The Royal Forums Coat of Arms


Join The Royal Forums Today
Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #901  
Old 01-19-2007, 11:53 PM
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: ***, United States
Posts: 16,894
Quote:
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.
Why would they? Why can the King not, as the fount of honour, create HM the Queen Consort a Princess of the United Kingdom in her own right, to be known as HRH the Princess Consort?
__________________

  #902  
Old 01-20-2007, 12:03 AM
Sister Morphine's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: North Carolina, United States
Posts: 2,762
Quote:
Originally Posted by wbenson
Indeed, any member of the royal family without a peerage (Prince William, Prince Harry, Princess Anne, etc) is a commoner.

The daughter of the Queen is a commoner? That's a new one on me. I also wasn't aware the future King is a commoner too.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Elspeth
Why would they? Why can the King not, as the fount of honour, create HM the Queen Consort a Princess of the United Kingdom in her own right, to be known as HRH the Princess Consort?

Why would you make a Queen a Princess? A Princess is below a Queen. So why give her a title below what she's entitled to by law?

To do that you are saying she is not worthy enough to be Queen and if you say that, you are saying they never should have gotten married. Which, seeing all the hubbub this has caused, they probably shouldn't have. I mean, this is all nonsense to me. She'll be Queen because that's what the wife of a King is. All this talk about making her something else reeks of not wanting to offend people who dislike her for being his mistress. She's not the mistress anymore, she's the wife.
__________________

__________________
"The grass was greener / The light was brighter / The taste was sweeter / The nights of wonder / With friends surrounded / The dawn mist glowing / The water flowing / The endless river / Forever and ever........ "
  #903  
Old 01-20-2007, 12:10 AM
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: ***, United States
Posts: 16,894
Quote:
Why would you make a Queen a Princess? A Princess is below a Queen. So why give her a title below what she's entitled to by law?
Personally I wouldn't. As I've said before, I think this whole business is idiotic. What I'm saying is that if, for whatever reason, it continues to be the case that Charles and Camilla want her to be called HRH the Princess Consort, he can create her a princess in her own right in addition to her being Queen by virtue of her marriage to him. They don't have to go through the legal process of having the Queen Consort stuff dropped in order to create her Princess Consort.
  #904  
Old 01-20-2007, 12:20 AM
wbenson's Avatar
Moderator Emeritus
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: -, United States
Posts: 2,304
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sister Morphine
The daughter of the Queen is a commoner? That's a new one on me. I also wasn't aware the future King is a commoner too.
The Princess Royal isn't a peer, nor is Prince William, so they are still commoners under the legal definition.
  #905  
Old 01-20-2007, 12:22 AM
Sister Morphine's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: North Carolina, United States
Posts: 2,762
Quote:
Originally Posted by Elspeth
Personally I wouldn't. As I've said before, I think this whole business is idiotic. What I'm saying is that if, for whatever reason, it continues to be the case that Charles and Camilla want her to be called HRH the Princess Consort, he can create her a princess in her own right in addition to her being Queen by virtue of her marriage to him. They don't have to go through the legal process of having the Queen Consort stuff dropped in order to create her Princess Consort.


Is there precedence for making a commoner wife a princess in her own right? I don't think Sarah, Diana or Sophie were when they married Andrew, Charles and Edward respectively. So for Charles to do that, he'd be going against precedence. Which is the same for if she was actually given the title Princess Consort.

If there's no precedence for it, I can't see Charles doing it. And according to everything I've read, even if he were wanting to do it, he can't with Parliament acting first.
__________________
"The grass was greener / The light was brighter / The taste was sweeter / The nights of wonder / With friends surrounded / The dawn mist glowing / The water flowing / The endless river / Forever and ever........ "
  #906  
Old 01-20-2007, 12:25 AM
Sister Morphine's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: North Carolina, United States
Posts: 2,762
Quote:
Originally Posted by wbenson
The Princess Royal isn't a peer, nor is Prince William, so they are still commoners under the legal definition.

Yes, the legal definition. However, they aren't "commoners" in the traditionally-used sense. I am a commoner in the traditionally-used sense, as are you.
__________________
"The grass was greener / The light was brighter / The taste was sweeter / The nights of wonder / With friends surrounded / The dawn mist glowing / The water flowing / The endless river / Forever and ever........ "
  #907  
Old 01-20-2007, 12:57 AM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Melbourne & Sydney, Australia
Posts: 3,978
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sister Morphine
If there's no precedence for it, I can't see Charles doing it.
There was no precedent for Philip to include his name into the hereditary line before it was done either, but they did under the 'Order in Council' (however dubious in wording).

