Relationship of the Royal Family with The Duchess of Cornwall?

[branchg]

Originally Posted by ScottyFLL

I have not seen anywhere that Camilla, while she "has chosen to be called" Duchess of Cornwall, does not have the precedence of the Princess of Wales, which is a title and position only acquired by marriage to the Prince of Wales, and to my knowledge, no woman married to a Prince of Wales has been anything but. Indeed, I think the acquisition of that title is automatic upon marriage.

See Burke's Peerage for an article on precedence in the royal family. The article is out of date, as The Queen Mother is still mentioned. With The Queen Mother now departed, the Princess of Wales ("where such exists") takes precedence directly behind her husband, placing her as the first female behind the queen and above all other princes and princesses except for the Duke of Edinburgh.

British custom dictates that the wife derives her precedence from her husband. While Camilla is not "known as" the Princess of Wales, it seems to me that constitutionally she is indeed just that. I have never seen that she is not Princess of Wales; only that she "will be known as" the Duchess of Cornwall. This means also that she will be Queen on Charles' accession, whether or not she is "known as" Princess Consort in that event. To my knowledge, no morganatic marriage has occurred in the British monarchy (there were talks of it when Edward VIII wanted to marry Wallis Simpson).

The royals are not nearly so concerned about their titles as they are with their position (precedence) and the style and dignity of Royal Highness. Both Diana and Sarah Ferguson retained their titles, but not the style and dignity of Royal Highness.

As has been explained in other threads, Camilla is HRH the Princess of Wales, but choosing to be styled as Duchess of Cornwall. Constitutionally and officially, she retains the precedence of a Princess of Wales as the wife of Prince Charles, which means directly after the Queen.

However, when it comes to court precedence, determined solely by the will of the Sovereign for royal, but not state events, Camilla holds precedence after the Princess Royal and Princess Alexandra, but before the wives of the princes of the blood royal.

With regard to Wallis Simpson, in fact, George VI issued letters patent making the Duke's marriage morganatic, by denying Wallis her right under British common law to share her husband's rank of HRH Prince Edward, Duke of Windsor. Instead, she held the rank of a duchess with the style "Her Grace". As fount of honour, the King denied Wallis royal rank as the wife of a prince of the UK.

[Mary Wellesley]

Originally Posted by branchg

I agree. The matter of Camilla's precedence and similar issues were all worked out and decided before she married Prince Charles. Camilla knew that by choosing to be known as Duchess of Cornwall, rather than Princess of Wales, she would have to take precedence after the princesses of the blood royal but before Sophie, Countess of Wessex.

I highly doubt Camilla has rivalries with anyone in the royal family at this point. Her main concern is being supportive of Charles and his duties.

I don't think Camilla wanted to get married at all until questions about her upkeep and the books of the Duchy of Cornwall were queried in Parliament,the speed of last April's nuptials was breathtaking.All the awkward questions also stopped didn't they?Camilla only has to accommodate one lady in the Royal fold-the Queen,the rest I suspect can like her or lump her,does that make her Queen material?

[Warren]

Originally Posted by Mary Wellesley

I don't think Camilla wanted to get married at all until questions about her upkeep and the books of the Duchy of Cornwall were queried in Parliament,the speed of last April's nuptials was breathtaking.All the awkward questions also stopped didn't they?

I think the startling revelations in relation to Charles accounts were that, yes, he paid for Camilla's upkeep, just as he does now. But since the income from the Duchy of Cornwall is his own, I guess he is free to spend his money as he pleases, just like you and I.

[Mary Wellesley]

Originally Posted by Warren

I'd be careful placing too much credence on these sorts of newspaper reports. You have to ask "why would Camilla be indignant?" And whatever the outcome of the precedence issue, Camilla would hardly hold Sophie responsible - HM perhaps, but not the Countess of Wessex. The seating arrangements for the Royal carrriages is not something that would have been left to the last moment; as we know the planning for these things is generally meticulous.

