Roslyn
Heir Apparent
- Joined
- Mar 16, 2006
- Messages
- 4,141
- City
- Tintenbar
- Country
- Australia
I think Camilla's situation provides an excellent opportunity to examine the issue of a woman taking her husband's styles and titles, and surname, on marriage, which is what we are talking about when we discuss whether Camilla should be Queen or Princess Consort.
The tradition can be traced back to the Normans. One of their "gifts" to Anglo-Saxon England was the concept of coverture, which provided that, on marriage, a woman ceased to have an independent identity. To quote from Blackstone's Commentaries on the Laws of England, Chapter 15: "By marriage, the husband and wife are one person in law: that is, the very being or legal existence of the woman is suspended during the marriage, or at least is incorporated and consolidated into that of the husband: under whose wing, protection, and cover, she performs everything; and is therefore called in our law-french a feme-covert [married woman]; is said to be covert-baron, or under the protection and influence of her husband, her baron, or lord; and her condition during her marriage is called her coverture." Blackstone delivered his lectures at Oxford in the 1750s. A married woman had no separate identity at all; she and her husband became the one legal person, and that person was the husband. It is for this reason that she took his surname and styles and titles. She had no choice, for her own identity was suspended during the marriage. There is nothing at all romantic about it: she was his property, merely an appendage of her husband. Things changed over the centuries and the momentum for change accelerated with women's rights movements in the 20th century and by the end of the 20th century the objectionable and archaic principle was merely a historical curiosity.
So why do so many people still accept that it is right and proper and normal for a woman to take her husband's styles and titles and surname on marriage? Why is it accepted as normal these days for a woman to be known as "Mrs John Smith" rather than "Ms Jane Smith". Jane Smith might have been happy as a clam to take on her husband's surname when she married, but she was not legally bound to do so. She can now buy and own her own property and dispose of it as she wishes. She can enter into contracts and obtain mortgages without her husband being her guarantor, and now even sue her husband if he commits a civil wrong against her, so why should she be addressed as merely the female appendage of her husband - Mrs John Smith - with no reference to her own identity as an individual? Likewise, why should Camilla necessarily become The Queen just because her husband is The King? Why can't she become The Princess Consort, or even The Queen though not be crowned with him at his coronation? Queens were only crowned because of that notion of coverture, i.e. she was part of him so she had to be part of the coronation. With the notable exception of the unfortunate Queen Caroline, that is, to prove the rule.
Some argue that for Camilla not to become Queen would mean that the marriage is a morganatic one, and morganatic marriage is not known in the UK. A morganatic marriage is one between people of unequal social rank and operates to prevent the wife from taking her husband's titles and privileges. In light of recent marriages such as Edward and Sophie's, and particularly William and Kate's, the concept of morganatic marriage definitely seems to be a non-starter in the UK and is totally irrelevant.
There is no law in the UK that requires a woman to take her husband's surname on marriage, and I see no reason why different rules should apply to the aristocracy and royalty, though I can certainly think of reasons why the women who marry aristocratic and royal men would like it to be so!
If Camilla wants to be known as The Princess Consort, why shouldn't she? Charles will have to create that title for her, but the fact that it is not the feminine form of an alternative, supplementary title that he holds should not be a reason to withhold it from Camilla if that is indeed what she wants. Would it really require an Act of Parliament? Why? I don't think it does. There is no extant law that requires her to be known as Queen Consort, so there is no law to overrule. It is only tradition that is in issue. Why can't she be known by that title, or even as Queen Consort but not be crowned? I can think of no valid reason.
Yes, I've said something similar before, but the more I think about it, the more I believe I am right. The law has left the notion of coverture behind, but we voluntarily bind ourselves and our families to the outdated notion of a woman taking her husband's style and titles and surname, when there is no reason in law to do so. It is a matter of personal choice, and that's fine. If Camilla chooses to be Princess Consort, that is what she should be, in my opinion, and her husband can give her that gift by way of Letters Patent. It is not a lesser title, just a different one. And if she chooses to be Queen Consort but not be crowned, she ought to be able to do that, too. She has already broken with tradition by being known as The Duchess of Cornwall instead of Princess of Wales; she can break another one by not being crowned with her husband. The world will not end if she does so and such different courses will become more acceptable.