You say if its not there you can't see Charles doing it. Fair enough as your opinion, but, its not there and Charles has said it is intended that it will be. Whether you like to go by what is known or not is besides the point. At this stage (whether you or whoever agrees with the intention) it is the objective of TRH the Prince of Wales & Duchess of Cornwall that she shall, upon her husband's accession, assume a style and title befitting a Princess Consort and shall in all ways of address (defined between her legal status as Queen) be known as such.

Until the proposal is revoked or failed, no one can say it will not happen.
  #908  
Old 01-20-2007, 01:03 AM
Sister Morphine's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: North Carolina, United States
Posts: 2,762
Quote:
Originally Posted by Madame Royale
There was no precedent for Philip to include his name into the hereditary line before it was done either, but they did under the 'Order in Council' (however dubious in wording).

You say if its not there you can't see Charles doing it. Fair enough as your opinion, but, its not there and Charles has said it is intended that they shall. Whether you like to go by what is known or not is besides the point. At this stage (whether you or whoever agrees with the intention) it is the objective of TRH the Prince of Wales & Duchess of Cornwall that she shall, upon her husband's accession, assume a style and title befitting a Princess Consort and shall in all ways of address (defined between her legal status as Queen) be known as such.

Until the proposal is revoked or failed, no one can say it will not happen.

Much like BeatrixFan, I think the whole "intended" debacle was a mistake. They shouldn't have opened their big mouths about it in the first place and let things happen the way they will happen once the Queen is dead and buried. They're making it look like she shouldn't have married Charles, that there's something wrong in the marriage and they have to "appease" people by creating some nonsense title. This is all a big, flaming joke.

Also, she can't be a Princess Consort as long as she's a Queen. You can't have your cake and eat it too. Either she's one or she's the other. Parliament absolutely must strip her of the title "Queen" before Charles can give her ANY title, "Princess Consort" or "that woman I'm married to...yeah her". It doesn't matter. She must legally be nothing before Charles can legally make her something. What indication has any member of Parliament given that they would go along with this, that they would agree to go for it?
__________________
"The grass was greener / The light was brighter / The taste was sweeter / The nights of wonder / With friends surrounded / The dawn mist glowing / The water flowing / The endless river / Forever and ever........ "
  #909  
Old 01-20-2007, 01:03 AM
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: ***, United States
Posts: 16,894
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sister Morphine
Is there precedence for making a commoner wife a princess in her own right? I don't think Sarah, Diana or Sophie were when they married Andrew, Charles and Edward respectively. So for Charles to do that, he'd be going against precedence. Which is the same for if she was actually given the title Princess Consort.

If there's no precedence for it, I can't see Charles doing it. And according to everything I've read, even if he were wanting to do it, he can't with Parliament acting first.
As long as the royal websites are still saying that she'll be Princess Consort when Charles becomes king, apparently he is wanting to do it. Or the royal websites are lying to us, which is possible.

As far as I can see, the only time Parliament would have to act is to remove her HM. That seems unlikely. The question is whether she can hold the HRH as well as the HM, not instead of it.
  #910  
Old 01-20-2007, 01:06 AM
Sister Morphine's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: North Carolina, United States
Posts: 2,762
Quote:
Originally Posted by Elspeth
As far as I can see, the only time Parliament would have to act is to remove her HM. That seems unlikely. The question is whether she can hold the HRH as well as the HM, not instead of it.

See, that's the sticking point I keep addressing. I can't see it possible to be a lower rank and a higher rank at the same time. That's like trying to be the President and the Vice President at the same time.
__________________
"The grass was greener / The light was brighter / The taste was sweeter / The nights of wonder / With friends surrounded / The dawn mist glowing / The water flowing / The endless river / Forever and ever........ "
  #911  
Old 01-20-2007, 02:41 AM
Nobility
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Not Saying, United Kingdom
Posts: 309
Quote:
Originally Posted by BranchQ
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,
Branch, I know this is your opinion, but it's factually false as proved by history and precedent.

The Queen can and may and has held "lesser ranks and titles" than that of Queen Consort and has used them.