It seems to me that the journalists are just trying to create or manufacture a "rivalry" between Camilla and Sophie in the hope they can turn it into a long-running "feud".
.

This is not the first time by any means that stories Camilla doesn't like Sophie have surfaced.Sophie worked in P.R don't forget.On the basis the story keeps reappearing and that there's no smoke without fire I'd say it's true,and it gives a glimpse into the real Camilla.The only one she tiptoes round is the Queen who can still make or break her,she doesn't have to bother with the other Royals.

[Warren]

Originally Posted by Mary Wellesley

This is not the first time by any means that stories Camilla doesn't like Sophie have surfaced.Sophie worked in P.R don't forget.On the basis the story keeps reappearing and that there's no smoke without fire I'd say it's true,and it gives a glimpse into the real Camilla.The only one she tiptoes round is the Queen who can still make or break her,she doesn't have to bother with the other Royals.

I think the more-level headed of us will prefer to see some evidence, rather than third-party gossip, before accepting this sort of tittle-tattle as gospel truth. Mary, you seem very determined to push this issue. Do you have anything of substance to offer as evidence? And thank you for resurrecting my post, now quite some months old.

Warren

[Georgia]

The media is desperate for there to be an issue between Camilla and Sophie just as they were desperate for conflict between Sophie and Diana. I have said this before but I'm quite sure that the royal family have had longer to get to know and used to the Duchess than we have. The Parker Bowles were always close to Princess Anne and her family, in fact I'm sure Andrew is godfather to one of her children. On top of that Glouster is only so big as is the world they all live in! I'm sure they have met and socialised together before.

On a different note, Sophie and Edward have conducted themselves in a perfect way of late. They have a happy relationship of 10yrs, marriage of 6 and a young daughter. They carry out hundreds of Royal engagments a year and promote a healthy and modernised view of our monarchy for the 20th century.

[Australian]

I agree, the media is trying to make a rivalry between the Duchess and Countess when there might not be any rivalry in truth. Just like the media did with Mary and Alexandra of Denmark. There was most probably no rivalry between them but the media made a fake rivalry up.

[Georgia]

This is all well and good, nothing however takes away from the fact that Camilla is going to be Queen of England one day. Public opinion will change and she will be accepted eventually as Queen consort. Personally I don't think there will be anything wrong with that. I used to but I have changed my opinion over the last few months. Charles is obviously happier with Camilla being his wife.
Life is very short and after the terrorist attacks in London it should go to prove that no one knows what will happen one day to the next. People should grab any happiness that they can.

[Mary Wellesley]

Originally Posted by Georgia

This is all well and good, nothing however takes away from the fact that Camilla is going to be Queen of England one day. Public opinion will change and she will be accepted eventually as Queen consort. Personally I don't think there will be anything wrong with that. I used to but I have changed my opinion over the last few months. Charles is obviously happier with Camilla being his wife.
Life is very short and after the terrorist attacks in London it should go to prove that no one knows what will happen one day to the next. People should grab any happiness that they can.

I do not begrudge Charles and Camilla their happiness together,but never forget it was purchased at the cost of so much heartache to Diana.You seem very certain that public opinion will change towards Camilla?I'm not,she is not Queen Consort material, and I doubt she ever will be.Camilla and Charles should do the decent thing and retire from the line of succession, making it clear the throne goes to William on this Queen's death.That way the House of Windsor might have a chance of survivng the damage these two extremely selfish people have caused it.

[BeatrixFan]

I do not begrudge Charles and Camilla their happiness together,but never forget it was purchased at the cost of so much heartache to Diana.

What did it cost her? It cost her nothing. It cost her a rent-free apartment in Kensington Palace, it cost her magazine deals, it cost her international attention, it cost her a stepping stone into the public eye that she abused and used against those who had tried to help. Please Please Please don't lets have another round of 'Poor Diana'. That woman was well aware of what she was doing and when. She had lovers and she said some terrible things. She betrayed the Queen, she threw an innocent old lady down a flight of stairs and almost killed her, she left a legacy of sordid tapes and allegations which will only haunt her sons and not her ex-husband who has moved on.

