The Royal Forums Coat of Arms


Join The Royal Forums Today
Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #621  
Old 01-14-2007, 08:57 AM
Nobility
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Not Saying, United Kingdom
Posts: 309
No Beatrix,

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

Quote:
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

Quote:
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.....?
__________________

  #622  
Old 01-14-2007, 09:01 AM
Henri M.'s Avatar
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Eindhoven / Maastricht, Netherlands
Posts: 1,896
By the grace of God

Quote:
Originally Posted by Prince of Chota
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'.
__________________

  #623  
Old 01-14-2007, 09:16 AM
Jo of Palatine's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Munich, Germany
Posts: 3,323
Quote:
Originally Posted by BeatrixFan

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.
__________________
'To dare is to lose one step for but a moment, not to dare is to lose oneself forever' - Crown Prince Frederick of Denmark in a letter to Miss Mary Donaldson as stated by them on their official engagement interview.
  #624  
Old 01-14-2007, 09:31 AM
Nobility
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Not Saying, United Kingdom
Posts: 309
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.
  #625  
Old 01-14-2007, 10:13 AM
Warren's Avatar
Administrator in Memoriam
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 15,476
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.
__________________
Seeking information? Check out the extensive Royal A-Z
  #626  
Old 01-14-2007, 10:28 AM
Nobility
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Not Saying, United Kingdom
Posts: 309
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.
  #627  
Old 01-14-2007, 12:00 PM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: , United States
Posts: 2,736
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.
  #628  
Old 01-14-2007, 12:08 PM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: , United States
Posts: 2,736
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frothy
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.
  #629  
Old 01-14-2007, 12:25 PM
Jo of Palatine's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Munich, Germany
Posts: 3,323
Quote:
Originally Posted by branchg

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?
__________________
'To dare is to lose one step for but a moment, not to dare is to lose oneself forever' - Crown Prince Frederick of Denmark in a letter to Miss Mary Donaldson as stated by them on their official engagement interview.
  #630  
Old 01-14-2007, 12:44 PM
Skydragon's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: London and Highlands, United Kingdom
Posts: 10,945
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jo of Palatine
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!
  #631  
Old 01-14-2007, 01:05 PM
HRH Kerry's Avatar
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Up the street,hang a left,3rd house from the corner, United States
Posts: 1,626
I believe it does! That would be such a big waste of time and money to dedicate so much effort to undo what is automatic.
__________________
Princely Family of Liechtenstein Forum
Join in on the discussions.
  #632  
Old 01-14-2007, 01:09 PM
Jo of Palatine's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Munich, Germany
Posts: 3,323
Quote:
Originally Posted by Skydragon
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!
And one should not forget (I posted that information before..) that Charles is a historian and a dynast of one of the oldest monarchies in the world. So there is a certain chance that for him his title of "Duke of Cornwall" is more important than his title of "Prince of Wales" - because the Duke of Cornwall is necessary the heir direct of the souverain's body while the Prince of Wales could be a grandson...
__________________
'To dare is to lose one step for but a moment, not to dare is to lose oneself forever' - Crown Prince Frederick of Denmark in a letter to Miss Mary Donaldson as stated by them on their official engagement interview.
  #633  
Old 01-14-2007, 01:44 PM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: , United States
Posts: 2,736
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jo of Palatine
So what happened in the 1936 act when Edward abdicated? What does that act say with regards to Camilla?
It says the wife of the King is Queen Consort and nothing else unless Parliament and the Crown Commonwealth nations agree to it. The rights, titles and precedents of the monarchy rest with Parliament, not the Crown.

Since Edward VIII could not win consent to make Wallis his lawful wife, he abdicated rather than force a constitutional crisis over the issue. In law, The Sovereign can marry anyone they wish and they do not need permission from the Government. In practice, the consent of the Commons is needed since his wife becomes Queen.

Camilla is already married to The Prince of Wales, which required the approval of The Queen and the Government. The consent of the people through Parliament was obtained and she is now in line to become Queen Consort.

