Title for Camilla

[PrinceOfCanada]

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.

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.

 

[Madame Royale]

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.

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.

 

[wbenson]

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.

 

[LadyCat]

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

 

[branchg]

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.

 

[branchg]

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.

 

[LadyCat]

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

 

[jcbcode99]

I have to admit that I think this is very cut and dried predicament; when Charles becomes King his wife automatically becomes Queen Consort--as the law now stands that is the progression of things. She can't be HRH The Princess Consort until the law changes--and it appears that there is no rush to do so on the part of HMQEII. That tells me that this whole Princess Consort title was a diversions for the Diana-ites out there. Which brings me to my other point--the idea that Camilla, who is not using the style HRH The Princess of Wales out of respect for Diana, should have to take a lesser title than her husband out of respect for Diana yet again (who never would have held the HM The Queen title) really just does not make any sense to me at all. The only scenario I can really think of that is similar is that of King Leopold and Queen Astrid; when she died there was such an outpouring of grief that he ended up secretely marrying Lillian--who become HRH The Princess of Rethy---and whose children were not in the line of succession. That is so insulting, I can not even begin to imagine how I would feel given that situation. I honestly see no reason why Camilla cannot be Queen Camilla--and I have read this thread many times--and it all comes back to one thing:
upon Charles ascension, Camilla automatically becomes Queen. Unless a letters patent is issued prior to QEIIs death. If the letters patent is not issued, then Camilla would be in a situation where she would have to lose her title--which sets a dangerous precedent. So, it all hinges on what happens now--and I think that QEII is waiting it out.

As an aside, I have particularly enjoyed the discussions about the Duke and Duchess of Windsor. In the past I have agreed that she should not have held the HRH, but I have come to the opinion that it was an injustice to her that she did not receive it as her sisters-in-law held it. They weren't divorced, true, but Edward did give up the throne for her.

One more thought--if Camilla does become a Princess of the UK in her own right, as Phillip is one with the Duke of E title, would she receive a title that she could pass to her son?

 

[LadyCat]

As title pass through the male lne, any title Camilla is given in her own right - such as Princess of the UK - would die with her.

Cat

 

[Madame Royale]

would she receive a title that she could pass to her son?

I should certainly say not!

 

[Jo of Palatine]

As title pass through the male lne, any title Camilla is given in her own right - such as Princess of the UK - would die with her.

Cat

No, it would depend of the Letters Patent for the creation of her own peerage. It would be up to the souverain to decide it. If it was a title in the range of marchioness or above, Tom and Laura normally would be "Lord Thomas Parker Bowles" and "Lady Laura Lopes", as the children of a peeress in her own right have the same rights as children of a peer. See eg. the two daughters of Lady Mountbatten of Burma and her husband Lord Brabourne are styled as "Lady Joanne" and "Lady Amanda" even though their father was just a mere Baron, because they are the daughters of a countess in her own right.

 

[jcbcode99]

Perhaps I should have been more clear with my question--there are titles that women have held in their own--The first Duke of Marlborough's daughter inherited her father's peerage and was the Duchess of Marlborough in her own right. Also, Scottish peerages are able to pass through the woman in her own right. Countess Mountbatten of Burma is the daugther of Lord Louis Mountbatten and holds the title in her own right. So, women can hold titles in their own right and if, as part of a "deal" Camilla takes a lesser title then perhaps she would be willing to take a title which would be hers that could pass to her son or daughter. Is this not a possibility?

 

[Jo of Palatine]

Of course this is possible. Depends on the Letter Patents.

 

[jcbcode99]

Thank you, Jo! If I were Camilla and I was told I couldn't be Queen, I would be looking at this possibility. Could she be HRH The Princess Consort, Duchess/Countess of Highgrove or something? (the only thing I could think of , sorry, I just needed filler).

 

[branchg]

It would be entirely within the gift of The Sovereign (her husband) to decide what titles she would hold and whether they would be hereditary (highly doubtful).

 

[jcbcode99]

Why would it be highly doubtful? If Camilla has to give up a title that is rightfully hers to appease irrational minds, then why shouldn't she receive something that is hers alone? I think it is an interesting thought to consider.

 

[branchg]

It would be hers alone regardless of whether a hereditary peerage is created. By giving up the title of Queen, Camilla would be created a Princess of the UK in her own right as HRH The Princess Consort.

Unless she strongly desires her son to become a Peer in due time, it seems unlikely to me she would care about having a hereditary title to pass on.

 

[Madame Royale]

There is no reason why her son should become a peer through his mother's union. None whatsoever.

 

[Jo of Palatine]

There is no reason why her son should become a peer through his mother's union. None whatsoever.