You seem very certain that public opinion will change towards Camilla?I'm not,she is not Queen Consort material

Why isn't she? Why isn't she Queen Consort material. She has a good manner, she has a wonderful personality, she has charm, wit and she has a sensible head on her shoulders. She doesnt try to upstage every other member of the Royal Family, she doesn't try to be a Prima Donna, she doesn't play Mother Theresa one second and then play the Hollywood Model the next. She is perfect Queen material. She has class and she is the wife of the Prince of Wales. She will be OUR Queen and thank God for it.

Camilla and Charles should do the decent thing and retire from the line of succession, making it clear the throne goes to William on this Queen's death.

The pup always resembles the bitch. William will either follow his father's lead and try and do some good for his country or he'll put on Betty Boop eyes and try and play the innocent virgin when in actual fact, he's a Government's nightmare.

That way the House of Windsor might have a chance of survivng the damage these two extremely selfish people have caused it.

Selfish? For loving one another? Prince Charles is trying to help us. He's doing so much for organic farming, the environment and he's had so long to get to know his people, to understand what sort of a Monarchy they want and he knows his faults and he's trying. But it's people like you who won't let him try.

What gives anyone the right to comment on their personal lives? What gives anyone the right to say that succession should be changed because he divorced his wife? He was born to rule over us and long may he do so. He will be our God-Given sovereign and Camilla will be at his side when he takes on the role of King. Diana's ghost can't be Queen. Her son will one day be Sovereign - that should be enough to satisfy the obssession. If he follows his mother's lead, he will be the ruin of the House of Windsor - not Charles and Camilla.

[pollyemma]

your statements are completely unfounded.

[BeatrixFan]

Yes of course they are. Totally unfounded. I'm a liar. My apologies to all - I have blasphemed in the worst way. I have dared to criticise the Goddess Diana in all her glory and should be shot.

[tiaraprin]

Originally Posted by Mary Wellesley

never forget it was purchased at the cost of so much heartache to Diana.You seem very certain that public opinion will change towards Camilla? I'm not,she is not Queen Consort material, and I doubt she ever will be.Camilla and Charles should do the decent thing and retire from the line of succession, making it clear the throne goes to William on this Queen's death.That way the House of Windsor might have a chance of survivng the damage these two extremely selfish people have caused it.

Very astute comments Mary!! BRAVO!!!

Camilla is not Queen Consort material in my opinion either. To best sum up my feelings I wish to quote Christopher Wilson from The Windsor Knot:

And Camilla? So determined is Charles to marry his greater love that a remarkable whitewash job, connived at and involving the British Press, i sunder way at the time of this writing (2002). History has been rewritten in Fleet Street so as to conveniently forget that the woman who may, one day, sit beside Charles at his coronation was also the woman who used a honey trap to lure her former lover back into her bed, once her first ambition in life, to marry a calvary officer, had been achieved. . . Married to a Roman Catholic, she was, more than most, aware of the dangers involved in the route she chose to take--NOT FROM A MORAL STANDPOINT, BUT FROM A PURELY PRACTICAL ONE. Once she had the besotted prince back in her grasp, it made the task allotted him--to find a suitable bride--well-nigh impossible. He only had eyes for Camilla. SHE DID NOTHING TO PUSH HIM AWAY. (pp 9).


The point is, no matter who the woman was, there was no hope for this woman when she married Charles unless she was willing to put up with these loveless shams.

[BeatrixFan]

This is the sort of ridiculous press that people must be totally daffy to believe. What on earth has her marrying a Roman Catholic got to do with anything? All you're doing TiaraPrin is quoting a section from a book that tells us that there were affairs, Diana died and Camilla and Charles married. Whats new in that and what is it supposed to prove?