The tradition can be traced back to the Normans. One of their "gifts" to Anglo-Saxon England was the concept of coverture, which provided that, on marriage, a woman ceased to have an independent identity. To quote from Blackstone's Commentaries on the Laws of England, Chapter 15: "By marriage, the husband and wife are one person in law: that is, the very being or legal existence of the woman is suspended during the marriage, or at least is incorporated and consolidated into that of the husband: under whose wing, protection, and cover, she performs everything; and is therefore called in our law-french a feme-covert [married woman]; is said to be covert-baron, or under the protection and influence of her husband, her baron, or lord; and her condition during her marriage is called her coverture." Blackstone delivered his lectures at Oxford in the 1750s. A married woman had no separate identity at all; she and her husband became the one legal person, and that person was the husband. It is for this reason that she took his surname and styles and titles. She had no choice, for her own identity was suspended during the marriage. There is nothing at all romantic about it: she was his property, merely an appendage of her husband. Things changed over the centuries and the momentum for change accelerated with women's rights movements in the 20th century and by the end of the 20th century the objectionable and archaic principle was merely a historical curiosity.
So why do so many people still accept that it is right and proper and normal for a woman to take her husband's styles and titles and surname on marriage? Why is it accepted as normal these days for a woman to be known as "Mrs John Smith" rather than "Ms Jane Smith". Jane Smith might have been happy as a clam to take on her husband's surname when she married, but she was not legally bound to do so. She can now buy and own her own property and dispose of it as she wishes. She can enter into contracts and obtain mortgages without her husband being her guarantor, and now even sue her husband if he commits a civil wrong against her, so why should she be addressed as merely the female appendage of her husband - Mrs John Smith - with no reference to her own identity as an individual? Likewise, why should Camilla necessarily become The Queen just because her husband is The King? Why can't she become The Princess Consort, or even The Queen though not be crowned with him at his coronation? Queens were only crowned because of that notion of coverture, i.e. she was part of him so she had to be part of the coronation. With the notable exception of the unfortunate Queen Caroline, that is, to prove the rule.
Some argue that for Camilla not to become Queen would mean that the marriage is a morganatic one, and morganatic marriage is not known in the UK. A morganatic marriage is one between people of unequal social rank and operates to prevent the wife from taking her husband's titles and privileges. In light of recent marriages such as Edward and Sophie's, and particularly William and Kate's, the concept of morganatic marriage definitely seems to be a non-starter in the UK and is totally irrelevant.
There is no law in the UK that requires a woman to take her husband's surname on marriage, and I see no reason why different rules should apply to the aristocracy and royalty, though I can certainly think of reasons why the women who marry aristocratic and royal men would like it to be so!
If Camilla wants to be known as The Princess Consort, why shouldn't she? Charles will have to create that title for her, but the fact that it is not the feminine form of an alternative, supplementary title that he holds should not be a reason to withhold it from Camilla if that is indeed what she wants. Would it really require an Act of Parliament? Why? I don't think it does. There is no extant law that requires her to be known as Queen Consort, so there is no law to overrule. It is only tradition that is in issue. Why can't she be known by that title, or even as Queen Consort but not be crowned? I can think of no valid reason.
Yes, I've said something similar before, but the more I think about it, the more I believe I am right. The law has left the notion of coverture behind, but we voluntarily bind ourselves and our families to the outdated notion of a woman taking her husband's style and titles and surname, when there is no reason in law to do so. It is a matter of personal choice, and that's fine. If Camilla chooses to be Princess Consort, that is what she should be, in my opinion, and her husband can give her that gift by way of Letters Patent. It is not a lesser title, just a different one. And if she chooses to be Queen Consort but not be crowned, she ought to be able to do that, too. She has already broken with tradition by being known as The Duchess of Cornwall instead of Princess of Wales; she can break another one by not being crowned with her husband. The world will not end if she does so and such different courses will become more acceptable.
Last edited:
Camilla's not 70 yet, but her movements are of an older lady. In contrast, it's only in the last few years that I've really noticed the Queen slowing down. 
