Title for Camilla - Part 2

[Elspeth]

How about NO TITLE?? Gee, I know I am living in my fantasy world on this one!

Not possible. Remember our conversation on the other thread? They wouldn't dare suddenly discover that morganatic marriage is possible legally after all.

If Charles becomes king, Camilla should become queen, but there's a bit of a problem as far as the coronation is concerned. Since this is going to be a civil wedding rather than a church wedding and since Andrew Parker Bowles is still alive, as far as the church is concerned she's still Mrs Parker Bowles with a husband living. I don't see how the Archbishop could possibly crown her under those circumstances. It's possible that the Princess Consort title is a way round a situation where a conservative Archbishop refuses to crown her queen.

I suspect that if Andrew Parker Bowles predeceases Charles and Camilla there'll be a quiet (at least I hope it'd be quiet) church wedding, and then we may see Queen Camilla. While the ex-husband is still alive, I don't see how it's possible if the church is to retain a shred of integrity.

[MoonlightRhapsody]

Originally Posted by Elspeth

I don't see how it's possible if the church is to retain a shred of integrity.

Well, they're way past that now since they lost that last shred when actually plan to bless this union which caused so much heartache for their ex-spouses.

Unfortuately, I conceed that she will have a title should Charles ever get his behind on the throne, but I think she should stick to the title of Duchess of Cornwall. The title of "Princess Consort" gives too much importance to something she has done very little to deserve.

[susan alicia]

I dislike the mentioning of mr. parker bowles dying before charels and camilla very much, I think it follows that some people in the UK might hope him doing so and that is terrible and

elspeth you put it a bit strong " I don't see how it's possible if the church is to retain a shred of integrity"
surely there are more important things upon which integrity depends.

Originally Posted by Elspeth

I suspect that if Andrew Parker Bowles predeceases Charles and Camilla there'll be a quiet (at least I hope it'd be quiet) church wedding, and then we may see Queen Camilla. While the ex-husband is still alive, I don't see how it's possible if the church is to retain a shred of integrity.

[Elspeth]

When Charles is king, William will automatically become Duke of Cornwall, so Camilla can't use the title Duchess of Cornwall. The title Duchess of Lancaster would be available for her, though.

[Mapple]

Originally Posted by Elspeth

When Charles is king, William will automatically become Duke of Cornwall, so Camilla can't use the title Duchess of Cornwall. The title Duchess of Lancaster would be available for her, though.

In the latter case Charles will have to create Camilla a duchess in her own right.

[Aussie Princess]

Originally Posted by Elspeth

When Charles is king, William will automatically become Duke of Cornwall, so Camilla can't use the title Duchess of Cornwall. The title Duchess of Lancaster would be available for her, though.

William wont automatically become Prince of Wales though will he? why does he inherit all his fathers titles but this one?

[ysbel]

Originally Posted by Elspeth

When Charles is king, William will automatically become Duke of Cornwall, so Camilla can't use the title Duchess of Cornwall. The title Duchess of Lancaster would be available for her, though.

Ah I see someone else thought of that too. That was my thinking. :)

But there are difficulties I'm told. Why is it possible for Camilla to now be known as Duchess of Cornwall; yet as Queen it would not be possible for her to be known as Duchess of Lancaster?

How does the Lancaster title as a susidiary title for the monarch differ from the Cornwall title that is a subsidiary title for the Prince of Wales?

Or, as Warren says, is this opening up another can of worms?

edit: Below is britannica.com's explanation of the Duchy. I find it fascinating. It appears that the original Duke of Lancaster, John of Gaunt, married into the title rather than being created Duke by his father Edward III.

This prince, the fourth son of King Edward III and Queen Philippa, was born at Ghent (or Gaunt) in Flanders, in 1340. In his infancy, he was created Earl of Richmond and, by that title, admitted into the Order of the Garter upon the death of Thomas Holland, Earl of Kent, one of the original knights. In 1359, at Reading Abbey (Berks), he married Blanche, the younger of the two daughters and co-heirs of Henry, Duke of Lancaster, and upon the death of his father-in-law, in 1361, he was advanced to that Dukedom. He held also, in right of his wife, the Earldoms of Derby, Lincoln and Leicester, and the high office of Steward of England.

wikipedia.com's explanation

There were several Dukes of Lancaster in the 14th and early 15th Centuries. See also Duchy of Lancaster.

