King Charles and Queen Camilla

[Jo of Palatine]

I wonder if the best solution to the whole problem is to connect Camilla's fate as queen or no queen to that of William's bride?

You know - I believe the problem is based in the Diana/Charles/Camilla-triangle: Diana was never to be queen, so why should Camilla be one?

But once you open up the question if the wife of the heir apparent should be only Princess Consort on the ascession of her husband to the throne, you put it in the range of Camilla-William's princess. Will William's wife become a Princess Consort as well?

I bet even the die-hard Diana-fans would not want to deprive William's wife of her title as queen, even if that means allowing Camilla to be queen, too!

 

[Sister Morphine]

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.

So? She's his wife. She's entitled to be Queen. Their past behavior, no matter how much people may disagree with it, does not take away from the fact that they are husband and wife and she is legally entitled to share in his titles. When he is King, she will be Queen. That's how it goes. If past indiscretions in people's lives kept them from assuming rightful titles.....there would be very few titled people in this world. That because the two have nothing to do with each other. Queen Consort is for the wife of the King. If she's the wife of the King......and she's not Queen Consort.....well then what is she? She can't have a style that is not equal to what she is.


I'll say it again; if her becoming Queen and using the style Queen Consort was going to be a moral sticking point, they never should have been allowed to wed. Someone should have forseen this nonsense and decided to stop it before it started.

 

[Elspeth]

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.

I do understand the difference. However, what I'm saying is sort of in response to this part of your post: "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." If they managed to find a way around the law in order to get what they wanted then, they can manage to find a way around the law to get what they want now. They have access to the best constitutional lawyers in the land, after all.

 

[branchg]

I understand. But do you really think they will go that far this time around for a married woman who already holds equal rank to The Prince of Wales?

It would be incomprehensible.....but I guess anything is possible.

 

[branchg]

If they managed to find a way around the law in order to get what they wanted then, they can manage to find a way around the law to get what they want now. They have access to the best constitutional lawyers in the land, after all.

And keep in mind that royal rank is not governed by constitutional law (unlike the title and succession of the monarchy) and HRH is a style. Those honours are entirely at the will of The Sovereign and can be removed or conferred at any time for any reason.

 

[HRH Kerry]

As much as I want Camilla to be Queen Consort, there are kings that marry and their wives are styled as Princess Consort for whatever reason. I'm sure there has to be some kind of provisions set. Look at the King of Morocco and the King of Swaziland. Maybe I shouldn't mention the latter!

 

[BeatrixFan]

Indeed. This isn't Morocco or Swaziland though. This is Britain and we do things properly here.

 

[sirhon11234]

quote

Indeed. This isn't Morocco or Swaziland though. This is Britain and we do things properly here.

What do you mean by properly?

 

[ysbel]

Why should the royal traditions in Britain follow the traditions in Swaziland and Morocco?

That doesn't make much sense.

 

[sirhon11234]

quote

Why should the royal traditions in Britain follow the traditions in Swaziland and Morocco?

That doesn't make much sense.

But no one said that England should follow other royal traditions. I didn't understand BeatrixFan's comment that Britain does things more properly.

 

[HRH Kerry]

Indeed. This isn't Morocco or Swaziland though. This is Britain and we do things properly here.

I'm not saying that Britain should follow these countries. I'm only saying that that the kings of these countries have Princess Consorts. Hey, I want Camilla to be Queen Consort!

 

[HRH Kerry]

But no one said that England should follow other royal traditions. I didn't understand BeatrixFan's comment that Britain does things more properly.

Have you taken a look at Swaziland?!

 

[Madame Royale]

Have you taken a look at Swaziland?!

Yes, but Swaziland is headed by an Autocratic monarch so what does one really expect? How many is it now? Wife number 13 or something 'The females of the king'...

Whatever the decision in England, it shall have nothing to do wth either Swaziland or Morocco and is in no way a reflection of their monarchial institutions.

