King Charles and Queen Camilla

[wbenson]

Parliament would have to strip Camilla of her rightful title of Queen before the new King can give her ANY title; Princess Consort, Bozo The Clown, Queen of the Ooompa-Loompa People....whatever. Before any of that can happen, Parliament MUST strip her of her title.

Any person who is a subject of the monarch can be granted a style or title, whether or not it takes precedence over styles and titles already held. Whether it is used or not is irrelevant. As Camilla would be a subject of her husband, it would be completely legal for her to receive a grant of a style or title. However, as you say, the only body that can strip her of the style "Her Majesty" and the title "The Queen" is the Parliament of the United Kingdom, working in unison with the Parliaments and governments of the other Commonwealth Realms, which will not in any liklihood happen.

 

[Sister Morphine]

The question is whether, and how, the HRH Princess Consort handle might be given to her in addition to the HM the Queen handle, so she can be known by the former style while also holding the latter.

However, as I asked earlier in the thread, would that mean she wouldn't take part in the coronation ceremony - she'd still be Queen even if she wasn't referred to as such, and this isn't a morganatic marriage (or so we're being assured). What would it mean in practical terms for what she does after Charles becomes king?

From what I understand through reading these last 10 pages or so, the Queen can't hold more than one title. So she's either the Queen or she's not. So they can't give her another title, without taking the one she would have away from her first. It's not like the situation currently, where she has more than one title to choose from that she'll be referred to.

So I don't see how she can LEGALLY be the Queen and LEGALLY be a morgantic princess at the same time. There is no precedence for that.


As for the coronation ceremony, if she's not being crowned Queen Consort, what would she be doing there? If they've got her styled as the morgantic wife of the King, I can't see her being able to do much.

 

[Elspeth]

I think Frothy's point is that while the sovereign can't be a peer as well as the sovereign, the consort isn't the same as the sovereign. So it should be possible in theory for the sovereign to create his consort Princess of the United Kingdom in her own right. I assume that means that in the event they divorce she'd keep the title, which might be one reason for not granting it in the first place.

 

[ysbel]

OK, this may be too pedantic but here goes...

In 1485 Henry, Duke of Lancaster, married Anne of York, born a Princess of England and after the Battle of Bosworth was granted the crown and title of King of England.

The question I have, was Anne of York still a Princess of England after she married Henry VII or did the fact that she married a reigning monarch forfeit her title as princess.

Back in the days when Kings married Royal Princesses, the ladies kept their royal princess title from the land of their birth when they married a sovereign. So Anne of Denmark (consort of James I) would technically be Princess of Denmark, Queen Consort of England and Scotland.

But what of Royal Princesses of England who married Kings of England (due to two factions of a family joining together or something similar?)

 

[branchg]

I think Frothy's point is that while the sovereign can't be a peer as well as the sovereign, the consort isn't the same as the sovereign. So it should be possible in theory for the sovereign to create his consort Princess of the United Kingdom in her own right. I assume that means that in the event they divorce she'd keep the title, which might be one reason for not granting it in the first place.

Again, the 1936 precedents make it clear this is impossible. The wife of The King holds the rights, title, rank and privileges of Queen Consort and nothing else. Even worse, Camilla is already married to the future king, unlike the situation Edward was facing, and shares equal rank.

 

[branchg]

From what I understand through reading these last 10 pages or so, the Queen can't hold more than one title. So she's either the Queen or she's not. So they can't give her another title, without taking the one she would have away from her first. It's not like the situation currently, where she has more than one title to choose from that she'll be referred to.

So I don't see how she can LEGALLY be the Queen and LEGALLY be a morgantic princess at the same time. There is no precedence for that.


As for the coronation ceremony, if she's not being crowned Queen Consort, what would she be doing there? If they've got her styled as the morgantic wife of the King, I can't see her being able to do much.

That's the point some people keep missing. She's married, holds equal rank and becomes Queen in due course. If she is HRH The Princess Consort, she is not Queen or HM. So, she's a morganatic wife, which Parliament will not accept, anymore than they did in 1936.

 

[Sister Morphine]

OK, this may be too pedantic but here goes...

In 1485 Henry, Duke of Lancaster, married Anne of York, born a Princess of England and after the Battle of Bosworth was granted the crown and title of King of England.

The question I have, was Anne of York still a Princess of England after she married Henry VII or did the fact that she married a reigning monarch forfeit her title as princess.

