" HRH the Princess Consort. And your counter to that is.....?

 

[Henri M.]

By the grace of God

Please don't attempt to force that opinion upon subjects of the United Kingdom--even those like myself, living outside the realm. Her Majesty is the head of the Anglican Church, as well, so there is much more involved here than the history of power and politics. Some would say that divine right and political history are very much interlaced.

It is interesting to see how this is done at the other side of the Channel:

In the Netherlands they stick to the old and ancient formula 'We, Beatrix, by the grace of God Queen of the Netherlands, Princess of Orange-Nassau, Etc., Etc., Etc.' and the Netherlands made quite a fuss in the EU with their wish to have a text on the edge of the Dutch Euro-coins: 'God Be With Us' ('Us' = pluralis majestatis and means The Sovereign).

In Luxembourg when the new Grand Duke assumed the throne in 2000, he became Nous Henri, par la grâce de Dieu Grand-Duc de Luxembourg, Duc de Nassau, Etc., Etc., Etc. but for some reasons soon after this Henri ordered the style 'par la grâce de Dieu' to be relinghuised. It was a very surprising move. The Grand Ducal House is seen as religious, but maybe Henri wanted to show he is 'modern'?

In Belgium, after the split from the Netherlands (de jure in 1839) the King was reigning by will of the people therefore there never has been a King of Belgium (= a realm) or a King 'by the grace of God'. The Belgian King is 'King of the Belgians' (= of the people) and not 'of Belgium'.

Interesting to see that the British and the Dutch Houses wants to keep and stress on their 'Droit Divin'.

 

[Jo of Palatine]

Camilla can use a lesser title but only one that exists and the title and office of 'Princess Consort' doesn't exist.

AFAIK the queen as the king's wife has no other titles because the king cannot be a peer, thus all his other titles will merge with the Crown the moment he becomes king. So there simply is no lesser title except maybe that of the Duchess of Lancaster but I think we've discussed here that the title of "Duke of Lancaster" as used by HM is not a real title of a peer but a word used when the queen acts on behalf of that dukedom.

So what title could Camilla use? I guess the title and office of "Prince Consort" exists because Prince Albert had it, but that was before the 1917 change of the titles act? And Prince Philip was never Prince Consort. But how was it done with Prince albert? IIRC queen Victoria wanted him to have the title of King Consort in analogy to Queen Consort but parliament refused and only made him into Prince Consort. Thus I guess it's really parliament who has to decide, not the king.

 

[Frothy]

Let's remember that there have been several Kings Consort in the UK, and they were crowned; two of Scotland, one of England.

I think the model here is that of Philip/Albert. Albert was simply created HRH the Prince Consort through letters patent; Philip was created a Prince of the UK.

It will be easy enough for letters patent to be issued granting Camilla, like Albert or Philip, the title of HRH the Princess Consort, perhaps a sua juris title to follow the example set in the Netherlands cf: Maxima, and then although legally queen she "is known" by her lesser title of HRH the Princess Consort.

The issuing of letters patent and the creation of a title are very simple matters and no legislation is needed.

Jo is right that parliament could object, but as we have not seen any objection to the Buckingham Palace announcement from any party in the House of Commons I think we can take it that there is no objection, just as there has been no fuss about the first princess of Wales in history not to be known by that title.

 

[Warren]

I understand that a title can be adopted by usage (eg Lady Louise Windsor) but the HRH is not a title.
I guess they can say that although Camilla will legally share her husband's qualification of 'Majesty', she will be addressed instead as 'Royal Highness'. It's bearing all the hallmarks of an Austrian or German morganatic arrangement (eg the Duchess of Hohenberg), with the similar downgrading of the wife's title and qualification.

 

[Frothy]

Warren, isn't it more paralell to the forthcoming arrangements on the Continent, where the Dutch have decided that only the King/Queen will bear that rank and that the spouse will be known as Prince/ss Consort? When Camilla actually becomes Princess Consort, she will paralell an existing arrangement close by.

I don't see why she can't be created Princess Consort just as Albert was created Prince Consort and then use that title instead of her title of queen.

The "facts on the ground" are that this has been announced and as quoted, is agreed by the government and the palace, and it will take a change in the status quo for anything else to happen.

I do want to be clear that I am very much against all this, as you say, quasi morganatic nonsense, this Duchess of Windsor stuff, and would like to see Charles step up and restore Camilla to normal protocol. Unfortunately, the dog's breakfast that is the "known as the Duchess of Cornwall" arrangement has been swallowed wholesale without a murmur, which makes any coming to their senses over the 'Princess Consort' rubbish that much less likely.

 

[branchg]

Legislation is not needed to create the title as this remains in the gift of the Sovereign as fount of honour. What is needed is parliamentary consent and approval to remove her rank and title as HM The Queen as well as define her rights under the precedents of the monarchy.

Camilla cannot be HRH The Princess Consort once she is Queen. Once her husband becomes King, she loses her rank and title as HRH Princess of the UK because she is now HM Queen Camilla, which is held in her own right for her lifetime.

 

[branchg]

Unfortunately, the dog's breakfast that is the "known as the Duchess of Cornwall" arrangement has been swallowed wholesale without a murmur, which makes any coming to their senses over the 'Princess Consort' rubbish that much less likely.

Frothy, she is not "known as" The Duchess of Cornwall, she IS the Duchess of Cornwall. When she married Charles, she became Princess of Wales, Duchess of Cornwall and Rothesay, Countess of Chester & Carrick, et. all as the wife of the titleholder. She simply is choosing to be styled by one of her titles, rather than another.

If Prince Charles had no other titles, Camilla would be HRH The Princess Charles at the present time (which is technically her rank and title in the UK through marriage). Once he becomes King, there is no other title for her to use but Queen. Since the wife of the King is Queen, Parliament must consent to the use of a lesser rank and title as there is no precedent for it.

It's the same thing as in 1936 with Edward VIII.

 

[Jo of Palatine]

It's the same thing as in 1936 with Edward VIII.

I found that here:http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4369217.stm

"Speaking on Radio 4 Mr Mackinlay said: "Prince Charles has been less than frank with the country - he knows that it was established in 1936 that the King's spouse automatically becomes Queen unless there is a law passed to the contrary."


So what happened in the 1936 act when Edward abdicated? What does that act say with regards to Camilla?

 

[Skydragon]

I found that here:http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4369217.stm
So what happened in the 1936 act when Edward abdicated? What does that act say with regards to Camilla?

Thanks for that Jo.

His comments follow confirmation from the Department for Constitutional Affairs that she would become Queen when Charles succeeds to the throne....
Constitutional Affairs Minister Christopher Leslie confirmed her future status when questioned in the Commons....
Mr Leslie said that it was not a morganatic marriage

I think that clears up any confusion!