Title for Camilla

[branchg]

The marriage was morganatic. His wife was not HRH Princess Edward because the King issued letters patent specifically denying her the right to share her husband's rank. Once that happened, it became law.

Camilla's assumption of a lesser style and rank as HRH The Princess Consort (provided Parliament agrees to remove her right to be The Queen) would also be morganatic. It is not possible for The King to issue letters patent creating her a princess when she is HM The Queen.

 

[branchg]

So, when Charles becomes King will it be a similar situation of her legally holding the title of HM The Queen Camilla but instead choosing to style herself as HRH The Princess Consort?

No, it will not. She is legally a princess right now and holds many other titles as the wife of the heir to the throne. She has chosen to be styled as HRH The Duchess of Cornwall, rather than her senior title as Princess of Wales, with the consent of The Queen. Regardless of which title she uses, she is a princess by marriage automatically.

But once Charles becomes King, there is no other title for his wife except being HM The Queen. She cannot "choose" to be a princess or hold the style of HRH because she is automatically Queen in law. Therefore, Parliament must consent to the King's wife reliniquishing her superior rank and title and assuming a lesser one.

 

[Elspeth]

Legally and powerfully speaking, what will it change if Camilla becomes Queen consort ? Seemingly a Queen consort doesn't have any official power. She's certainly a major advisor of the King (and I assume Camilla already accomplishes this role). So, whether Camilla is Queen consort or not, what will it change for the UK ?

It won't. I think this was a classic case of buying a bit of short-term peace at the cost of creating a long-term problem. I mean, even last year you could see how easily the Daily Mail could whip up anti-Camilla resentment and pro-Diana feelings when the business of the memorial service came up. It's quite possible that the royal advisors felt that if they said anything at all about her becoming Queen, they could be faced with a situation where Charles really might have to choose between her and the throne.

 

[Elspeth]

No, it will not. She is legally a princess right now and holds many other titles as the wife of the heir to the throne. She has chosen to be styled as HRH The Duchess of Cornwall, rather than her senior title as Princess of Wales, with the consent of The Queen. Regardless of which title she uses, she is a princess by marriage automatically.

But once Charles becomes King, there is no other title for his wife except being HM The Queen. She cannot "choose" to be a princess or hold the style of HRH because she is automatically Queen in law. Therefore, Parliament must consent to the King's wife reliniquishing her superior rank and title and assuming a lesser one.

Nobody is saying that she can choose to BE a princess when she's Queen. The issue is whether she can legally be KNOWN AS a princess even though she's Queen. For one thing, presumably Buckingham Palace didn't come up with this "it is intended that she be known as Princess Consort" stuff out of thin air. For another, it isn't illegal to be known as something you aren't as long as you don't intend to defraud anyone. For another, it's still on the royal family website.

The Royal Family > TRH The Prince of Wales and The Duchess of Cornwall > Background

It isn't even "it is intended that" nowadays, it's "she will be known as."

 

[pinkie40]

I understand the "title" situation but as Princess Consort will she be crowned in the Abbey ceremony with the Queen Consort crown worn last by the Queen Mother? (I apologize, I know beforehand this is building a mountain out of a molehill...but seriously, I wonder)

 

[serenissima]

No, it will not. She is legally a princess right now and holds many other titles as the wife of the heir to the throne. She has chosen to be styled as HRH The Duchess of Cornwall, rather than her senior title as Princess of Wales, with the consent of The Queen. Regardless of which title she uses, she is a princess by marriage automatically.

But once Charles becomes King, there is no other title for his wife except being HM The Queen. She cannot "choose" to be a princess or hold the style of HRH because she is automatically Queen in law. Therefore, Parliament must consent to the King's wife reliniquishing her superior rank and title and assuming a lesser one.

Camilla's full style is Her Royal Highness, The Princess Charles Philip Arthur George, Princess of Wales and Countess of Chester, Duchess of Cornwall, Duchess of Rothesay, Countess of Carrick, Baroness of Renfrew, Lady of the Isles, Princess of Scotland. However, she cannot style herself as the Princess Camilla currently for she has not yet been created as such. The Queen may creat Camilla the Princess Camilla in due course as she created her husband the Prince Philip shortly after her succession to the throne.

It may be possible for Camilla to style herself as HRH the Princess Camilla the Princess Consort after her husband's assession to the throne since there is no law to forbid her to be styled as HRH rather than HM if the sovereign who is the fount of honour grants her such a title. However, it is customary for the King of England's wife to be styled as HM the Queen.