That's the end of it.
  #634  
Old 01-14-2007, 01:54 PM
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: ***, United States
Posts: 16,894
Quote:
Originally Posted by branchg
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.
Well, they went through some idiotic contortions in 1937 to pretend that renouncing the throne had included giving up his HRH, so George VI very graciously created him HRH again with the provision that his wife wasn't to share it (so much for the "no morganatic marriage" line he'd been fed while still king, but whatever ). If they can pull off that level of nonsense and get away with it, I expect they can find some legal pretzel to twist into "HRH the Princess Consort" if they really feel they need to.
  #635  
Old 01-14-2007, 02:43 PM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: , United States
Posts: 2,736
Quote:
Originally Posted by Elspeth
Well, they went through some idiotic contortions in 1937 to pretend that renouncing the throne had included giving up his HRH, so George VI very graciously created him HRH again with the provision that his wife wasn't to share it (so much for the "no morganatic marriage" line he'd been fed while still king, but whatever ). If they can pull off that level of nonsense and get away with it, I expect they can find some legal pretzel to twist into "HRH the Princess Consort" if they really feel they need to.
Well, that was bit tricky from a legal view since Edward was able to marry Wallis only after the Act of Abdication was passed and he did not need permission from the King under the Royal Marriages Act.

Technically, the letters patent of Victoria, Edward VII and George V with regard to the title, rank and styles of the royal family applied to those within the line of succession as descendants of George II. While there is no question Edward remained a son of the sovereign after the Abdication, he still was subject to the fount of honour with regard to his titles and honours.

The real problem with the 1937 Letters Patent was it basically created a morganatic marriage where none had ever existed before for the UK. But since The Duke had renounced his right to the succession on behalf of himself and his future descendants, it could be argued his wife and children had no right to be HRH.

Either way, the case of Wallis and David does not apply to Charles and Camilla since they are already married equally and share royal rank. There is no doubt Camilla will be entitled to become HM The Queen when the time comes.
  #636  
Old 01-14-2007, 02:47 PM
Nobility
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Not Saying, United Kingdom
Posts: 309
No, Branch Q, she is "known as" the Duchess of Cornwall and that is not from me, it is a direct quote from royal.gov.uk, the official website of the royal family.

"Known as" is important, and relates directly to the question of her style after Charles's accession. Legally and technically the woman is Princess of Wales, but she might as well not be, because she is only and forever and everywhere "known as" the Duchess of Cornwall - a lesser style she holds. Thus, her status is unquestionably diminished in the eyes of the world, for she is the first princess of wales in history to have this dubious distinction.

I don't know why you, branch, skydragon and others, keep repeating that legislation would be needed to deny her her rank as Queen. We all know that and I have posted to that effect many times. It is confirmed by the spokeswoman for the Dept of Constitutional Affairs.

It is also absolutely irrelevant as to whether or not she will ever be known as "Queen Camilla" and whether, cf the title of the thread, it will be "King Charles and Queen Camilla" (as I understand it you are still arguing that this will be the case?) or, as it will in fact be, as both the government and the royal family say, "King Charles and HRH the Princess Consort".

It will be the latter.

Just as at present with Camilla and Lady Louise, Camilla then will posess technical rights and styles that will not be used. Her status will effectively be immensely reduced.

She is the princess of Wales but is forever "known as" the Duchess of Cornwall.
She will be the queen but will forever be "known as" HRH the Princess Consort, a style that simple letters patent can gazette her with.