There were three creations of the Dukedom of Lancaster. The first Duke of Lancaster was Henry of Grosmont (c. 1306–1361), a great-grandson of Henry III; he was the 4th Earl of Lancaster before he was created the 1st Duke of Lancaster on March 6, 1351. His daughter Blanche married John of Gaunt, a son of King Edward III, and on November 13, 1362 John became the 1st Duke of Lancaster of the second creation. Upon John of Gaunt's death on February 4, 1399, the title passed to his son Henry Bolingbroke, Duke of Hereford, who became the 2nd Duke of Lancaster. Later that same year, Bolingbroke usurped the throne of England from King Richard II, ascending the throne as Henry IV. On November 10, 1399, the new king created his eldest son, Harry of Monmouth Duke of Lancaster. When Harry ascended the throne as Henry V in 1413, the title merged with the crown, with which it has remained ever since. The Duchy of Lancaster, however, continues to exist as a separate entity, one of only two Duchies in the United Kingdom.

It doesn't explain how the two duchies, Cornwall and Lancaster, are different though. So I'm still confused why Camilla can't be known as the Duchess of Lancaster upon Charles' accession.

[Mapple]

Originally Posted by ysbel

...

But there are difficulties I'm told. Why is it possible for Camilla to now be known as Duchess of Cornwall; yet as Queen it would not be possible for her to be known as Duchess of Lancaster?

How does the Lancaster title as a susidiary title for the monarch differ from the Cornwall title that is a subsidiary title for the Prince of Wales?

...

The Dukedom of Lancaster is a peerage just like any other British dukedom. The monarch is the fount of honour who creates peerages, and the Lord Chancellor wrote in the Buckhurst Peerage Case (1876) that 'the fountain and source of all dignities cannot hold a dignity from himself. The dignity... terminates, not by virtue of any provisions in its creation but from the absolute incapacity of the sovereign to hold a dignity.'

Thus, the sovereign cannot be at the same time a duke in his own kingdom. Any title that merges with the Crown 'disappears'. For example, George VI ceased to be the Duke of York in 1936--the title merged with the Crown upon his accession.

[Warren]

Originally Posted by Mapple

Thus, the sovereign cannot be at the same time a duke in his own kingdom. Any title that merges with the Crown 'disappears'. For example, George VI ceased to be the Duke of York in 1936--the title merged with the Crown upon his accession.

Does this mean that although The Queen isn't the Duke of Lancaster because that dignity has merged with the Crown, she holds the Duchy of Lancaster? I thought that in Lancashire The Queen was referred to as 'The Duke of Lancaster'? Another point: the revenues of the Duchy don't flow to "the Crown" but to the Sovereign. This is very confusing!
.

[Margrethe II]

The estates and jurisdiction known as the Duchy of Lancaster have belonged to the reigning Monarch as Duke of Lancaster since the year 1399.

It is still commonplace to hear the toast 'The Queen, the Duke of Lancaster' throughout the Duchy.

Indeed Warren. All financial benefit does infact go solely to Her Majesty the Queen and not the Crown.

"MII"

[Mapple]

Originally Posted by Warren

Does this mean that although The Queen isn't the Duke of Lancaster because that dignity has merged with the Crown, she holds the Duchy of Lancaster?

Yes. It is her inherited property.

I thought that in Lancashire The Queen was referred to as 'The Duke of Lancaster'?

To be precise, 'The Queen, The Duke of Lancaster'. It is a matter of tradition, not law.

Originally Posted by Warren

Another point: the revenues of the Duchy don't flow to "the Crown" but to the Sovereign. This is very confusing!
.

Yes. The Duchy of Lancaster is the personal property of the British monarch and not a part of the Crown Estate.

[branchg]

Originally Posted by Warren

Does this mean that although The Queen isn't the Duke of Lancaster because that dignity has merged with the Crown, she holds the Duchy of Lancaster? I thought that in Lancashire The Queen was referred to as 'The Duke of Lancaster'? Another point: the revenues of the Duchy don't flow to "the Crown" but to the Sovereign. This is very confusing!
.

The Crown is fount of honour and cannot hold any dignity other than Sovereign as King or Queen. However, the Sovereign is, by custom, styled in the duchy as "The Queen, the Duke of Lancaster" as it is an ancient holding.

There is nothing, per se, preventing a King from granting the style and title of Duchess of Lancaster to his wife. It has never been necessary since the wife of the King is Queen Consort. Even in the case of Camilla, assuming she becomes Princess Consort, the granting of a ducal style merged with the Crown would be pointless.

[branchg]

Originally Posted by ysbel

How does the Lancaster title as a susidiary title for the monarch differ from the Cornwall title that is a subsidiary title for the Prince of Wales?

Or, as Warren says, is this opening up another can of worms?

edit: Below is britannica.com's explanation of the Duchy. I find it fascinating.
It doesn't explain how the two duchies, Cornwall and Lancaster, are different though. So I'm still confused why Camilla can't be known as the Duchess of Lancaster upon Charles' accession.

The Dukedom of Cornwall is not a subsidiary title. It is automatically held by the Sovereign's eldest son and heir to the throne. The title "Prince of Wales and Earl of Chester" requires a new grant by the Sovereign once the title merges with the Crown (usually when the current holder assumes the throne).