Back in the days when Kings married Royal Princesses, the ladies kept their royal princess title from the land of their birth when they married a sovereign. So Anne of Denmark (consort of James I) would technically be Princess of Denmark, Queen Consort of England and Scotland.

But what of Royal Princesses of England who married Kings of England (due to two factions of a family joining together or something similar?)

It was Elizabeth of York, not Anne of York that Henry VII married. They weren't even married until after he was crowned, and she wasn't crowned herself until after their first child was born. Until she was crowned Queen, she was the Queen but not known as such. I believe she was still known as Elizabeth of York. As the daughter of a King, she was already a Princess of the blood royal.

Anne of Denmark became Queen Anne of England and Scotland when James I became King. I don't think you can keep your title and the title you assumed upon marriage at the same time.


Let's take a hypothetical situation: Princess Madeleine of Sweden marries Prince William. She wouldn't be known as HRH Princess Madeleine of Sweden, Princess of Wales or however you'd write that out. She'd be HRH Princess Madeleine of Wales. The woman takes her rank from her husband, even if she's a royal princess herself. She is losing her title to gain another one. HSH Princess May of Teck was not HRH Princess May of Teck and York when she married George V; she was HRH The Duchess of York.

 

[ysbel]

It was Elizabeth of York, not Anne of York that Henry VII married. They weren't even married until after he was crowned, and she wasn't crowned herself until after their first child was born. Until she was crowned Queen, she was the Queen but not known as such. I believe she was still known as Elizabeth of York. As the daughter of a King, she was already a Princess of the blood royal.

Anne of Denmark became Queen Anne of England and Scotland when James I became King. I don't think you can keep your title and the title you assumed upon marriage at the same time.


Let's take a hypothetical situation: Princess Madeleine of Sweden marries Prince William. She wouldn't be known as HRH Princess Madeleine of Sweden, Princess of Wales or however you'd write that out. She'd be HRH Princess Madeleine of Wales. The woman takes her rank from her husband, even if she's a royal princess herself. She is losing her title to gain another one. HSH Princess May of Teck was not HRH Princess May of Teck and York when she married George V; she was HRH The Duchess of York.

Sister Morphine, thanks for the name correction but I'm not quite sure these royal-born princesses lose their royal-born titles. In fact the British custom states that only ladies that are princess-born can have Princess affixed before their names when they marry into the BRF. That title comes from birth and is retained through marriage into the BRF.

 

[Elspeth]

I think Princess Marina continued to be referred to as Princess Marina when she became Duchess of Kent. Not sure if that was official or just the way the press and the public referred to her, though.

 

[Sister Morphine]

Queen Alexandra was born a princess of Denmark. When she married the future Edward VII, she lost her title Princess of Denmark to become a Princess of England. In fact, she became the Princess of Wales.

The woman takes her rank from her husband. If you're already a Princess, you would lose your style (of Sweden, of Denmark, of wherever) and take your husbands (of Wales, of York, of wherever). If you are not a Princess, you are either created one, like the Dutch with with Crown Princess Maxima [she is a Princess of the Netherlands in her own right] or you are not created one [a la Camilla]. If you are not created one, your title would be HRH Princess *insert guy's name here* of XYZ.

 

[ysbel]

Queen Alexandra was born a princess of Denmark. When she married the future Edward VII, she lost her title Princess of Denmark to become a Princess of England. In fact, she became the Princess of Wales.

The woman takes her rank from her husband. If you're already a Princess, you would lose your style (of Sweden, of Denmark, of wherever) and take your husbands (of Wales, of York, of wherever). If you are not a Princess, you are either created one, like the Danes with with Crown Princess Mary [she is a Princess of Denmark in her own right] or you are not created one [a la Camilla]. If you are not created one, your title would be HRH Princess *insert guy's name here* of XYZ.

No I agree that a princess takes the style of her husband but I don't think she loses the style she was born with. Perhaps we need a branchg to answer this. I don't know honestly which is why I asked the question but I have seen royal born princesses referred to as Princess of __________, Queen of ___________

 

[Elspeth]

Again, the 1936 precedents make it clear this is impossible. The wife of The King holds the rights, title, rank and privileges of Queen Consort and nothing else. Even worse, Camilla is already married to the future king, unlike the situation Edward was facing, and shares equal rank.

