King Charles and Queen Camilla

[Madame Royale]

Well, it is my stance and I'm sticking with it.lol. It is an opinion made by an indavidual for the indavidual and I do not expect, nor do I look for agreeance from within this forum. I totally respect anyone's opinion who want's Camilla to be referred to as HM the Queen and I would like to think that the same courtesy could be shown to me

I know we are only re-hashing here, but we all know that Camilla will, upon the accession of her husband HRH the Prince of Wales be, his lawful Queen. No one is, I believe, disputing this fact. My reasons for supporting the alternative proposal are mine and mine alone and I may or may not wish to air them within this forum to the extent as some have as I feel that such thoughts may draw criticism that could in turn contribute undue animosity to the discussion and thats the last thing I want or seek to do.

No one truly knows the 'concequences' it may or may not have. We are just a group of indaviduals surmising over a situation that may or may not occur, nothing more.

Either way, Camilla has my support.

 

[soCal girl]

Princess Consort is not the end of the world but I wonder what people can do with the titile of future King William's wife? Will they call her Princess Consort again? In my views, the titles of Kings' wives should be consitent.Even Camilla does not bear any Charles's child, she is his legal wife and that's why she should not only hold the legal title of Queen Consort but also have the right to use it when Charles is on the throne. Princess Consort does not change my view on Camilla because I have good faith in her. However using Princess Consort may cause more problems in the future and future historical criticism. I wish Clarence House has never said such a thing.

I completely agree. I understand why Camilla (and others around her)decided for her to be called the Duchess of Cornwall instead of the Princess of Wales. The Wales title was too connected with Diana and it was just easier to be called the Duchess of Cornwall. However, after the divorce, Diana had no chance of becoming Queen Consort and she never was Queen Consort so Camilla has every right to that title without question. Also, William's wife should have the titles Princess of Wales and Queen Consort because if his wife gets the titles of the Duchess of Cornwall/Princess Consort, that is just ridiculous.

 

[Frothy]

Once Charles is King, Camilla shares his rank and become HM The Queen. Unlike the present situation, there is no other style or title she may hold as the wife of the King without raising the question of a morganatic marriage. Therefore, Parliament must act with legislation to clarify her status and grant approval for the wife of the King to hold a lesser rank and title. The King cannot act alone on this matter.

Branchq,

I am truly sorry to disagree with you again and drag the thread into 'yes it is, no it isn't'-itis.

But can't you see that despite your repeated assertion of this statement:

Unlike the present situation, there is no other style or title she may hold as the wife of the King without raising the question of a morganatic marriage. Therefore, Parliament must act with legislation to clarify her status and grant approval for the wife of the King to hold a lesser rank and title.

That I have provided actual evidence from the government that you are wrong, and that legislation will NOT be needed for her to hold a lesser rank and title and use it?

Here's my evidence one more time:

A Department for Constitutional Affairs spokeswoman confirmed that legislation would be needed for Camilla not to become Queen automatically on Charles's succession.

"I think traditionally that's probably the case because in all similar circumstances in the past in past royal marriages that is what has happened," said the spokeswoman.

"But I think she is not going to be referred to as Queen, she will be referred to as the Princess Consort." Asked about the position of other countries where the Prince of Wales would become head of state on his succession, the spokeswoman replied: "I think you are right in thinking it would require legislation for her not to be Queen."

We are talking about letters patent to gazette the woman with a new own-right (not marriage, Branch, own right) Princess of the UK title like Philip was made an own-right Prince. And that she then use that title.

Right now, I am arguing a position and I am backing up with evidence and links, and you are just repeating your assertion. You say the government will need to legislate and I am providing a government spokeswoman from the relevant department who says otherwise.

Can you counter this with something other than repeating the assertion that legislation will be needed, because I have proved that the government has said it will not. The only case in which a law would be needed would be to deny her the legal status of queen and we all know that won't happen. The question of her style and title as Princess Consort is another thing entirely.

 

[Frothy]

Princess Consort is not the end of the world but I wonder what people can do with the titile of future King William's wife? Will they call her Princess Consort again? In my views, the titles of Kings' wives should be consitent.Even Camilla does not bear any Charles's child, she is his legal wife and that's why she should not only hold the legal title of Queen Consort but also have the right to use it when Charles is on the throne. Princess Consort does not change my view on Camilla because I have good faith in her. However using Princess Consort may cause more problems in the future and future historical criticism. I wish Clarence House has never said such a thing.

I agree with you 100%. I want the madeness to stop and everybody go back to the titles of precedent. Unfortunately I think there's no chance of that unless Charles steps up and demands it.