In addition to this, the wife of the King of Morocco is styled as HRH the Princess Consort.

It is also customary for the King of England to be crowned & annointed by the Archbishop of Canterbury after his succession to the throne, however, it is not by law, yet he must be an Anglican by faith etc by the Act of Settlement. I wonder what will happen during Charles' coronation. Will Camilla be annointed as the queen or will she not be annointed should she wish to be style as the Princess Consort ?

 

[serenissima]

The marriage was morganatic. His wife was not HRH Princess Edward because the King issued letters patent specifically denying her the right to share her husband's rank. Once that happened, it became law.

Stanley Baldwin's government did not regard the Duke of Windsor's marriage to Wallis as morganatic because the duke had already renounced all the rights to the throne for himself as well as his future children between him and Wallis.

 

[wbenson]

Maybe Charles, upon becoming King, could just phone up, say, the King of Norway and ask if he could make Camilla a Princess of Norway. Then she could style herself "HRH Princess Camilla." That's very far-fetched, though.

 

[Elspeth]

I understand the "title" situation but as Princess Consort will she be crowned in the Abbey ceremony with the Queen Consort crown worn last by the Queen Mother? (I apologize, I know beforehand this is building a mountain out of a molehill...but seriously, I wonder)

Princesses don't get crowned; however, if she's Queen, she can be crowned with the Queen Mother's crown or maybe Queen Mary's. But the Queen Mother's crown was made to go with the Imperial State Crown, so I assume they'd use it.

 

[branchg]

Stanley Baldwin's government did not regard the Duke of Windsor's marriage to Wallis as morganatic because the duke had already renounced all the rights to the throne for himself as well as his future children between him and Wallis.

That was the King's conclusion with Lord Wigram in order to justify the 1937 Letters Patent. The Government only reluctantly accepted this stance in order to withhold the style of Royal Highness from Wallis.

Legally, it was clear The Duke had relinquished his rights, and that of his descendants, to the throne, but not his right to be royal under his father's 1917 Letters Patent. Therefore, there was no question of his wife being entitled to be HRH.

 

[branchg]

Nobody is saying that she can choose to BE a princess when she's Queen. The issue is whether she can legally be KNOWN AS a princess even though she's Queen. For one thing, presumably Buckingham Palace didn't come up with this "it is intended that she be known as Princess Consort" stuff out of thin air. For another, it isn't illegal to be known as something you aren't as long as you don't intend to defraud anyone. For another, it's still on the royal family website.

The Royal Family > TRH The Prince of Wales and The Duchess of Cornwall > Background

It isn't even "it is intended that" nowadays, it's "she will be known as."

Ah, but they did come up with this scenario out of thin air! Within days of announcing this farce, it was made clear she COULD NOT be known as HRH The Princess Consort without legislation being passed.

Oops.....another blunder from Clarence House. Whether this will, in fact, come to pass remains to be seen and is by no means fait accompli.

 

[serenissima]

I personally think that the Prince of Wales wishes his wife to be styled as HM the Queen when he becomes the king. However, his wife may have a different idea. The Queen may creat her as the Princess Camilla in due course and Camilla may be known as HRH the Princess Camilla, the Princess Consort or some other title which the Queen may grant her. How about the Duchess of, say, Watford ?

 

[branchg]

I personally think that the Prince of Wales wishes his wife to be styled as HM the Queen when he becomes the king. However, his wife may have a different idea. The Queen may creat her as the Princess Camilla in due course and Camilla may be known as HRH the Princess Camilla, the Princess Consort or some other title which the Queen may grant her. How about the Duchess of, say, Watford ?

There's no question that Prince Charles wants his wife to be Queen when the time comes. How could he not? And that may be exactly what happens since it is very unlikely the Government would agree to introduce legislation changing Camilla's title and style, but it cannot be ruled out either.

The Queen is unlikely to issue letters patent creating Camilla a princess in her own right or giving her a lifetime peerage. What would be the point of that?

 

[Elspeth]

Ah, but they did come up with this scenario out of thin air! Within days of announcing this farce, it was made clear she COULD NOT be known as HRH The Princess Consort without legislation being passed.

Oops.....another blunder from Clarence House. Whether this will, in fact, come to pass remains to be seen and is by no means fait accompli.

The weird thing is that it's still on the royal family website. Not just the Clarence House one, but the official one. And the wording now is firmer than when they first added it.