So - King Charles and Princess Consort, and no legislation needed for her to be known that way. You don't have to take it from me. I have quoted the government and the royal family both stating that that's how it will be.
  #637  
Old 01-14-2007, 02:49 PM
Nobility
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Not Saying, United Kingdom
Posts: 309
PS - I agree that there is no doubt she will be entitled to be known as Queen when the time comes. Unfortunately, there also is very little doubt that she will not be known that way, but will be known as HRH the Princess Consort - unless Charles steps up and stops the madness

Edit to add: she also woulds not hold the title of Queen in her own right - it is dependent on her marriage to the King. It would be quite possible to gazette her, cf Philip and cf Maxima in the Netherlands, as an own-right Princess of the UK. She could then use that sua juris lesser title instead of her married one.
  #638  
Old 01-14-2007, 03:26 PM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: , United States
Posts: 2,736
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frothy
Edit to add: she also woulds not hold the title of Queen in her own right - it is dependent on her marriage to the King. It would be quite possible to gazette her, cf Philip and cf Maxima in the Netherlands, as an own-right Princess of the UK. She could then use that sua juris lesser title instead of her married one.
Wrong. Once she becomes Queen Camilla, only Parliament could remove her rank and title, even if the King divorced her. Read up on what happened to Queen Caroline to understand the precedents.
  #639  
Old 01-14-2007, 03:39 PM
Nobility
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Not Saying, United Kingdom
Posts: 309
No, you are wrong; Queen Caroline was never divorced from King George IV but was merely estranged and therefore retained her title of Queen.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carolin...#Queen_Consort


Quote:
Her estranged husband's accession to the Throne in 1820 brought Caroline back to Britain. She had declined monetary offers to stay away. When she arrived in England on June 6, riots broke out in support of her. The King asked his ministers to get rid of her. The Pains and Penalties Bill 1820 was introduced in Parliament in order to strip Caroline of the title of Queen and dissolve her marriage. It was claimed that Caroline had been involved with a low-born man, Bartolomeo Pergami, on the continent. The bill passed the House of Lords, but was not submitted to the House of Commons as there was little prospect that the Commons would pass it.
  #640  
Old 01-14-2007, 03:46 PM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: , United States
Posts: 2,736
Frothy, I rest my case. ONLY Parliament can remove her rank and title!
__________________

Closed Thread

Tags
accession, camilla, coronation, duchess of cornwall, prince charles, prince of wales, styles and titles


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Sarah, Duchess of York Current Events 1: January 2003-September 2004 Jacqueline Current Events Archive 170 09-23-2004 04:30 PM
Pavlos And Marie Chantal: Current Events December 2002 - October 2003 Julia Crown Prince Pavlos, Marie Chantal and Family 76 10-14-2003 09:40 PM




Popular Tags
ascot 2016 best gown best gown september 2016 best hat best outfit biography catherine middleton style coup d'etat crown prince haakon crown princess mary crown princess mary fashion crown princess mette-marit current events duchess of cambridge dutch state visit e-mail fashion poll grand duke jean greece haakon kate middleton king abdullah ii king abdullah in australia king felipe king felipe vi king willem-alexander madeleine member introduction monarchy new zealand nobel gala norway november 2016 october 2016 opening of parliament picture of the week prince bernhard prince charles princess madeleine princess marie princess marie fashion princess mary princess mary daytime fashion princess mary fashion princess mary hats queen letizia queen letizia casual outfits queen letizia daytime fashion queen letizia fashion queen letizia style queen mathilde queen mathildes outfits queen maxima queen maxima casual wear queen maxima daytime fashion queen maxima fashion queen maxima hats queen maxima style queen rania royal fashion september 2016 state visit state visit to denmark succession sweden the duchess of cambridge the duchess of cambridge casual wear the duchess of cambridge daytime fashion the duchess of cambridge fashion the duchess of cambridge hats


Our Communities

Our communities encompass many different hobbies and interests, but each one is built on friendly, intelligent membership.

» More about our Communities

Automotive Communities

Our Automotive communities encompass many different makes and models. From U.S. domestics to European Saloons.

» More about our Automotive Communities

Marine Communities

Our Marine websites focus on Cruising and Sailing Vessels, including forums and the largest cruising Wiki project on the web today.

» More about our Marine Communities


Copyright 2002- Social Knowledge, LLC All Rights Reserved.

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 12:07 AM.

Social Knowledge Networks

eXTReMe Tracker
Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2016
Jelsoft Enterprises