Eleanor, Grand Duchess of Acquitaine in her own right, retained and used her own-right title throughout her marriage to Henry. That is a fact.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sister Morphine
Parliament absolutely must strip her of the title "Queen" before Charles can give her ANY title, "Princess Consort" or "that woman I'm married to...yeah her". It doesn't matter. She must legally be nothing before Charles can legally make her something.
Look Sister M, why do you keep saying this? On what grounds do you assert she cannot legally be both when the Department of Constitutional Affairs says she can be both without a change in the law? That her title of Queen does not need to be stripped for her to hold an additional own-right title?

Elizabeth of York was a Princess and Queen, Eleanor was (and used) Grand Duchess of Acquitaine and Queen, and so forth.
  #912  
Old 01-20-2007, 02:46 AM
Nobility
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Not Saying, United Kingdom
Posts: 309
Sister Morphine, from earlier in the thread:

Quote:
"When you say constitutional and legal norms, a lot of it is down to convention rather than legislation, which is why she can be referred to as whatever she likes without having to change the law," she said. "She can be referred to as the Duchess of Cornwall or Princess Consort without any change to the law."
There were no moves to change the law to prevent Parker Bowles being queen, Campbell added.
So while you are saying Parliament absolutely "must" strip her of queen to make her Princess Consort, here is the relevant Parliamentary spokeswoman telling us the exact opposite.
  #913  
Old 01-20-2007, 02:47 AM
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: ***, United States
Posts: 16,894
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sister Morphine
See, that's the sticking point I keep addressing. I can't see it possible to be a lower rank and a higher rank at the same time. That's like trying to be the President and the Vice President at the same time.
Prince Charles at the moment is a Duke and a Baron at the same time.
  #914  
Old 01-20-2007, 03:18 AM
Warren's Avatar
Administrator in Memoriam
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 15,476
Quote:
Originally Posted by branchg
I said a Queen Consort cannot hold a lesser rank and title without consent from Parliament and the Crown Commonwealth.
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.
A small(ish) point, but Camilla's rank, now and in the future, is based on that of her husband. Whatever she is called, she is still the wife of the Prince of Wales and will in all likelihood be the wife of the King. Therefore she shares his rank. This whole business about titles and "being known as" will have no effect on her ranking in "society" or any Order of Precedence. The wife of the Sovereign, however she will be termed, titled or addressed, is still the wife of the Sovereign. Britain is not Austria-Hungary, and a 'non-Queen' Camilla won't be expected to sit at a lower table at dinner.

We should be careful of muddying the already murky waters and try to address the relevant issue: can Queen Camilla bear an "overlay" title or form of address?
__________________
Seeking information? Check out the extensive Royal A-Z
  #915  
Old 01-20-2007, 03:47 AM
Sister Morphine's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: North Carolina, United States
Posts: 2,762
Quote:
Originally Posted by Warren
We should be careful of muddying the already murky waters and try to address the relevant issue: can Queen Camilla bear an "overlay" title or form of address?


I say no. If she is legally the Queen, by right of being married to the King, why should she put a lesser title (and Princess is lesser than Queen) over that one? Why would she sign her name "Camilla R" but be referred to as HRH? Or would she not sign her name "Camilla R"? I mean, if she's going to be known as something other than what she is, would it be fraud to affix your name to something using a name that is not your legal form of address?
__________________
"The grass was greener / The light was brighter / The taste was sweeter / The nights of wonder / With friends surrounded / The dawn mist glowing / The water flowing / The endless river / Forever and ever........ "
  #916  
Old 01-20-2007, 04:34 AM
Nobility
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Not Saying, United Kingdom
Posts: 309
Certain things have been agreed and established by all of us

1. Camilla will definitely be Queen
2. Legislation would be needed to change her status
3. The government says there are no plans for any legislation to strip her of her right as Queen
4. The BRF and the Government currently state that whilst she will legally be Queen she will be known as Princess Consort

The differences are that BranchQ and some other posters think that they have no right to assert point 4 and that she would need to be stripped of Queen to be Princess Consort. I am waiting to see what their reasoning is for this when the government says it isn't so. I understand Branch thinks the precedent of 1936 is binding but since the government says otherwise I don't really see why. The Charles-Camilla marriage is breaking precedent all over the place, including its celebration in a registry office and the use of disparate titles by the bride and groom.