Thomas Parker Bowles is a Parker from the Earl of Macclesfield-family. It is a very old tradition that if a member of a noble family does special services to the king he is elevated to a rank similar to that of the Head of the family or even beyond that. Just think of Arthur Wellesley...

So why should this old tradition not apply to the step-(and god-) son of the future king?

 

[Empress]

Okay, but what service has he done the Queen/Future King/realm?

 

[Jo of Palatine]

Okay, but what service has he done the Queen/Future King/realm?

What do I know? Helped Charles through the emotionally very daring situation of his divorce?

We either accept that the souverain is the "fount of all honours" or not. If so, the souverain may elevate whoever he thinks is worthy to whichever rank. If not, leave it all to Gordon Brown.

 

[branchg]

The divorce was accepted by all and life goes on. They are married now, Camilla shares her husband's current rank and title (with the concession to Diana's memory by using her ducal title as her style) and there is no reason why she should be denied the right to be Queen.

Even if Diana was alive today, she was never going to be Queen, so why should Camilla be punished?

 

[scooter]

Why do you think they floated the whole 'Princess Consort' title rather than say yes she will be queen?

 

[wbenson]

I think they were afraid of certain elements that wish to see Diana crowned Queen of the World for Eternity.

 

[Elspeth]

I think they were also afraid of the elements (probably the same ones as above) who were getting rather strident about wanting to see William succeed the Queen and bypass Charles. Perhaps they thought that the prospect of Queen Camilla would rally more people to the Charles-must-step-aside camp. Especially since Diana had hinted in the Panorama interview that that's what she wanted.

 

[LadyCat]

No, it would depend of the Letters Patent for the creation of her own peerage. It would be up to the souverain to decide it. If it was a title in the range of marchioness or above, Tom and Laura normally would be "Lord Thomas Parker Bowles" and "Lady Laura Lopes", as the children of a peeress in her own right have the same rights as children of a peer. See eg. the two daughters of Lady Mountbatten of Burma and her husband Lord Brabourne are styled as "Lady Joanne" and "Lady Amanda" even though their father was just a mere Baron, because they are the daughters of a countess in her own right.

I was under the impression that titles passd through the male line by law, that tiles held by females became extinct upon their death. I know there were several titles that became extinct when there was no male to inherit, with the except being the sovereign.

Cat

 

[LadyCat]

Why would it be highly doubtful? If Camilla has to give up a title that is rightfully hers to appease irrational minds, then why shouldn't she receive something that is hers alone? I think it is an interesting thought to consider.

"Irrational minds" being the key words here! Why should Camilla be denied the rightful title of Queen just because a bunch of Dianaphites abhor the fact? It seems a bit absurd as Diana would never have been Queen anyway. Elspeth's explanation makes perfect sense, that it is to appease those "irrational minds" who would rather see Charles step aside in favor of William based on Diana's Panorama interview. Even 10 years on the woman holds too much sway in the opinions of others. The British monarchy has survived quite a bit over the centuries, I have a feeling it will survive Queen Camilla!

Cat

 

[scooter]

"Irrational minds" being the key words here! Why should Camilla be denied the rightful title of Queen just because a bunch of Dianaphites abhor the fact? It seems a bit absurd as Diana would never have been Queen anyway. Elspeth's explanation makes perfect sense, that it is to appease those "irrational minds" who would rather see Charles step aside in favor of William based on Diana's Panorama interview. Even 10 years on the woman holds too much sway in the opinions of others. The British monarchy has survived quite a bit over the centuries, I have a feeling it will survive Queen Camilla!

Cat

Oh come on, must everything be Diana's fault even after all of this time? Is there no accountability on the side of Prince Charles to take responsability his actions? Is it not possible that some people dont like Charles for reasons that have more to do with his own decisions/actions than Diana's long ago Panorama interview? I think it's pretty convenient to say that its all people with 'irrational minds'. Look, it was going to be an uphill battle when they decided they wanted to marry, constitutionally as well as the man in the street issue. There was a BBC poll at the time of the engagement that about 2/3 of the respondants took the position that if Charles wanted to marry Camilla he should step down from the succession. Perhaps you view all of those people as all dianaphites, but they are the pool of the population.
As far as Camilla being 'denied', has the palace not come right out asnd said that Camilla wishes to be known as the Princess Consort? If it's what she wants what is the problem?

 

[Elspeth]

I don't think the Palace has said anything about wishing it, they've just said that this is how she'll be known.

 

[wbenson]

I was under the impression that titles passd through the male line by law, that tiles held by females became extinct upon their death.

If a title that passes to heirs male is held by a female for whatever reason (either by special remainder or the original grant), then they continue on to sons of the female. For example, when Countess Mountbatten dies, her son Lord Brabourne will become Earl Mountbatten, and he was known by his mother's subsidiary title of Lord Romsey until he became Lord Brabourne in his own right after the death of his father.