 

[serenissima]

There's no question that Prince Charles wants his wife to be Queen when the time comes. How could he not? And that may be exactly what happens since it is very unlikely the Government would agree to introduce legislation changing Camilla's title and style, but it cannot be ruled out either.

The Queen is unlikely to issue letters patent creating Camilla a princess in her own right or giving her a lifetime peerage. What would be the point of that?

Well, one never knows. There was no greater point in creating Philip Mountbatten as the Duke of Edinburgh but he was created as such that Camilla may be given a title of her own (which may not be a peerage) so that she may become to be known by her own title.

 

[serenissima]

The weird thing is that it's still on the royal family website. Not just the Clarence House one, but the official one. And the wording now is firmer than when they first added it.

Oh, I see.

When they come to some functions & the Royal Meeting at Ascot etc, we have become used to see Camilla as the Duchess of Cornwall that we will perhaps feel quite natural to address her as something else apart from the title which Charles uses. HM the King and the Princess Consort does not sound that bad at all since these are the forms that the Moroccan royal family uses.

 

[wbenson]

There was no greater point in creating Philip Mountbatten as the Duke of Edinburgh but he was created as such that Camilla may be given a title of her own (which may not be a peerage) so that she may become to be known by her own title.

Philip wouldn't have been anything at all without such a creation, though. Had that not happened, he would have been Admiral of the Fleet (after 1953, his various ranks before then) Sir Philip Mountbatten until 1957. (Or, quite possibly and quite strangely, but I think it would have been rectified, Admiral of the Fleet His Royal Highness Sir Philip Mountbatten.)

 

[Madame Royale]

But, should Camilla become HRH The Princess Consort I will remember your words and I think I will be able to sit back and smile.

Are you so sure? Your recent posts would suggest otherwise...

 

[branchg]

Well, one never knows. There was no greater point in creating Philip Mountbatten as the Duke of Edinburgh but he was created as such that Camilla may be given a title of her own (which may not be a peerage) so that she may become to be known by her own title.

Actually, there was......he was marrying the British heiress to the throne and needed sufficient title and rank for his children. Although Philip was born HRH Prince of Greece & Denmark (he is actually far more royal in bloodline than The Queen), he reliniquished his titles when naturalized to British citizenship as Lt. Philip Mountbatten, RN.

Camilla only enjoys her husband's rank and title, the same as any commoner who marries a Prince of the UK or a Peer of the Realm. She wasn't born with any titles and doesn't need any of her own, outside of her status as a royal wife.

 

[love_cc]

The weird thing is that it's still on the royal family website. Not just the Clarence House one, but the official one. And the wording now is firmer than when they first added it.

Perhaps because the royal staff themselves lacked the ability to clarify these matters and they are reluctant to clarify matters until they receive clear directions to do so. These people do make mistakes. Another example, in the documentary "Monarchy: the royal family at work", it is clearly stated that Prince Edward will inherit the title "Duke of Edinburgh ",but it failed to mention the fact that Prince Charles and his sons should be the lawful people to inherit the title first. I find these information as omission if not misleading.

For Camilla's title, I guess that those royal household members, royal family members, ministers, even the "royal experts" just choose the option of waiting rather than speak directly about the matters. We are the braver people!

 

[jcbcode99]

Are you so sure? Your recent posts would suggest otherwise...

Well, my dear Madame Royale, we all know that I would prefer to see Queen Camilla rather than Princess Consort Camilla--but your eloquence in your defense of your position was quite lovely and it does indeed make me smile.

 

[Jo of Palatine]

Philip wouldn't have been anything at all without such a creation, though. Had that not happened, he would have been Admiral of the Fleet (after 1953, his various ranks before then) Sir Philip Mountbatten until 1957. (Or, quite possibly and quite strangely, but I think it would have been rectified, Admiral of the Fleet His Royal Highness Sir Philip Mountbatten.)

I don't think they use the "Sir" with a Royal Highness, just add the abbreviations of the order of Knightship he received.

 

[Jo of Palatine]

The marriage was morganatic. His wife was not HRH Princess Edward because the King issued letters patent specifically denying her the right to share her husband's rank. Once that happened, it became law.

Camilla's assumption of a lesser style and rank as HRH The Princess Consort (provided Parliament agrees to remove her right to be The Queen) would also be morganatic. It is not possible for The King to issue letters patent creating her a princess when she is HM The Queen.