For example, Charles is currently "HRH Prince of Wales, Duke of Cornwall, Duke of Rothesay, Earl of Chester". When he becomes King, William will automatically become "HRH the Duke of Cornwall" and "HRH the Prince William, Duke of Rothesay". At Charles' discretion, a new grant of "Prince of Wales and Earl of Chester" would be given to William as the new heir to the throne.

The Dukedom of Lancaster is a peerage that merged with the Crown centuries ago. The difference is the dukedom is a holding of the Crown alone, therefore, it can never be granted to anyone other than the Sovereign.

[chrissy57]

Henry VII was the leader of the House of Lancaster who won the Wars of the Roses over the House of York.

With regard to the monarch using the title Duke/Duchess of Lancaster I do think I remember reading the Queen Victoria used the title Duchess of Lancaster when travelling incognito through Europe on occasions.

The monarch's main personal income still comes from the Duchy of Lancaster estates which is another reason why people argue that the monarch is also the Duke of Lancaster. It is this income that provides her wealth while the Civil List is the cost of running the monarchy.

Should the monarchy be abolished the House of Windsor would still hold the estates of the Duchy of Lancster - unless the abolition was also to remove the rights of hereditary peerages to continue to hold their estates and to use their incomes for their personal gains. However the Civil List would be transferred to the running of the presidency or whatever was to replace the monarch as Head of State.

[branchg]

Originally Posted by chrissy57

Should the monarchy be abolished the House of Windsor would still hold the estates of the Duchy of Lancster - unless the abolition was also to remove the rights of hereditary peerages to continue to hold their estates and to use their incomes for their personal gains. However the Civil List would be transferred to the running of the presidency or whatever was to replace the monarch as Head of State.

Interesting point. If Britian becomes a republic, they could follow Germany's lead and abolish all sovereign kingdoms in addition to the peerage. In that case, the Queen could become plain old "Elizabeth Mountbatten-Windsor, Duchess of Lancaster", similar to "Georg-Freidrich, Prince von Hohenzollern" is in Germany today.

[Elspeth]

Given that we're talking about the Supreme Governor of the church here (as Charles will be if the CofE is still the established church when he becomes king, I think we're dealing with the integrity at the very core of the church. I think if they go ahead and crown Camilla queen after a civil marriage and if Andrew Parker Bowles is still alive, people will be very justified in asking about the basis on which the church expects ordinary people to behave in accordance with its teachings when it's prepared to turn such a very blind eye to the antics of its SUpreme Governor.

If Andrew Parker Bowles is no longer alive and if Charles and Camilla have a church service of marriage at that point, the barrier to her becoming queen is no longer there. I know it sounds hard to talk about things in terms of the death of another person, but that's realistically what the situation is. Since we're dealing with people in the 50s and 60s here, I don't think it's unrealistic to consider the possibility that one or more of them might not live for another 30 years. I certainly wasn't intending to suggest that anyone try to get Andrew Parker Bowles out of the way. In fact, I think that if he does predecease Charles and Camilla, however natural his death was, there'd be all sorts of speculation about how he'd been murdered, just like with Diana.

[susan alicia]

I know you were not suggesting that someone would actively want him out of the way, I just find the subject embarressing and there are not many things I find embarressing to talk about.

Originally Posted by Elspeth

Given that we're talking about the Supreme Governor of the church here (as Charles will be if the CofE is still the established church when he becomes king, I think we're dealing with the integrity at the very core of the church. I think if they go ahead and crown Camilla queen after a civil marriage and if Andrew Parker Bowles is still alive, people will be very justified in asking about the basis on which the church expects ordinary people to behave in accordance with its teachings when it's prepared to turn such a very blind eye to the antics of its SUpreme Governor.

If Andrew Parker Bowles is no longer alive and if Charles and Camilla have a church service of marriage at that point, the barrier to her becoming queen is no longer there. I know it sounds hard to talk about things in terms of the death of another person, but that's realistically what the situation is. Since we're dealing with people in the 50s and 60s here, I don't think it's unrealistic to consider the possibility that one or more of them might not live for another 30 years. I certainly wasn't intending to suggest that anyone try to get Andrew Parker Bowles out of the way. In fact, I think that if he does predecease Charles and Camilla, however natural his death was, there'd be all sorts of speculation about how he'd been murdered, just like with Diana.

[gaggleofcrazypeople]

Creepy thoughts. Lets get off this topic.

[tiaraprin]

I agree, this is beyond creepy!! The man has moved on with his life and is remarried. Leave him in peace.

[Elspeth]

He wouldn't have to if she used the Duchess of Lancaster title in the same way she's using the Duchess of Cornwall title now.