One is absolute, one is semi-constitutional and the other constitutional. Quite a varied spectrum and are all very much different (with reason to be).

 

[Sister Morphine]

If other countries have a Princess Consort in addition to or in place of a Queen Consort, well that's good. I'm sure it's been working out great for them, but let's not fix what isn't broken. And by that I mean, if there is no precedence for a Princess Consort in England......why make one up?

 

[Madame Royale]

And by that I mean, if there is no precedence for a Princess Consort in England......why make one up?

I guess one would have to ask those who proposed it in the first place.

...but let's not fix what isn't broken

Obviously some thought there was something worthy of being added. Circumstances shape people and they shape situations. More notably in the later half of the twentieth century, they (the circumstances then at hand) also started to shape hereditary institutions

Everything evolves, nothing stays the same as it once was. The question is, can it continue to maintain what's old and what's new, and in the process find a balance which continues a function of relevance.

 

[Madame Royale]

If anything, I see this as being uselful (not that its its purpose?) to read public opinion in regards to social feeling. If there is an "outcry" then at least they know people still give a damn. If there is support for the decision (Princess Consort)..again, at least they know people continue to hold interest but if there's nothing, well, that's when I (personally) would start to worry a little.

Indifference can be a shaky resolve for those who are subject to it.

 

[HRH Kerry]

Whatever the decision in England, it shall have nothing to do wth either Swaziland or Morocco and is in no way a reflection of their monarchial institutions.

Agreed. Just wanted people to know that some princess consorts are married to kings; they aren't always "equivalent" (as someone used earlier) to their husbands rank of king.

 

[HRH Kerry]

If other countries have a Princess Consort in addition to or in place of a Queen Consort, well that's good. I'm sure it's been working out great for them, but let's not fix what isn't broken. And by that I mean, if there is no precedence for a Princess Consort in England......why make one up?

I guess one would have to ask those who proposed it in the first place.



Obviously some thought there was something worthy of being added. Circumstances shape people and they shape situations. More notably in the later half of the twentieth century, they (the circumstances then at hand) also started to shape hereditary institutions

Everything evolves, nothing stays the same as it once was. The question is, can it continue to maintain what's old and what's new, and in the process find a balance which continues a function of relevance.

This is just a vicious circle. This princess consort was thrown out there to confuse the masses IMO. Heck it had me scratching my head. Will anyone in Britain really care when the smoke clears? I mean, given the life span of the Queen Mum and take in consideration that the present queen seems to be in good health, will anyone really care whenever the time comes?

 

[Madame Royale]

Agreed. Just wanted people to know that some princess consorts are married to kings; they aren't always "equivalent" (as someone used earlier) to their husbands rank of king.

Absolutely

 

[Jo of Palatine]

But no one said that England should follow other royal traditions. I didn't understand BeatrixFan's comment that Britain does things more properly.

IIRC the king of Swaziland has several wifes while the king of Marocco is the souverain of an islamic state with certain issues regarding the equality of men and women. For someone who believes in said equality the (must I already say: former?) way to deal with these issues in Britain looks more proper.

 

[Madame Royale]

IIRC the king of Swaziland has several wifes

I thought it was 13, though some have since left His Majesty. Moreover, I don't believe divorce is an option and so are still legally married to Mswati III.

'Lucky' women huh?

 

[Jo of Palatine]

I thought it was 13, though some have since left His Majesty. Moreover, I don't believe divorce is an option and so are still legally married to Mswati III.

'Lucky' women huh?

At least noone can say now that prince Charles has more than one wife - CoE or not...

 

[Madame Royale]

At least noone can say now that prince Charles has more than one wife - CoE or not...

Haha...

 

[BeatrixFan]

What do you mean by properly?

Exactly what I say. A King is married to a Queen, they are known as Their Majesties and we've been doing things that way for hundreds of years. We have a set standard and anything that falls below that standard simply isn't cricket.

 

[Skydragon]

Just wanted people to know that some princess consorts are married to kings; they aren't always "equivalent" (as someone used earlier) to their husbands rank of king.