That is disputed. The king cannot be peer is pretty clear as a law. But can his wife, who is queen by courtesy of her marriage to him not be a peeress in her own right? What would have happened if Charles had married the current Countess of Sutherland? She is a countess in her own right, would she loose her inherited title?

 

[Jo of Palatine]

Nobody is saying that she can choose to BE a princess when she's Queen. The issue is whether she can legally be KNOWN AS a princess even though she's Queen. For one thing, presumably Buckingham Palace didn't come up with this "it is intended that she be known as Princess Consort" stuff out of thin air. For another, it isn't illegal to be known as something you aren't as long as you don't intend to defraud anyone. For another, it's still on the royal family website.

The Royal Family > TRH The Prince of Wales and The Duchess of Cornwall > Background

It isn't even "it is intended that" nowadays, it's "she will be known as."

Oh, but on The prince of Wales' webpage it sound this way:

The Prince of Wales - Marriage and Family

"It is intended that The Duchess of Cornwall will use the title HRH The Princess Consort when The Prince of Wales accedes to The Throne."

Interesting, isn't it?

 

[Jo of Palatine]

Maybe Charles, upon becoming King, could just phone up, say, the King of Norway and ask if he could make Camilla a Princess of Norway. Then she could style herself "HRH Princess Camilla." That's very far-fetched, though.

No, as foreign titles are not recognized in the UK if the holder is a British citizen.

 

[Elspeth]

Princess Marina was known as Princess Marina, especially after her son married and there was a new Duchess of Kent. I don't know how official the title was, but I remember that's how she was always referred to in the newspapers and on the TV when she was doing her engagements.

 

[Elspeth]

Oh, but on The prince of Wales' webpage it sound this way:

The Prince of Wales - Marriage and Family

"It is intended that The Duchess of Cornwall will use the title HRH The Princess Consort when The Prince of Wales accedes to The Throne."

Interesting, isn't it?

So what does the Queen know that Prince Charles doesn't? Or vice versa...

 

[Jo of Palatine]

Princess Marina was known as Princess Marina, especially after her son married and there was a new Duchess of Kent. I don't know how official the title was, but I remember that's how she was always referred to in the newspapers and on the TV when she was doing her engagements.

We had a longer discussion about Marina's title here and I learned after consulting transcripts of discussions from the National Archive at
HO 45/15677
that for naturalized Britons "Foreign titles do not receive official recognition in this country unless and until Royal Licence to use them has been obtained".

There was no Royal licence for Princess Marina. But, as you can read at
LCO 6 7300
there was a long discussion among the advisors of the Crown how to deal with those relatives of the Royal family (descendants from queen Victoria) who held a German or other foreign title but no British but had opted for Britian in WWI. It is clear from this discussion that the title prince/princess in Britain should be reserved to people closely related to the king or queen regnant and that this title/style should signal this closeness.
IMHO this is the reason why both princess Alice and princess Marina were alowed to use the princess-style with their own first name after they were
widowed: even though they could not longer actively take their style form their (late) husbands, they were recognized as close relatives of the souverain by courtesy. Thus "Princess Alice" and "Princess Marina." This would explain the usage of "Princess Diana" as well: she was,a fter all, the mother of a future souverain and could thusly be recogniced by courtesy as a "Princess" according to this definition.

 

[serenissima]

I understand that, in the case of Alice Montagu-Douglas-Scott, she was given such a courtesy style as Princess Alice after her husband's death because she did not wish to be styled as the Dowager Duchess of Gloucester. (Her style "Princess Alice" was not created by the letters patent, apparently). In the case of Princess Marina, she was born as a princess that she could carry on using that style after her marriage to the Duke of Kent, so it appears as in the case of HDSH Prince Albert of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha. He was styled as His Royal Highness Prince Albert of Saxe-Coburg-Gothat upon his marriage to the Queen Victoria (HRH as the sovereign's gift to him) and later officially created as the Prince Consort.

 

[branchg]

That is disputed. The king cannot be peer is pretty clear as a law. But can his wife, who is queen by courtesy of her marriage to him not be a peeress in her own right? What would have happened if Charles had married the current Countess of Sutherland? She is a countess in her own right, would she loose her inherited title?

No, of course not. For example, Diana was Lady Diana Spencer and became HRH The Princess of Wales with marriage. She no longer used her own style since her married rank and title was superior to her own. With divorce, she lost her style and rank as HRH and technically was Lady Diana, Princess of Wales.