Title for Camilla - Part 3

[Roslyn]

Originally Posted by Elspeth

I think, unless Camilla flat refused to marry Charles unless she could get out of being Queen Consort, this may be yet another of those highly dubious decisions made by the royal advisors in the last few years, and yet another one that's going to come back to haunt them.

I don't think Camilla ever wanted the limelight, but I don't believe she would have insisted she not become Queen Consort.

"Charles: You suffer all those indignities and tortures and calumnies.
Camilla: Oh, darling, don't be silly. I'd suffer anything for you. That's love. That's the strength of love."

She'd suffer anything for Charles, so I think she'll suffer being Queen.

She's already in training for the job. Since the wedding Camilla has gradually become more and more regal, performing an increasing number and range of duties, both alone and with her husband, with increasing confidence, and she also wears the last Queen Consort's most blingy bling and wears it very well. She looks like a Queen Consort, and behaves like a Queen Consort, and the moment Charles becomes King, she will be Queen Consort.

[norwegianne]

Originally Posted by BeatrixFan

Oh no, Mette-Marit will be Queen. Why? Because the Norwegians are thoroughly sensible and don't pander to the press as the Palace flunkies did in 2005. When Haakon married Mette-Marit, it was clear that she'd be HRH Crown Princess and later HM The Queen of Norway.

It was assumed that she would be Crown Princess. But the Norwegian tabloids had a bit of going back and forth on it because of her background. They're milder than the British ones, but still tabloids. King Harald (or his PR department) issued a press release at the day of the wedding saying that she would be HRH Crown Princess Mette-Marit of Norway.

If I recall correctly, King Harald has been discussing the opinions coming out in and from the press on how the royal family should act, and has said something along the lines of you can't make a life out of acting according to how the press thinks you should - because you'll end up miserable - and the press changes their opinions on how they want you to act according to how the newspapers are selling.

Newspapers should be a guideline to staying informed, and they should also keep watch over the branches of government, but nobody elected them MPs, and they didn't inherit a crown, and they should not run the country.

Originally Posted by Elspeth

The situation was somewhat different, though. Mette-Marit wasn't in the position of being perceived to have been instrumental in breaking up a previous marriage of Prince Haakon, and she wasn't replacing anyone else as his Crown Princess. The situation is somewhat more similar to that of Liliane Baels having to settle for a lesser title as an unpopular second wife of King Leopold, and she didn't even have anything to do with the end of his first marriage.

At the time when the engagement of Charles and Camilla was announced, I'm not sure how well received it would have been if it had been stated that while Camilla would be known as Duchess of Cornwall for the time being, she would be Queen Consort to Charles when he became King. It would have been the courageous thing to do (always assuming that the "Princess Consort" thing wasn't Camilla's idea and the condition upon which she agreed to marry Charles), but it might have had dangerous consequences at the time, when so many people still had raw nerve endings about it.

Doing the compromise with the Duchess of Cornwall was all well and good - and, imo, doesn't put as much pressure on Camilla as she might've got otherwise. This way, there's been a much more gentler start to it than it might have been.

However, I think they might have been better off in the long run, if they had avoided saying something about what would happen when Charles becomes king. By that time, people will have experienced Camilla's work as the Duchess of Cornwall - and might have felt that it would be only natural that she gain the same recognition as her predecessors. Avoiding unnecessary fuss would have been better - and then you could always point to tradition when Charles gets crowned.

[Empress]

Well, by that logic Beatrixfan, shouldn't the husband of a Queen be king?

[BeatrixFan]

Of course not. What a facetious thing to say.

[Liz]

I don't understand all the fuss. She'll be married to the King so therefore she should be Queen Consort. It all seems very simple and matter of fact to me.

[lilytornado]

Well, Máxima won't be Queen. And it is nothing she has done, etc but because of gender equality.

[BeatrixFan]

Eh? Why won't Maxima be Queen?

[lilytornado]

Because the new rule says that the husband of a queen is a prince consort, and the wife of a king is a princess consort. So she will be princess of the netherlands, like prince claus was prince of the netherlands.

There is a thread about it:
http://www.theroyalforums.com/forums...tle-12957.html

[sirhon11234]

But if Camilla becomes Princess Consort when Charles ascends the throne. Wouldn't that make the marriage look morganatic?

[lilytornado]

Originally Posted by Empress

Well, by that logic Beatrixfan, shouldn't the husband of a Queen be king?

Well, didn't Prince Henrik of Denmark say something like that he thinks it is really unfair that the husband of a queen is not called king?

[BeatrixFan]

Originally Posted by lilytornado

Because the new rule says that the husband of a queen is a prince consort, and the wife of a king is a princess consort. So she will be princess of the netherlands, like prince claus was prince of the netherlands.

There is a thread about it:
http://www.theroyalforums.com/forums...tle-12957.html

How ghastly. Seems rather ridiculous to me but not my affair. Britain is though and as such, I think we should keep things how they've been for quite a few centuries now.

[Elspeth]

Originally Posted by sirhon11234

But if Camilla becomes Princess Consort when Charles ascends the throne. Wouldn't that make the marriage look morganatic?

Yes, it will, and we don't have morganatic marriage. Of course, the real test of a morganatic marriage is whether any children of the marriage get to inherit the father's title, and in this case that doesn't apply. So I suppose people could argue that it wasn't really morganatic if they had a mind to, but I'm not sure how they could justify it.

[BeatrixFan]

But we do have morganatic marriage in a way. Look at civil partnerships. If I entered into one with Prince Harry, I'm not entitled to his titles and styles, whereas a woman would be.