No matter how many times I click the I button on this post italics do not go off, sorry about them!

 

[Skydragon]

In my views, the titles of Kings' wives should be consitent.Even Camilla does not bear any Charles's child, she is his legal wife and that's why she should not only hold the legal title of Queen Consort but also have the right to use it when Charles is on the throne. Princess Consort does not change my view on Camilla because I have good faith in her. However using Princess Consort may cause more problems in the future and future historical criticism.

I agree with you, if you start to change 'tradition' then where does it all end?

 

[Avalon]

I do agree with Skydragon and love_cc, if there is indeed going to be a legislation, which will indicate that Camilla should be Princess Consort (though I don't believe there will), it should not stop there. It will be simply humiliating, if Camilla will be known as Princess Consort and then every other wife of the King after her will be known as Queen again.
It's like breaking traditions for one woman and then going back to them. And if they don't go back to them and all future Consorts will be known as Princess Consorts, it's even worse.

 

[Skydragon]

A Department for Constitutional Affairs spokeswoman confirmed that legislation would be needed for Camilla not to become Queen automatically on Charles's succession.
"But I think she is not going to be referred to as Queen, she will be referred to as the Princess Consort." Asked about the position of other countries where the Prince of Wales would become head of state on his succession, the spokeswoman replied: "I think you are right in thinking it would require legislation for her not to be Queen

Perhaps these are the words that should be highlighted. The spokeswoman does not think, not "It has been confirmed that she will not be known as Queen Camilla"

 

[Frothy]

Skydragon,

That is just a form of words - she also says "I think" that it would require legislation for her not to be queen, but we all know that is definite. It is equally definite that she will be known as HRH the Princess Consort. "Intended" means there's wiggle room - but my point is Charles has to use that wiggle room to put this right!

Laws are not needed to take a commoner and gazette them as an own-right Prince or Princess of the UK. cf: Philip. Laws are not needed for a person with a higher title to use the lower one all the time cf: the Duchess of Cornwall, Lady Louise Windsor.

No laws are needed for Camilla to be made a Princess of the UK in her own right with the style and title of HRH the Princess Consort, nor for her to use that title when she is queen. Letters patent for the princely dignity will do.

So far, I have produced statements from Buckingham Palace and from Government in support of my argument, and for the argument of yourself, Branch and others that 'legislation will be needed' for her to be known as PC, and that there is 'zero chance' of this happening, absolutely nothing has been produced. Not one source, not one counter-quote, not one reference to the statute book, absolutely nothing whatsoever except repeated assertions.

You also said:

I agree with you, if you start to change 'tradition' then where does it all end?

Well, my fear is, with a republic. Frankly. And that is why it is so important that the issue of titles be sorted out. You cannot have situations where there's one rule for Beatrice and another for Louise, nor where Camilla, for the first time in history, breaking almost a thousand years of tradition, is not known as the Princess of Wales. Nor where the King wants to drop the 'Defender of the Faith' title. Once you start messing with it, you have opened up a huge can of worms and it ends with a republic. I am sorry to be gloomy but that is my fear.

 

[Frothy]

One other point is that I do not know if the letters Patent system also applies to Canada. Presumably she would be Queen in Canada as well and styled as such?

 

[Madame Royale]

One other point is that I do not know if the letters Patent system also applies to Canada. Presumably she would be Queen in Canada as well and styled as such?

Living between two countries, its is really interesting to note (from a personal perspective) that in one, you have a royal family consisting of the monarch, her spouse, children, grandchildren and extended relations and in the other you have the same monarch as in the other country, but no royal family.

Presumably she would be Queen in Canada as well and styled as such?

Correct.

Its also interesting that the Canadian's shall have a Queen Consort (with 'possible' question of legislation pending) whom is herself the great-great-granddaughter of Sophia MacNab and William Keppel of Ontario, I do believe.

The Queen of course has a Canadian strain somewhere along the line so that would mean that both monarch and his consort would be of Canadian lineage (Camilla's much more prominent of course). Interesting...

 

[Skydragon]

That is just a form of words - she also says "I think" that it would require legislation for her not to be queen, but we all know that is definite. It is equally definite that she will be known as HRH the Princess Consort. "Intended" means there's wiggle room - but my point is Charles has to use that wiggle room to put this right!

The whole point is that she was only a spokesperson, who admitted she didn't know, so to 'cover' her non answer she used the 'I think', I'm surprised she didn't also use the 'as far as we know', which is another favourite. Had she been a constitutional expert speaking on behalf of Charles and Camilla, it might have been different. She was only a civil servant who had been asked questions to which she gave ambiguous answers, a spin doctor in training.