[tiaraprin]

Originally Posted by BeatrixFan

This is the sort of ridiculous press that people must be totally daffy to believe. What on earth has her marrying a Roman Catholic got to do with anything? All you're doing TiaraPrin is quoting a section from a book that tells us that there were affairs, Diana died and Camilla and Charles married. Whats new in that and what is it supposed to prove?

You didn't read the quote very carefully I can surmise and also, it is your opinion that this author is "daffy". Actually, his book exonerates no one. Obviously, you haven't read it.

[Elspeth]

Technically, Camilla is Princess of Wales and should take precedence directly after Her Majesty the Queen. However, it was agreed (again probably for sensitivity reasons) that since Camilla would be styled as Duchess of Cornwall, she would take precedence after the Princess Royal and Princess Alexandra.

I really don't understand the logic behind this. On the one hand, women are supposed to take their husband's status when they marry and all the wives of princess are princesses on that basis, including Camilla, Sophie, Andrew's wife if he had one, and the Duchesses of Gloucester and Kent. Yet just because some of these princesses are called duchesses and countesses, they somehow fall lower in the order of precedence than ones who aren't?

If it's really true that women automatically take their husbands' status when they marry, there should be no difference between a princess who's a princess because she married a prince and a princess who's a princess by birth.

What did they do when Diana was alive and married to Charles? Did the order of precedence put her below Princess Alexandra? And if being called a princess is the operative factor, then Princess Michael of Kent should be up there after Princess Anne.

This doesn't begin to make sense.

[branchg]

Originally Posted by Elspeth

I really don't understand the logic behind this. On the one hand, women are supposed to take their husband's status when they marry and all the wives of princess are princesses on that basis, including Camilla, Sophie, Andrew's wife if he had one, and the Duchesses of Gloucester and Kent. Yet just because some of these princesses are called duchesses and countesses, they somehow fall lower in the order of precedence than ones who aren't?

If it's really true that women automatically take their husbands' status when they marry, there should be no difference between a princess who's a princess because she married a prince and a princess who's a princess by birth.

What did they do when Diana was alive and married to Charles? Did the order of precedence put her below Princess Alexandra? And if being called a princess is the operative factor, then Princess Michael of Kent should be up there after Princess Anne.

This doesn't begin to make sense.

There is a difference between official precedence as it applies to the royal family and the peerage of the UK and private precedence for the royal family, from what I've been told. In addition, the Sovereign may modify or change anyone's precedence, similar to granting titles and honours, as the fount of honour.

Officially, the order of precedence for the female members of the royal family more or less mirror your place (or your husband's) in the line of succession to the throne, regardless of how you are styled or titled.

Therefore, while married to Prince Charles, officially Diana was the third lady in the kingdom, taking precedence after Her Majesty the Queen and the Queen Mother. However, privately, her precedence was somewhat different. Diana came after Princess Margaret and Princess Anne, but before all other female royals. After the divorce, Diana continued to enjoy her precedence, both officially and privately, with the agreement of the Queen and Prince Charles, because she was the mother of a future king, despite the loss of her royal rank as HRH.

In general, princesses of the blood royal will always take precedence privately before a princess by marriage, even if that princess by marriage will be Queen Consort someday. It's just the way it works in the royal family.

[florawindsor]

yes, i think the media is making things up too. i read today in the newspaper that some paper claimed that Camilla ignored Sophie at trooping the colour, wanted Sophie to curtesy, blah blah blah.

[Elspeth]

Some of these papers will say anything if it helps sell copies. Pathetic.

[Georgia]

I don't think members of the royal family worry as much about cursteying to each other as the public and press do. Maybe I am wrong but I can't imagine Princess Anne ever cursteying to Diana or expecting her children to curtsey to Camilla now. I have seen Peter and Zara custsey to their grandmother and great grandmother in public but thats it.