Title for Camilla - Part 2

[TheTruth]

Originally Posted by Elspeth

If Diana is a Queen in too many people's hearts, it'll be of great importance. As stated earlier in the thread, a constitutional monarchy exists because the public wants it. If the public can't stomach the notion of Charles as King and Camilla as Queen because Diana holds that place in their hearts, then I really do fear for the future of the monarchy.

After the abdication in 1936 it was relatively easy (although by no means a thoroughly foregone conclusion) for the Duke of York to become King in his brother's place. If something of the sort happens to Charles because people have tuned out of a monarchy where Diana no longer exists, in favour of a fantasy monarchy in their hearts and minds where Diana reigns supreme, then there are going to be much harder questions being asked along the lines of "why bother with the monarchy at all?" And the answers aren't going to be all that obvious.

It's going to be a tough situation IMO. Some simply want to abolish the Monarchy, some want Camilla as Queen and others already think about making a revolution if this title is given to her. Then we have the Diana/Camilla "problem" but I don't see how it would bother people. Diana was divorced so she couldn't have sat next to Charles as Queen. But like you said perfectly, there's the risk of creating a big mess and destroy the constitutional monarchy. Some Diana fans feel as much anger for Charles as for Camilla so even if he becomes King, the royal institution will also have a hard time.

[Jo of Palatine]

Originally Posted by branchg

Her rank and title flow from her husband, not in her own right. She is a commoner with no titles of birth and is HRH The Princess Charles by marriage, in addition to his other titles and styles as the heir to the throne.

Once he is King, she can only be HM The Queen as there is no other style or title for the wife of the Sovereign. Since Charles would no longer be a Prince of the UK, Camilla cannot be a Princess of the UK as his wife.

That is not correct. Charles as king can create her a princess in her own right just like his mother created prince Philip a prince in his own right. Both Philip and Camilla were not considered a prince/princess in their own right but it was established that the souverain can create a Royal spouse into a prince/princess in their own right. HM did that with her husband and Charles can do that with his wife. Okay, normally it makes no sense as his wife will be sharing his rank but if he wants to he can do it. Because his spouse is not queen herself but only his Queen Consort, so she does not wear the Crown and her titles in her own right don't merge with the Crown on his ascension and they don't when she is created a princess of the UK.

It was established as a fact when the ychecked into the status of the first commoner to become a member of the Royal family - which was HRH The Duchess of York.

Here's the link to the documents:
Files from the National Archives (UK) on Royal Styles and Titles

That's the list and you can then click on the documents.

That's the link to the discussion about Lady Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon marrying the duke of York:
HO 144/22945 -
it's halfway down the dicument, starting with a date in 1923.

[Alison20]

I think the Diana supporters, who have never come to terms with the fact that not only was she divorced, but if she was still alive would be well on in her 40's and probably married to someone else, make a lot more noise than their current actual numbers.

I would be very surprised if, when the Queen dies, there is any general 'uprising' over Charles being King. We have a Monarchy, and the various parts of the United Kingdom have had one going back well over 1000 years. It is laid down who is the heir, and this has largely been the person who has inherited. I think the vast bulk of the population would accept the normal process of succession.

[branchg]

Originally Posted by Jo of Palatine

Okay, normally it makes no sense as his wife will be sharing his rank but if he wants to he can do it. Because his spouse is not queen herself but only his Queen Consort, so she does not wear the Crown and her titles in her own right don't merge with the Crown on his ascension and they don't when she is created a princess of the UK.

He can create her HRH The Princess Consort if Parliament agrees it is constitutionally possible for a Queen Consort with the rank of Her Majesty to hold the lesser style and rank of HRH and Princess of the UK at the same time. This is not possible under the current precedents.

Legislation will be required to remove her lawful rank and title as Queen, freeing Charles to create her a Princess in her own right as The Queen did with The Duke of Edinburgh. She cannot be styled as a Princess when she is not a princess in law. Right now, she IS a Princess of the UK and styled by her husband's peerage as Duchess of Cornwall.

I do not see how this is possible since it would call into question what happened in 1936 with Edward VIII and Wallis Simpson. The King had suggested to Baldwin that he marry Wallis morganatically and create her HRH The Duchess of Lancaster, rather than Queen. Baldwin and The Commons agreed there is no such thing as a morganatic wife for The Sovereign and she is automatically Queen as the wife of The King.

So my point remains that either she is Queen or legislation is passed denying her rightful title and rank and creating her a morganatic wife as Princess Consort.

[branchg]

Originally Posted by Jo of Palatine

Charles as king can create her a princess in her own right just like his mother created prince Philip a prince in his own right. Both Philip and Camilla were not considered a prince/princess in their own right but it was established that the souverain can create a Royal spouse into a prince/princess in their own right. HM did that with her husband and Charles can do that with his wife.

The situation with Philip is very different indeed since husbands do not share the titles or styles of their wives. George VI created Philip a Duke with the style of Royal Highness upon marriage to The Princess Elizabeth to ensure her husband would have his own appropriate rank and title.

Once she became Queen, the issue of whether Philip was automatically a Prince of the UK by being created HRH by George VI was reviewed. The conclusion was that he enjoyed the style and title of Royal Highness, but was not a Prince of the UK unless letters patent were issued creating him one. In 1957, The Queen issued letters patent taking care of it.

The precedents with Philip do not apply to Camilla.

[Elspeth]

Now this thread has reached 500 posts, it looks like time to start part 3, which may be found here.