As for Lady Louise, the title already exists, the daughter of an earl is almost always (unless she chooses not to use it) called Lady ????. The title Princess Consort does not exist, so I think it is not possible to say it is definate she will be called the Princess Consort.

 

[branchg]

If Parliament and the Crown Commonwealth nations agree, then the King can issue letters patent taking care of it. But not without legally removing her superior rank as HM The Queen with legislation. You cannot be a princess of the UK if you are Queen.

 

[Frothy]

Branch,

out of interest, why do you argue that you cannot be a Princess of the UK in your own right, and queen consort by marriage? I would suppose issues of morganatic marriage would be solved by making her an own-right princess and using her own right title instead of her married one. A reveral of the Reine Dauphine title of Mary Queen of Scots on her first marriage.

 

[Jo of Palatine]

I would like you all to imagine the scene ....

Huge banquet, 100's of guests, we have had the majority of the 12 courses and are waiting for desert, cheese and biscuits, the port..... The toastmaster stands and bangs the table to get our attention and says ..

Lords, Ladies and Gentlemen, pray raise your glasses in a toast to King Charles and Queen Camilla, also known as Camilla the Princess Consort, also known as Mrs Charles Mountbatten-Windsor, also known as the former Mrs Parker Bowles, also known as Bozo ....

It boggles the mind!

 

[branchg]

Branch,

out of interest, why do you argue that you cannot be a Princess of the UK in your own right, and queen consort by marriage? I would suppose issues of morganatic marriage would be solved by making her an own-right princess and using her own right title instead of her married one. A reveral of the Reine Dauphine title of Mary Queen of Scots on her first marriage.

Camilla is not a princess of the UK in her own right as it is only held through marriage to The Prince of Wales. However, once Charles is King, she is automatically HM The Queen in her own right and only Parliament can remove her rank and precedence.

This is why the matter is very complicated in a legal and constitutional sense and the precedents must be approved by Parliament. She is Queen Camilla and nothing else. She cannot be styled as a princess of the UK unless legislation is passed allowing it.

 

[ysbel]

Frothy,

I think the Palace and Clarence House engaged in some fast-footed PR when they made the announcement about the Duchess of Cornwall and Princess Consort.

It was a successful campaign this time but now due to the extensive parliamentary wranglings the whole country knows that Camilla will actually be Queen when Charles ascends the throne (unlike the situation when they announced she would be Duchess of Cornwall) so do you really think that the British public is going to accept the story that Camilla is just Princess Consort?

Their PR and implementation machine isn't perfect; they announced they were having a civil wedding in Windsor Castle before they realized that everybody within a mile would be able to get married there for three months.

 

[Frothy]

Branch,

Perhaps you mistake my meaning. I am pretty well versed in titles. I was correct on the King Consort situation, and you were mistaken when you suggested British queens regnant could not raise their husbands to the rank of King Consort - it happened both in England and in Scotland.

I do know she is a princess by marriage. i have repeatedly suggested to you in prior posts that Charles as King could create her a princess in her own right - I know she is not one now. Philip was created a Prince in his own right. A prior King promoted his granddaughters, commoners, to Princesses of GB in their own right. There is nothing whatever to stop the King as fount of honour making Camilla a Princess of the UK in her own right just as his father was made a Prince, with the style and title of HRH the Princess Consort, and the queen (as she would automatically be by marriage) then choosing to use the new title newly conferred upon her sua juris. Surely this would solve all morganatic questions. Am in favour of such a plan? Of course not. And I am not in favour of her being known as the Duchess of Cornwall, either. Nonetheless, it would work, keep to the plan, and eliminate the need for legislation.


Ysbel,

It was a successful campaign this time but now due to the extensive parliamentary wranglings the whole country knows that Camilla will actually be Queen when Charles ascends the throne (unlike the situation when they announced she would be Duchess of Cornwall) so do you really think that the British public is going to accept the story that Camilla is just Princess Consort?

I would hope not. Unfortunately, the longer every official source (the RF .gov website, the PoW website, the Dept. of Constitutional Affairs) keeps reiterating that she will be PC, the more certain it is to happen. People on trf who think everybody will say "Whoops! Our bad, she will be known as HM the Q" are, I believe, deceiving themselves. One thing both politicians and princes hate is looking stupid.

I think it is VERY significant that she is presently known only as the DoC. It is an outrage. It is a breach of hundreds of years of precedent. It has never happened before. People do not use lower titles.

If this can happen now I think it certain that the PC thing can happen.

 

[Skydragon]

People do not use lower titles.

Hmmm .... Anthony Wedgewood Benn to name but one.