The 1936 precedents are something of a special case. That was an actual morganatic marriage of an ex-king who was told a few months earlier that morganatic marriage would be impossible. Let's face it - the whole point of that sorry exercise was to deny Wallis an HRH by any means necessary. I mean, this whole excuse that by abdicting Edward somehow divested himself of his HRH is just so much nonsense. We're not in the same position today. I don't know if this Princess Consort stuff was because one of the Queen's advisers thought the public would turn against both Charles and Camilla in a big way if it was announced that she'd be Queen when he became King or if it was because Camilla didn't want to be Queen or what. But we're stuck with a situation now where things aren't as easy as they thought they were, once it was confirmed that the wife of the King is Queen legally and not just by convention. There's no way (I assume, anyway) that legislation will be introduced to strip her of the HM. The only question is whether an HRH can be given to her in her own right to go along with the HM. And, honestly, if they can pull legal rabbits out of hats with what they did to Edward and Wallis, I assume they can pull legal ferrets out of trousers and figure some way to do it if they really want to.

 

[Sister Morphine]

No I agree that a princess takes the style of her husband but I don't think she loses the style she was born with.

Any reading I've ever done, and I might not have been reading it correctly, tells me that you would lose the style you're born with when you marry. You will always be a Princess of Wherever, however you would not be styled as such. Alexandra was still a Princess of Denmark by nature of being daughter to the King, but that's just a circumstance of her birth. When she married the Prince of Wales, she became Alexandra, The Princess of Wales. There was no "and of Denmark" affixed to the end of that.


The only way I can see a princess keeping the style she was born with and the style she married into, is if the two places were joined somehow, like when Norway had a union with Sweden. A princess of Sweden who married a prince of Norway would a Princess of Sweden and Norway.

 

[branchg]

No I agree that a princess takes the style of her husband but I don't think she loses the style she was born with. Perhaps we need a branchg to answer this. I don't know honestly which is why I asked the question but I have seen royal born princesses referred to as Princess of __________, Queen of ___________

Well, they never lose their birthright status as a Princess, but of course, they do not keep any foreign titles or precedence upon marriage into the British royal family. They take their husband's titles and styles like anyone else ("HRH Princess Marina, The Duchess of Kent").

 

[ysbel]

Well, they never lose their birthright status as a Princess, but of course, they do not keep any foreign titles or precedence upon marriage into the British royal family. They take their husband's titles and styles like anyone else ("HRH Princess Marina, The Duchess of Kent").

Ah, so they keep the Princess part but they lose the 'of Greece' part.

Thanks branchg.

 

[Sister Morphine]

No offense, but isn't that what I said as well?

 

[ysbel]

Ah, so they keep the Princess part but they lose the 'of Greece' part.

What if the Princess ascends to the throne as Queen Consort, would they ever be referred to their born Princess title in addition to their Queen title or would they drop it for the Queen Consort title?

Thanks branchg.

 

[Sister Morphine]

What if the Princess ascends to the throne as Queen Consort, would they ever be referred to their born Princess title in addition to their Queen title or would they drop it for the Queen Consort title?

I believe they would drop it for the Queen Consort title.

 

[branchg]

The 1936 precedents are something of a special case. That was an actual morganatic marriage of an ex-king who was told a few months earlier that morganatic marriage would be impossible. Let's face it - the whole point of that sorry exercise was to deny Wallis an HRH by any means necessary. I mean, this whole excuse that by abdicting Edward somehow divested himself of his HRH is just so much nonsense.

The precedents I refer to are the questions raised during the debate prior to Edward's abdication. It was made clear the wife of the King is Queen Consort and nothing else. If Edward were to marry Wallis morganatically, approval from Parliament and the Dominions to introduce legislation granting her a lesser rank and title were required.

The 1937 Letters Patent were entirely within the will of The Sovereign as fount of honour. The King could, and did, deny The Duke's wife and children the right to share his rank of HRH since his descendants' statutory rights to the succession were removed in the Act of Abdication.

 

[branchg]

What if the Princess ascends to the throne as Queen Consort, would they ever be referred to their born Princess title in addition to their Queen title or would they drop it for the Queen Consort title?

No, because they are now Queen of the United Kingdom and their birthright styles and titles are inferior to being Her Majesty The Queen. Look at HSH Princess May of Teck becoming HM Queen Mary. Now all her German relatives and relations who looked down on her morganatic status had to curtsy!

