The Royal Forums Coat of Arms


Join The Royal Forums Today
Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #261  
Old 04-28-2008, 09:43 PM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: , United States
Posts: 2,736
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.
__________________

__________________
  #262  
Old 04-28-2008, 10:12 PM
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 247
Quote:
Originally Posted by branchg View Post
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).
__________________

__________________
  #263  
Old 04-28-2008, 11:14 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Melbourne & Sydney, Australia
Posts: 3,983
Quote:
In my view, Camilla must be Queen or the monarchy is on the road to extinction.

Quote:
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.
__________________

"Dressing is a way of life" - Monsieur Saint Laurent
  #264  
Old 04-28-2008, 11:48 PM
wbenson's Avatar
Super Moderator
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: -, United States
Posts: 2,237
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.
__________________
  #265  
Old 04-29-2008, 12:07 PM
PrinceOfCanada's Avatar
Nobility
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Toronto, Canada
Posts: 356
Quote:
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).
__________________
  #266  
Old 04-29-2008, 08:54 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Melbourne & Sydney, Australia
Posts: 3,983
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.
__________________

"Dressing is a way of life" - Monsieur Saint Laurent
  #267  
Old 04-30-2008, 08:31 AM
PrinceOfCanada's Avatar
Nobility
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Toronto, Canada
Posts: 356
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.
__________________
  #268  
Old 04-30-2008, 08:36 AM
LadyCat's Avatar
Nobility
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: WM, United States
Posts: 371
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
__________________
  #269  
Old 04-30-2008, 05:05 PM
wbenson's Avatar
Super Moderator
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: -, United States
Posts: 2,237
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.
__________________
  #270  
Old 04-30-2008, 05:06 PM
PrinceOfCanada's Avatar
Nobility
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Toronto, Canada
Posts: 356
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).
__________________
  #271  
Old 04-30-2008, 06:04 PM
LadyCat's Avatar
Nobility
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: WM, United States
Posts: 371
Quote:
Originally Posted by wbenson View Post
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
__________________
  #272  
Old 04-30-2008, 11:04 PM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: , United States
Posts: 2,736
Quote:
Originally Posted by PrinceOfCanada View Post
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".
__________________
  #273  
Old 04-30-2008, 11:08 PM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: , United States
Posts: 2,736
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyCat View Post
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.
__________________
  #274  
Old 04-30-2008, 11:15 PM
PrinceOfCanada's Avatar
Nobility
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Toronto, Canada
Posts: 356
Quote:
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.

Quote:
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.
__________________
  #275  
Old 04-30-2008, 11:23 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Melbourne & Sydney, Australia
Posts: 3,983
Quote:
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.

Quote:
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.
__________________

"Dressing is a way of life" - Monsieur Saint Laurent
  #276  
Old 05-01-2008, 12:02 AM
wbenson's Avatar
Super Moderator
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: -, United States
Posts: 2,237
Quote:
Originally Posted by PrinceOfCanada View Post
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.
__________________
  #277  
Old 05-01-2008, 07:49 AM
LadyCat's Avatar
Nobility
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: WM, United States
Posts: 371
Quote:
Originally Posted by branchg View Post
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
__________________
  #278  
Old 05-01-2008, 08:37 AM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: , United States
Posts: 2,736
Quote:
Originally Posted by PrinceOfCanada View Post
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.
__________________
  #279  
Old 05-01-2008, 08:49 AM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: , United States
Posts: 2,736
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyCat View Post
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).
Camilla automatically became HRH The Princess Charles with marriage and shares all of her husband's styles, titles and rank as heir to the throne. Her title as Princess of Wales is not being used, instead she is using her ducal title and style as Duchess of Cornwall, which is fine since Charles is Duke of Cornwall.

But once he becomes King, there is no other style and title for her to use except Queen. She would not be a princess anymore, so she cannot use that style as her title because it is inferior in rank to being Queen Consort.

It will have to be created for her by the King after Parliament intervenes to remove her right to be Queen with legislation.
__________________
  #280  
Old 05-01-2008, 08:56 AM
LadyCat's Avatar
Nobility
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: WM, United States
Posts: 371
Unless Letters Patent are issued creating her a Princess of the UK in her own right. Whether this takes place before or after is anyone's guess. I may be wrong (imagine that!) but it appears this would be the only way she could use the title "Princess Consort" without any changes n legislation.

Cat
__________________

__________________
Closed Thread

Tags
camilla, duchess of cornwall, princess consort, queen consort, styles and titles


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Title for Camilla - Part 2 wymanda The Prince of Wales and the Duchess of Cornwall 505 01-30-2008 01:07 PM
Title For Camilla TODOI The Prince of Wales and the Duchess of Cornwall 153 06-02-2004 03:12 AM




Additional Links
Popular Tags
abdication birth charlene crown prince felipe crown prince frederik crown prince haakon crown princess letizia crown princess mary crown princess mette-marit duchess of cambridge dutch royal history engagement fashion genealogy grand duchess maria teresa grand duke henri habsburg hohenzollern infanta elena infanta leonor infanta sofia jewellery jordan king abdullah ii king carl xvi gustav king constantine ii king felipe king felipe vi king harald king juan carlos king philippe king willem-alexander luxembourg nobility olympic games ottoman picture of the month pom prince albert prince albert ii prince carl philip prince felipe prince floris prince maurits prince pieter-christiaan princess anita princess astrid princess beatrix princess charlene princess letizia princess mabel princess madeleine princess marilene princess mary queen anne-marie queen letizia queen mathilde queen maxima queen rania queen silvia queen sofia royal royal fashion russia sofia hellqvist spain state visit visit wedding winter olympics 2014



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 02:31 AM.

Social Knowledge Networks

eXTReMe Tracker
Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2014
Jelsoft Enterprises

Royal News Delivered to your Email!

You can get the latest Royal News right in your inbox.

unsusbcribe at anytime with one click

Close [X]