Title for Camilla

[BeatrixFan]

Well I certainly wouldn't call her anything else but Your Majesty. I think alot of people would also feel out of place discriminating her because of a past spouse.

 

[jcbcode99]

Well said, BeatrixFan! I truly dislike all this talk because it seeks to relegate Camilla to a secondary status--and I do not think that is fair. Frankly, looking at how it is all set up, she should be Queen. All this talk and supposition of creating a new law to prevent that from occuring is really shameful and I do hope that the UK does not allow that type of popular interference to set a precedence of just changing the rules to suit the emotions of a few. Hopefully, in the next year or so we will see a increase in the amount of support for Queen Camilla rather than Princess Consort Camilla. Personally, I do not think the title of Princess Consort suits Camilla--she is a distinguished, older lady--Duchess and then Queen suit her much better.
Incidentally, and off topic a bit, but will Mette-Marit's past prevent her from becoming Queen or will she have to settle for a lesser title? Probably not. I realize the circumstances are different, but theory is similar. Does someone with a "past" have a right to be Queen? Does their past and mistakes of their past impune their character?

 

[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. Not our lot. They should have used Norway as a precedent and we wouldn't be having this discussion today.

 

[jcbcode99]

I totally and completely agree. Regardless of what her past was, Mette-Marit has been treated with dignity and the respect due to her as the spouse of the Crown Prince.
Not so with Camilla--God forbid she be referred to as The Princess of Wales and God forbid she become Queen Camilla because of Diana. It is insane!

 

[BeatrixFan]

It's this allergy culture. "I can't stomach this" and "I can't stomach that" and sadly they get taken as the majority. In the good old days they just choked.

 

[Elspeth]

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. Not our lot. They should have used Norway as a precedent and we wouldn't be having this discussion today.

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.

 

[BeatrixFan]

But then are these self-righteous morons crowing about what's morally acceptable living a whiter than white life? At the end of the day, we pay for the professional services of the Royal Family, we don't pay to hold a Pop Idol contest on who they're allowed to marry. The problem with the Palace bending to the lunatic fringe is that they've set a precedent of an X Factor monarchy and we all know that can't work. It's not only unfair but it's also deeply hypocritical. I think you're right in that this is more a Princess Liliane situation but when the cake is eaten and the plate is clear we're left with one question; Does Camilla do a good job as a member of the Royal Family? The answer, from even her most vicious critics - yes she does. In that case, there's no reason why the title of Queen should be substituted for the title of Princess Consort. Camilla hasn't done anything wrong, why should she be penalised because a fan club without a brain cell between them somehow think that by treating her as unclean, Diana's going to pop up and start appearing in the papers again. As has been pointed out, Diana was NEVER going to be Queen anyway. After that divorce, the post was open to whoever Charles chose to marry second. He chose Camilla, the jobs hers.

 

[Elspeth]

I think the royal family, or at least the advisors, might now be reaping the rather awkward harvest of a decision that was made for short-term reasons. I'm sure that at the time, especially remembering people's rather shocked reaction to the notion of a separated Diana being crowned Queen, the idea to sidestep the Queen issue with a Princess Consort title would have been very attractive. But it didn't take long for the media to start asking awkward questions about the constitutionality of the Princess Consort business, which means they didn't really gain a lot in the short term. And now we're still stuck with it, while knowing that it's very unlikely to come about because the practicalities are too complex and there's no real need anyway, so it looks as though the Palace advisors are trying to mislead.

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.

 

[Empress]

Who's to say she is even interested in the title of Queen. Frankly, I would be more disappointed in her if she was. I would hope that she married for love and not the trappings of royal life.

 

[Al_bina]

It would be reasonable to presume that Duchess Cornwall married Prince Charles for "love [nicely enhanced by] the trappings of royal life" (Empress, 2007). Appetite is known to come with eating.

 

[BeatrixFan]

Who's to say she is even interested in the title of Queen. Frankly, I would be more disappointed in her if she was. I would hope that she married for love and not the trappings of royal life.

She may not be interested, I'm sure she's not, but I am. It creates a very nasty precedent and I don't like to see someone treated like an untouchable because of hero worship. It's just not cricket.

 

[Madame Royale]

Which I'm sure is part of the confusion about whether they can or can't make the Princess Consort thing stick.

If successfull, I think they could. And I don't think it would be very hard.

 

[BeatrixFan]

But why should they have to?

 

[Elspeth]

Perhaps it's her preference. If it were, do you think they should make an effort or just tell her that even though she doesn't want to be Queen Camilla, too bad?

 

[BeatrixFan]

I'd say that the wife of a King is a Queen and anything less cheapens the institution. Other people might want to sail tradition down the river on a turd but I say if we've got a monarchy then do it properly or not at all. If Camilla doesn't care that's admirable but I do care and I care about her. And if she takes that Consort title then the Diana fanatics have won which doesn't only make me totally sick to my stomach but signals the end of the monarchy once and for all.

 

[sirhon11234]

So this is basically a war between the die hard Diana fanatics and the fans of Camilla?

 

[BeatrixFan]

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

 

[Roslyn]

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]

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.

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/f48/princess-maxima-s-future-title-12957.html

 

[sirhon11234]

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

 

[lilytornado]

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]

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/f48/princess-maxima-s-future-title-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]

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.