 

[Jo of Palatine]

Hmmm .... Anthony Wedgewood Benn to name but one.

Do you really mean to compare the next queen of Britain with a left-wing labour politician when it comes to the use of titles? Plus: Tony Benn inherited a title which had been created for his father to help labour gain more influence in the "old" House of Lords. While he obviously prefered to be active in the House of Commons. So not using his title makes sense while with Camilla I think it's pretty weird and not proper at all!

 

[Skydragon]

Do you really mean to compare the next queen of Britain with a left-wing labour politician when it comes to the use of titles?

Sorry Jo, he was the only one I could think of that might be known to most people and goodness knows he needs the publicity. I do know a few, not so well known who do not use their titles but would not appreciate their names published on here!

I am confident that Camilla will be called, known as etc HRH Queen Camilla and I don't believe myself to be one iota deceived!

 

[Jo of Palatine]

I do know a few, not so well known who do not use their titles but would not appreciate their names published on here!

How about Lady Thatcher, wife of baronet Sir Denis Thatcher? She did insist on being mere "Mrs. Margaret Thatcher", didn't she? Well, at least from 1991 (creation of Denis Thatcher as 1st Baronet) to 1992 (her own creation as Baroness Thatcher).... Or did she use the title of Lady Thatcher from 1991?

 

[branchg]

There is nothing whatever to stop the King as fount of honour making Camilla a Princess of the UK in her own right just as his father was made a Prince, with the style and title of HRH the Princess Consort, and the queen (as she would automatically be by marriage) then choosing to use the new title newly conferred upon her sua juris. Surely this would solve all morganatic questions.

The Crown may not act contrary to constitutional precedent or law without being so advised by The Prime Minister. Parliament is Sovereign, not the King. The issue of Camilla's rank, title and style once Charles becomes King is automatic in law. Any deviation requires parliamentary review and consent.

If Parliament and the Crown Commonwealth agree, they can pass legislation stating Camilla will not hold the rank, title and precedence of Queen Consort. At that point, the King is free to issue letters patent creating her a Princess of the UK.

Problem solved!

 

[Elspeth]

Hmmm .... Anthony Wedgewood Benn to name but one.

Well, that wasn't so much using a lower title as not using it at all. But most of the lower titles of the nobility are used by their eldest sons as courtesy titles so it would just be confusing for the dukes and earls themselves to use them.

I think the Duchess of Cornwall title was pretty well inevitable if they didn't want a major public-relations backlash; however, this Princess Consort stuff seemed somewhat ill advised and not very well thought through.

 

[Skydragon]

How about Lady Thatcher, wife of baronet Sir Denis Thatcher? She did insist on being mere "Mrs. Margaret Thatcher", didn't she? Well, at least from 1991 (creation of Denis Thatcher as 1st Baronet) to 1992 (her own creation as Baroness Thatcher).... Or did she use the title of Lady Thatcher from 1991?

I think it was interesting that she did not want a hereditary peerage for herself.

The Right Honourable Lady Thatcher from 04.02.1991 to 26.06.1992
The Right Honourable The Baroness Thatcher from 26.06.1992 to present day.

 

[BeatrixFan]

How about Lady Thatcher, wife of baronet Sir Denis Thatcher? She did insist on being mere "Mrs. Margaret Thatcher", didn't she?

Margaret lapped it up and used "Lady Thatcher" as soon as she could. She now has so many post-nominals after her name she's had to have her letterbox widened.

 

[Jo of Palatine]

I think it was interesting that she did not want a hereditary peerage for herself.

The Right Honourable Lady Thatcher from 04.02.1991 to 26.06.1992
The Right Honourable The Baroness Thatcher from 26.06.1992 to present day.

Probably she knew her son better than anyone else and thought that "Sir Mark Thatcher" was simply enough. For anybody.

 

[Skydragon]

Probably she knew her son better than anyone else and thought that "Sir Mark Thatcher" was simply enough. For anybody.

Oh Jo - Brilliant!

 

[Incas]

She wasn't called the Iron Lady for nothing.

 

[Skydragon]

Britain's Prince Charles could have multi-faith coronation

LONDON (AFP) - The coronation of Britain's Prince Charles could incorporate faiths other than Christianity in a break with tradition, a senior church official set to be involved in drawing up plans said.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20060924/wl_uk_afp/britainroyalfaith_060924094825

 

[BeatrixFan]

One question that does spring to mind is what will we be if he becomes Charles III? I mean, at the moment we're Elizabethans. If he became Edward, we'd be Edwardians. If he became George, we'd be Georgians. So, what will we be if he sticks with Charles?