Well pointed out!

 

[Frothy]

The example of Elizabeth of York is a very good one.

Queen of England by right of marriage
Princess of England by right of birth (and many would argue, Queen of England by right of birth too with her husband usurping her throne since she was sister to the Princes in the Tower, but I digress)

She was then both Queen and Princess. Of course you would use the senior title of Queen, but she did not cease to be a Princess of England in her own right when she became Queen Consort in right of her husband.

Branch keeps saying that the Queen Consort cannot be anything else because to be Princess Consort as well would be "morganatic". The point I make repeatedly and he repeatedly IMO glosses over or perhaps misunderstands is that there is nothing morganatic about it if the title of Princess Consort is an "own right" title.

There is plenty of precedent in British royal marriages for Queens consort to hold peerages. Usually they have been of other nations and of course usually one uses the highest title one bears, which is why "Duchess of Cornwall" is significant as a major break from tradition.

Bu I'm grateful to the smart poster who gave the example of Elizabeth of York. Queen and Princess simultaneously. Just because she used the title of Queen consort did not mean she lost the rights conferred on her by birth as the daughter of Edward IV. And Camilla can use any own-right title she posesses without morganatic coming into it. And she can be made a Princess of the UK in her own right with a stroke of the King's pen.

 

[Sister Morphine]

Also, if you call the legal wife of the King, something other than what the legal wife of the King is to be called, you are saying that she is not worthy to be styled as the legal wife of the King. It doesn't matter if you give it to her in her own right or just tell her that's what she'll be using.

The wife of the King is the Queen. That's how it works in England and many other countries. To give her a title BELOW what she is entitled to have by marriage, is in effect saying something is not right in the marriage and she cannot be styled the way other women in her position are styled. How is that not the definition of morganatic?

 

[Madame Royale]

If by calling that person "smart" you are then implying the rest of us are "stupid", I'm not jiving on that one bit. You could have made that whole point without that word.

I maybe wrong, but I think you have misread Frothy's intent.

Smart as in 'what a clever comparison', or (in the case of the poster which was JoP I think) of 'sharp mind'. Personally, I was not offended in the slightest and I'd have to agree It was a worthy example.

 

[branchg]

Branch keeps saying that the Queen Consort cannot be anything else because to be Princess Consort as well would be "morganatic". The point I make repeatedly and he repeatedly IMO glosses over or perhaps misunderstands is that there is nothing morganatic about it if the title of Princess Consort is an "own right" title.

There is plenty of precedent in British royal marriages for Queens consort to hold peerages. Usually they have been of other nations and of course usually one uses the highest title one bears, which is why "Duchess of Cornwall" is significant as a major break from tradition.

And Camilla can use any own-right title she posesses without morganatic coming into it. And she can be made a Princess of the UK in her own right with a stroke of the King's pen.

I said a Queen Consort cannot hold a lesser rank and title without consent from Parliament and the Crown Commonwealth. There is no other title for the wife of the King at the present time except being HM The Queen.

In order for Camilla to be HRH The Princess Consort (which is a lesser title and rank than being HM The Queen) in her own right, Parliament would have to pass legislation removing her legal rank as the wife of the King, making her a commoner and freeing The Sovereign to create her a Princess of the UK via letters patent.

The Duchess of Cornwall is one of Camilla's titles and is equal in rank and precedence to Princess of Wales. Her present rank and title is HRH The Princess Charles as the wife of a prince of the UK. That would not the case if she is downgraded to HRH The Princess Consort after she is legally The Queen.

 

[wbenson]

Queens Consort are legally commoners, as they are neither the Sovereign nor a peer. Indeed, any member of the royal family without a peerage (Prince William, Prince Harry, Princess Anne, etc) is a commoner. As has been said before by several, the only person on whom a peerage, style, or title cannot be conferred is the fount of honour his or herself. Thus, Queen Camilla could be made a Princess in her own right, and be granted the right to be styled "Princess Consort."