 

[BeatrixFan]

I think Princess Marina continued to be referred to as Princess Marina when she became Duchess of Kent. Not sure if that was official or just the way the press and the public referred to her, though

She was known as The Duchess of Kent although I have a few newspapers from the 40s and 50s and one has a picture of Marina attending a production of "Anthony and Cleopatra". Althought she's referred to by the journalist as Her Royal Highness and then later as just The Duchess of Kent, the comments from the public are all aimed at 'Princess Marina'. For example, "One lady said, 'Princess Marina always looks so lovely'". It's the same really as people referring to Anne as 'Princess Anne' and not "The Princess Royal".

 

[Jo of Palatine]

She will be Queen, he will be King and people will just have to accept that.

Yes, that's where my problem lies. The Prince of Wales is the next king. But with this downgrading stuff of his own wife he seems not to be sure of that fact. He suddenly seems only to pretend to be the next king. Kings and their wifes, their queens should reign with a bit of self-assurance and out of the certainty that their position is theirs and theirs alone. The witch-hunt Camilla has been through makes it understandible that she is not so self-assured and probably is content with being just a HRH but in the interest of the greater office which Charles as heir apparent represents, they should go with the tradition from which Charles's right and claim derives - which is a right and no pretense! So: either Camilla will be queen and represents that office and supports her husband's claim, or I will stop to respect this couple. And my guess is that a lot of Britons don't want a wife of their king who is not his queen though she is his legally wedded wife. She belittles herself, her husband belittles her and thus people will belittle them. No idea where this might end but am afraid of this course of action.

 

[Avareenah]

I have exactly the opposite view. If Camilla is referred to as "Queen" when her husband ascends the throne, I will not be able to respect them in the way that I would hope to.

I can fully accept that Camilla is Charles' wife and will be his consort when the time comes. I am not a particular supporter of the pair, but I admire Camilla. She has been through a great deal to come to where she is today.

But I respect more the quality of humility. Charles and Camilla cannot pretend that their love affair has been conducted in ideal circumstances over the years and, while I don't think they should be continually punished for this (they have in fact acknowledged these circumstances during their wedding blessing), I do not think and never will, that the title "Queen Consort" is appropriate. That is the way I feel and time will not change this for me.

 

[BeatrixFan]

She's the legal wife of the King. She must be Queen. You can't pick and choose. We get what we're given and if she's good enough to a Princess, she's good enough to be Queen. Should future Queen Consorts have to sit a morality test to see if they make the grade? Would you have denied Anne Boleyn the title of Queen because of the circumstances of her marriage to the King?

 

[Madame Royale]

At least Cam'z wont loose her head .lol.

 

[Warren]

The 1937 Letters Patent were entirely within the will of The Sovereign as fount of honour. The King could, and did, deny The Duke's wife and children the right to share his rank of HRH since his descendants' statutory rights to the succession were removed in the Act of Abdication.

This is tangental to the main issue, but the bearing of the style of Royal Highness isn't connected to one's rights of succession. For example, Prince Michael of Kent may have lost his place in the succession due to the Act of Settlement, but that had no bearing on his continuing position as a Prince of the United Kingdom with the style of HRH, nor his Roman Catholic wife becoming an HRH on marriage. I don't think anyone will believe the HRH was denied to Wallis on the premise that any (unborn) descendants had no rights of succession.

The legality of the denial of the HRH to Wallis has occupied lawyers for 70 years, and current opinion seems to be that it doesn't stand up. The issue raises the question of whether the Sovereign can override Common Law and established precendent (of a wife sharing her husband's styles and titles) by Royal Decree (in this case Letters Patent). As Elspeth has pointed out, the notion that by abdicating the Throne the new Duke of Windsor somehow ceased to be a Prince and an HRH and needed to be "recreated" Royal is ridiculous. Nevertheless, they got away with it using smoke and mirrors and achieved their aim, which was solely to deny the HRH to the Duke's intended wife.

 

[Jo of Palatine]

Obviously it is possible to become a foreign queen and stay a princess of the UK - from the Act of Settlement, 1701

"Princess Elizabeth, late Queen of Bohemia" - they don't say Her Majesty, the late Queen of Bohemia but the "most excellent Princess Elizabeth, late Queen of Bohemia, daughter of our late sovereign lord King James the First, of happy memory"...

