Title for Camilla - Part 3

[branchg]

The issue will be dealt with by Parliament when and if the time comes. Camilla can only share the title, style and rank of her husband, and once he is King, she must be HM The Queen.

If public opinion is clearly opposed, Parliament will have no choice but to introduce legislation depriving her of her current title and rank as Queen Consort, allowing The Sovereign to create her a Princess of the UK in her own right. This is the only mechanism for Camilla to be known as HRH The Princess Consort once Charles is King.

The other issue is whether the Crown Commonwealth will accept and consent to the change. It is not automatic and may take time to achieve. In the meantime, the controversy will have damaged the standing of the monarchy at a critical time and may result in another Abdication.

In my view, Camilla must be Queen or the monarchy is on the road to extinction.

[noldorlord]

Originally Posted by branchg

In my view, Camilla must be Queen or the monarchy is on the road to extinction.

A very fair Comment. There is always that possibility. Maybe the Queen can make some sort of statement that will lessen the turmoil? This in its self remains a topic for the future and no amount of debating or conjecture on what should/might be will change what WILL BE (at this time still an unknown).

[Madame Royale]

In my view, Camilla must be Queen or the monarchy is on the road to extinction.

Given all the monarchy has survived for thousands of years, it can certainly evolve and move on from his wife not being Queen Consort.

I confess I find you quite inconsistent from time to time.

The monarchy on a road to extinction as a result of Camilla bearing a lesser style and title? That is incredibly unlikely and I find it perculiar to suggest that be the cause. The monarchy survives not on the merit of one indavidual (if it did it would be long gone by now), and certainly not on the supporting spousal's form of address, but the worth of it's constitutional ascendancy and exisiting relevance, socially. There's no need to be melodramatic.

[wbenson]

I think it will become extremely less relevant if an extremely small minority (the Diana Circle types) manage to make it seem like "Queen Camilla" shouldn't happen.

[PrinceOfCanada]

The monarchy on a road to extinction as a result of Camilla bearing a lesser style and title?

My understanding is that Royal marriages in the UK are not morganatic, meaning that she must share his title. (Special case for the Queen; Philip could not be made King, as Kings technically outrank Queens, which simply wouldn't do. Yes, that should be changed).

[Madame Royale]

Conventionally does share his title, though can be created a lesser style and rank. It's possible, and may well happen.

Though being possible doesn't mean it's going to happen, and by the time Charles succeeds his mother, Camilla may well remain Queen. Not to my liking but I'm sure whatever her title, I'll remain supportive of the lady that is Camilla.

[PrinceOfCanada]

You're ignoring the point about morganatic marriages. One of the issues with Wallis Simpson was that Edward suggested simply creating her a Duchess, so she wouldn't take the title & style of HM Queen, which would have got everyone's noses out of joint. That was flatly rejected, as it would therefore have been a morganatic marriage, which is not permitted in the UK.

[LadyCat]

But that was a first marriage and any children would have presumably been in the line of succession. This is not the case with Charles and Camilla.

Cat

[wbenson]

If Charles and Camilla have children (which is highly unlikely and probably impossible now*), those children would be in the line of succession.

*Edit: Definitely impossible unless she has some divine ability to regenerate her uterus.

[PrinceOfCanada]

That doesn't have much to do with it, as children inherit titles from the father anyway (barring circumstances when the Sovereign is Queen in her own right).

[LadyCat]

Originally Posted by wbenson

If Charles and Camilla have children (which is highly unlikely and probably impossible now*), those children would be in the line of succession.

*Edit: Definitely impossible unless she has some divine ability to regenerate her uterus.

Which is exactly my point. Camilla is unable to have children and would hardly desire to at this stage of the game I'm sure. My other point was that with David and Wallis it was the first marriage for David and any offspring would have been in the line of succession. With the marriage not being recognized by the CoE due to Wallis' status as being divorced, it would have been an impossible situation, which evidently everyone knew as David chose to abdicate in order to marry Wallis.

Cat

[branchg]

Originally Posted by PrinceOfCanada

You're ignoring the point about morganatic marriages. One of the issues with Wallis Simpson was that Edward suggested simply creating her a Duchess, so she wouldn't take the title & style of HM Queen, which would have got everyone's noses out of joint. That was flatly rejected, as it would therefore have been a morganatic marriage, which is not permitted in the UK.