However, I would ask Branch what he thinks of my example of say Eleanor of Acquitaine as a Queen who held and used a lesser title she held in her own right (birthright) whilst Queen of England, and was jealous of her rights in Acquitaine?
  #917  
Old 01-20-2007, 04:53 AM
Warren's Avatar
Administrator in Memoriam
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 15,476
Here's another question: If Camilla is to be crowned Queen at the Coronation of Charles III, how can she not be called or addressed as such? What would be the point of her being crowned? If she is not to be crowned at all, a disturbing precedent will have been set, and all based on that initial statement of the "intention to be known as Princess Consort".

I wonder if anyone at Clarence House thought through the ramifications before that statement was released?
__________________
Seeking information? Check out the extensive Royal A-Z
  #918  
Old 01-20-2007, 04:54 AM
Sister Morphine's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: North Carolina, United States
Posts: 2,762
Eleanor of Acquitaine and The Duchess of Cornwall are not in the same situation. In Eleanor's case she held rights to the Duchy of Acquitaine by birth, and was Queen Consort of both France and England. Camilla holds no rights by birth, and takes all her titles from her husband. She is what she is because Charles is the Duke of Cornwall, among other things.


As for Point #4, to be known by a lesser title means it must be conferred upon you first. You can't just call yourself Duke of Nowhereland if the Sovereign hasn't given you the title Duke of Nowhereland. She can't have that title conferred upon her, so long as she is still legally Queen Consort. And it's all well and good that the government says she'll be called Princess Consort....the point is, unless Parliament agrees to strip her of her title, it'll be highly unlikely that it will get done.
__________________
"The grass was greener / The light was brighter / The taste was sweeter / The nights of wonder / With friends surrounded / The dawn mist glowing / The water flowing / The endless river / Forever and ever........ "
  #919  
Old 01-20-2007, 04:57 AM
Sister Morphine's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: North Carolina, United States
Posts: 2,762
Quote:
Originally Posted by Warren
Here's another question: If Camilla is to be crowned Queen at the Coronation of Charles III, how can she not be called or addressed as such? What would be the point of her being crowned? If she is not to be crowned at all, a disturbing precedent will have been set, and all based on that initial statement of the "intention to be known as Princess Consort".

I wonder if anyone at Clarence House thought through the ramifications before that statement was released?

They probably didn't think it through at all. They were either trying to appease the Diana fans who don't want Charles's mistress crowned as Queen or they were talking without reading through the procedure first. Both seem likely, sadly.

And if she's not going to be known as Queen, she shouldn't bother showing up at Westminster Abbey in the first place. I said it earlier......if they were going to jump through all these hoops to keep her from being styled and referred to as HM The Queen, why let them get married?
__________________
"The grass was greener / The light was brighter / The taste was sweeter / The nights of wonder / With friends surrounded / The dawn mist glowing / The water flowing / The endless river / Forever and ever........ "
  #920  
Old 01-20-2007, 05:30 AM
Nobility
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Not Saying, United Kingdom
Posts: 309
Sister M, it's certainly true that Eleanor held her title by birth. The point is she disproves the assertion that the Queen of England can be known only by that title.

It's also quite true that you can't be known as Princess Consort without having the title first conferred upon you.

What is not true is that the title of Queen would need to be stripped before that of Princess Consort in her own right cf: Albert could be conferred.

Although this has been asserted a couple of times, a government spokeswoman has specifically denied it, as quoted above by me.

Again I must ask what is the basis for your statement here

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sister Morphine
She can't have that title conferred upon her, so long as she is still legally Queen Consort.
When that is denied by the government here?

Quote:
"When you say constitutional and legal norms, a lot of it is down to convention rather than legislation, which is why she can be referred to as whatever she likes without having to change the law," she said. "She can be referred to as the Duchess of Cornwall or Princess Consort without any change to the law."
There were no moves to change the law to prevent Parker Bowles being queen, Campbell added.
I totally agree with your other points! It is a mess and it is silly. Drop "princess consort" please and go back to Queen.
__________________

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 british catherine middleton style chris o'neill coup d'etat crown prince haakon crown princess mary crown princess mary eveningwear crown princess mary fashion crown princess mette-marit current events denmark duchess of cambridge e-mail fashion poll grand duke jean greece kate middleton king abdullah ii king felipe king felipe vi king willem-alexander member introduction monarchy new zealand nobel gala norway november 2016 october 2016 opening of parliament picture of the week prince bernhard prince charles prince nikolaos princess madeleine princess marie princess marie daytime outfit 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 01:52 PM.

Social Knowledge Networks

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