 

[branchg]

This is tangental to the main issue, but the bearing of the style of Royal Highness isn't connected to one's rights of succession. For example, Prince Michael of Kent may have lost his place in the succession due to the Act of Settlement, but that had no bearing on his continuing position as a Prince of the United Kingdom with the style of HRH, nor his Roman Catholic wife becoming an HRH on marriage. I don't think anyone will believe the HRH was denied to Wallis on the premise that any (unborn) descendants had no rights of succession.

The legality of the denial of the HRH to Wallis has occupied lawyers for 70 years, and current opinion seems to be that it doesn't stand up. The issue raises the question of whether the Sovereign can override Common Law and established precendent (of a wife sharing her husband's styles and titles) by Royal Decree (in this case Letters Patent). As Elspeth has pointed out, the notion that by abdicating the Throne the new Duke of Windsor somehow ceased to be a Prince and an HRH and needed to be "recreated" Royal is ridiculous. Nevertheless, they got away with it using smoke and mirrors and achieved their aim, which was solely to deny the HRH to the Duke's intended wife.

I agree, but the Government of the day agreed with Lord Wigram it was best to deny Wallis royal rank to be consistent with the Act of Abdication. Keep in mind the Abdication itself has also been questioned since, in law, The King could marry whomever he wished without approval of his Ministers.

There is no question The Sovereign can confer, withhold or remove any rank and title as fount of honour, with the exception of a Queen Consort.

 

[Elspeth]

The 1937 Letters Patent were entirely within the will of The Sovereign as fount of honour. The King could, and did, deny The Duke's wife and children the right to share his rank of HRH since his descendants' statutory rights to the succession were removed in the Act of Abdication.

The 1937 Letters Patent contradicted the 1917 Letters Patent of George V, conferring HRH's on the children and grandchildren of the sovereign. There was nothing in the 1917 wording to suggest that HRH applied only to individuals in the line of succession (and as we've seen with Prince Michael of Kent, that isn't actually the case). As the son of a king, Edward was HRH The Prince Edward from the instant he abdicated. He hadn't given up his HRH; all the abdication had done, in effect, was to declare the monarch King Edward VIII legally dead. It took away the man's HM, but it didn't stop him being the son of George V and hence entitled to his HRH.

The point here was that Queen Mary and Queen Elizabeth weren't going to wear the notion of HRH the Duchess of Windsor, and it was a case of doing whatever was needed in order to make it so. The fact that they managed to create a morganatic marriage a few months after Edward VIII was told that morganatic marriages weren't legal in the UK just goes to show what depths they were prepared to stoop to. If Edward VIII had decided to abdicate for reasons unconnected with a divorced woman and had been married to a sweet young thing from the upper reaches of the aristocracy, there'd have been an HRH the Duchess of Windsor without any of this manoeuvring.

As long as George VI could issue Letters Patent based on something as flimsy as Edward no longer being in the line of succession and on some sort of nonexistent morganatic state, Charles can, I assume, issue Letters Patent creating Camilla HRH the Princess Consort as well as being HM the Queen Consort. It makes every bit as much sense, and at least it doesn't contradict the law of the land. Those 1937 Letters Patent were just the legalese expression of some downright uncharitable vindictiveness, and IMO they'd be a rotten precedent for anyone wanting to do the right thing.

Having said that, I don't think the Princess Consort business is a good idea anyway, but I just don't think it's impossible if you have clever enough lawyers and a King who wants it to be done (assuming he does).

 

[branchg]

It's not the same thing, Elspeth. Once Charles is The Sovereign, Camilla is Queen Consort, which is very different than the situation Edward VIII was dealing with. He wasn't married to Wallis yet and the question was what would her status be upon marriage to the King. Could he make her a Duchess or Princess instead of Queen? The answer from the Government and Dominions was no.....unless legislation was passed allowing him to marry morganatically.

The Act of Abdication included Edward's right to marry whomever he wished without approval of The King under the Royal Marriages Act, which certainly was contrary to all precedent for members of the royal family within the line of succession.

The issue of his wife's status was automatic in law (she was HRH The Princess Edward upon marriage), but The King refused to recognize her as befitting of royal rank. The Government agreed it was best to find a way to deny Wallis the style to forestall the possibility of yet another divorce on her part, in which she could demand being HRH.

We have to remember this was 1936, not 2006. A twice-divorced woman becoming Queen Consort or even HRH Princess of the UK was pretty shocking at the time. I am not agreeing with what took place, but it wasn't so surprising they found a way to make her a morganatic wife.