Which was ridiculous considering the letters patent issued in 1937, which created a morganatic marriage denying Wallis her royal rank and title as HRH The Princess Edward, instead creating her "Her Grace The Duchess of Windsor".

[branchg]

Originally Posted by LadyCat

But that was a first marriage and any children would have presumably been in the line of succession. This is not the case with Charles and Camilla.

It doesn't matter because Charles and Camilla are already married and she shares her husband's current rank and title as HRH The Princess Charles. Once he becomes King, she is automatically Queen and nothing else.

A very different scenario than the one faced by Edward VIII in 1936.

[PrinceOfCanada]

Which was ridiculous considering the letters patent issued in 1937, which created a morganatic marriage denying Wallis her royal rank and title as HRH The Princess Edward, instead creating her "Her Grace The Duchess of Windsor".

Except that it wasn't morganatic, b/c Edward VIII was demoted in rank from King to Duke. Thus, the marriage was between equals. Not equals by birth, but equals by title and style.

It doesn't matter because Charles and Camilla are already married and she shares her husband's current rank and title as HRH The Princess Charles. Once he becomes King, she is automatically Queen and nothing else.

Quite. This whole 'debate' is rather more pointless than the proverbial tempest in the proverbial teapot.

[Madame Royale]

A very different scenario than the one faced by Edward VIII in 1936.

Precisely so.

The will of the day shall have it's way. Whatever it may be.

You're ignoring the point about morganatic marriages.

Incorrect. However, if you think it can't happen, then that itself, would be ignoring the reality it could and may. Though it is only intended, at this point in time, and would amount to nothing without the support of the government of the day. Though in saying that, no one here can speak on behalf of an administration yet to hold office so any definite conclusions which are here expressed, remain premature and uncertain. No matter what the current stance on morganatic union.

[wbenson]

Originally Posted by PrinceOfCanada

Except that it wasn't morganatic, b/c Edward VIII was demoted in rank from King to Duke. Thus, the marriage was between equals. Not equals by birth, but equals by title and style.

Though I agree that it wasn't morganatic (for reasons I'll elaborate on below), they weren't equals by title or style. Edward was also a Prince of the United Kingdom, thus bearing the style "Royal Highness." Wallis was denied that.

The reason I don't think it's morganatic is because the style "Royal Highness" is granted by gift of the Sovereign, who can take it away as he or she pleases. Therefore, Wallis had no right by marriage to claim it, as I believe the Letters Patent creating Edward Duke of Windsor lawfully took the style "Royal Highness" away from her.

[LadyCat]

Originally Posted by branchg

It doesn't matter because Charles and Camilla are already married and she shares her husband's current rank and title as HRH The Princess Charles. Once he becomes King, she is automatically Queen And nothing else.

A very different scenario than the one faced by Edward VIII in 1936.

Exactly! To compare Camilla & Charles to Wallis & David is to compare apples and oranges. In the case of Wallis she was going to be denied sharing her husband's rank and title, not so with Camilla. She will be Queen as she will, by law, share her husband's rank on his accession to the throne. Whether or not she is called Queen hardly matters, it will be her proper title, just as Princess of Wales is a title she holds but chooses not to use (for obvious reasons).

Cat

[branchg]

Originally Posted by PrinceOfCanada

Except that it wasn't morganatic, b/c Edward VIII was demoted in rank from King to Duke. Thus, the marriage was between equals. Not equals by birth, but equals by title and style.

The Act of Abdication stated Edward was relinquishing his right, and that of his descendants, to the throne. Once it became law, he automatically reverted to his birthright style and title of HRH The Prince Edward as a son of George V under his father's 1917 Letters Patent. In March 1937, George VI issued letters patent creating him Duke of Windsor as well.

As with any marriage to a son of the Sovereign, his wife should have automatically shared her husband's rank and style as HRH Princess of the UK, the same as her sister-in-laws, HRH The Duchesses of Kent and Gloucester. The effect of the letters patent issued in May 1937 was to specifically deny The Duke's wife and children the right to share his royal rank, which he retained alone.

The definition of a morganatic marriage is one in which the wife does not share her husband's title and rank, which was certainly the case with Wallis. She was entitled to be a Princess of the UK through marriage (with the style of a Duchess since her husband was created a Peer), but was limited to the style of Her Grace, rather than HRH.

[branchg]

Originally Posted by LadyCat