[branchg]

So, let me see if I understand this. Regardless of everything that has occurred, when Charles becomes King, Camilla is automatically Queen--she cannot hold a lesser style because is Queen, according to Baldwin when Edward wanted to marry Wallis and give her the style of HRH The Duchess of Lancaster. That wouldn't work because the wife of the sovereign automatically becomes the Queen, correct?

Correct. In law and constitutional precedent, Camilla is automatically HM The Queen since Parliament has never recognized a morganatic marriage in which The King's wife holds a lesser style and rank than Queen Consort. In 1936, as in the future, if Parliament chooses to recognize a lesser rank and title for the wife of the King, it must be done through legislation and consented to by the Crown Commonwealth.

So, one route is to create a law before Charles ascends the throne that would make Camilla HRH The Princess Consort upon his ascension; that way there is no confusion and it is settled in such a way that she is never Queen and thusly, never loses the title of Queen.

Technically, it would be possible for Parliament to pass legislation now, but it would require a more general change in the title and succession of the monarchy in which ALL future wives of a King would not have the right to be Queen automatically, but instead be granted honours and titles in their own right by the fount of honour when the time comes.

Let's say she is created HRH The Princess Consort. If Charles predeceases Camilla, what would she then be known as? She wouldn't be the Dowager Princess Consort because William's wife would be Queen--would Camilla continue to be the Princess Consort? What would her ranking be?

I assume Charles would create her a Princess of the UK in her own right and declare her style and title to be HRH The Princess Consort while the King reigned and HRH The Princess Camilla as a widow. This could be dealt with in the letters patent creating her a Princess.

A Dowager Queen still holds a great deal of rank--would we be looking at yet another title change for Camilla? Why should she have to lose title rank because Charles dies? How would that work? That's an issue that should be addressed.

This is why they cannot allow a situation in which she is legally Queen, but styled as Princess Consort instead. The precedents do not exist and must be decided on one way or another. Either she is allowed to be Queen with full rights and precedence or is downgraded to a morganatic wife with rights defined by letters patent.

It is much easier to just let her be Queen and Dowager Queen. That is how it has been done. Why change it now?

There is no reason to change it unless the public is adamantly opposed to Camilla being Queen when the time comes. If that is the case, The Prime Minister will introduce the necessary legislation in the Commons to take care of it.

[branchg]

Originally Posted by sirhon11234

But if Camilla becomes Princess Consort when Charles ascends the throne. Wouldn't that make the marriage look morganatic?

It wouldn't look morganatic, it would BE morganatic since Camilla would not share her husband's rank or title. She would be downgraded to a Princess with the style of Royal Highness, instead of her rightful title of Queen with the style of Her Majesty.

As what happened in 1937 with The Duchess of Windsor, Wallis was downgraded to a Duchess with the style of Her Grace, instead of her rightful title of Princess Edward with the style of Her Royal Highness as the wife of a son of the Sovereign.

[jcbcode99]

branchg, Thank you for your detailed and thorough response. I think it makes a great deal of sense and simplifies this whole mess.

I have to say that I find this entire possiblity of Camilla being downgraded and given the status of morganatic wife utterly ridiculous and unnecessary. And, honestly, does anyone really believe that Prince Charles is going to let Camilla be anything but his equal in marriage? After everything they have endured--after everything SHE has endured, I really find it hard to believe that Charles is ok with her receiving such a slap-ola in the face. I think whoever came up with this HRH The Princess Consort thing should be sacked.

There was some discussion about whether Camilla even wanted to be Queen--well, of course she does. Honestly, put yourself in her position--do you want to be known as the woman who was downgraded in title? No, you do not. If she has to fulfill duties at Charles' side, then she should have the title too.

Honestly, this entire thing just irks me. And, the whole Maxima thing irks me, too. Wives should share the rank of their husband. This is not the middle ages, after all.

[wbenson]

Originally Posted by BeatrixFan

But we do have morganatic marriage in a way. Look at civil partnerships. If I entered into one with Prince Harry, I'm not entitled to his titles and styles, whereas a woman would be.

I don't know if that's much of a difference, though. It's never been possible for a man to take on his spouse's titles.

[BeatrixFan]

What about lesbians though?

[MARG]

Originally Posted by BeatrixFan

No, it's a war between common sense and pandering to the Sun readers.

Just a wild punt here, but I have this crazy idea that when Queen Elizabeth II dies and the traditional "The Queen is dead, long live the King!" is announced, any tacky messing around with the additional statement ... "But the Queen is actually the Princess!" will not be forthcoming.

Any official punishment for perceived past sins, enacted into law at such a time, will not sit well with a Great Britain and Commonwealth in mourning who would see it as a grievous insult to QEII herself and, to the King.

Squabbling over such details would be offensive in that time of grief, implementation of any downgrading of Royalty would be perceived by the general public (obviously not Sun readers) as an insensitive attack on the Royal Family not to mention the monarchy itself.

So .... moves to change the law would have to be done in the very near future, if not now. Noone knows the number of their days, and so it is with HM Queen Elizabeth II.

Conversely, any parliamentary moves to change the Duchess of Cornwall's status will look like an unseemly personal attack on HM QEII, who appears to be going out of her way to publically display her appoval of "Crown Princess Camilla".

So, first we will mourn and have an enormous Royal Funeral. Then we will have a coronation, and we will celebrate. That is our tradition.

War? I look for the triumph of common sense!


ps: When is the next election?

[BeatrixFan]

Originally Posted by MARG