Title for Camilla

[wbenson]

If it is indeed the "Camilla Law", isn't that just a perceived "punishment" for past sins, to appease a small part of the people,and a very public slap on the face to the "King"?

Yes, it is.

 

[serenissima]

So, even if Camilla is to take the style of the Princess Consort agreed by the Parliament or to take another title of her own like that Hong Kong born lady in Denmark does now, as long as she is the wife of the head of state, then, she willbe treated as the First Lady of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northen Ireland but probably not the Lady Consort of Mann and the Duchess Consort of Normandy and what-not. Maybe, over there she will be also known as the Princess Consort of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northen Ireland.

 

[Skydragon]

If her precedence in Europe is the same as a queen, why is she not going to be a Queen?

She is either a Queen or she is a Princess, and in the minds of most ordinary people a Queen trumps a Princess on any given day of the week!
Any way you look at it, if the government changes the law, will it apply to any future queen, or just Camilla? Will Prince William's future wife be a Princess or a Queen?

If it is indeed the "Camilla Law", isn't that just a perceived "punishment" for past sins, to appease a small part of the people,and a very public slap on the face to the "King"?

"What's in a name? That which we call a rose by any other name would smell as sweet". Maybe, but If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck . . . . It is a Duck!

If they decide to change the law, then it must apply to every wife of every King for ever after. The last thing a lot of UK taxpayers would want, IMO, is the constant law changing between monarchs. It is absolutely ridiculous to expect her to be anything other than Charles' and the UK's Queen.

The ONLY reason some cling to the idea of her not being the country's Queen, is this stupid, IMO, belief that she should be punished over Diana, if Diana couldn't be Queen, then Camilla shouldn't. That argument really seems to be worn, bearing in mind all that came out at the inquest and what we have heard in the last 11 years, IMO.

 

[branchg]

There's no rational reason why she shouldn't be Queen. The wife of the King is Queen, not a Princess.

 

[Madame Royale]

It would seem Clarence House are, at this point in time, of a different opinion.

 

[serenissima]

If they decide to change the law, then it must apply to every wife of every King for ever after. The last thing a lot of UK taxpayers would want, IMO, is the constant law changing between monarchs. It is absolutely ridiculous to expect her to be anything other than Charles' and the UK's Queen.

The ONLY reason some cling to the idea of her not being the country's Queen, is this stupid, IMO, belief that she should be punished over Diana, if Diana couldn't be Queen, then Camilla shouldn't. That argument really seems to be worn, bearing in mind all that came out at the inquest and what we have heard in the last 11 years, IMO.

There are some people who are still mourning for the death of Diana which is to me somehow rarther weird but that is their matters and not mine, so I shall leave those feelings to them. However, people whom I know who feel so uncomfortable re: her styling herself as HM the Queen, that includes myself, too, feel that by her becoming the queen our society accepts something that our society should respect such as feeling sorry for those who are less fortunate and this sort of notions but somehow promote the notions of the "winner takes it all" (in this case, it's not Camilla who is the winner but the Prince of Wales who plotted all this so that he could stay in his office and have his children with a woman who was approved by his own people et al and have his girlfriend as well etc etc) which is so prevalent nowadays in our society.

I am sorry for Camilla for having brought into all this in many ways and I have a feeling that she must be feeling terribly awkward, too, that she wanted to stay as Mrs Camilla Parker-Bowles who was with the Prince of Wales but the Queen didn't think that was the way etc.

I do feel it will be better for Camilla for her own sake to be styled or whatever as HRH the Princess Consort because that is what, they say now, she is intending to become etc. Should she ever become HM the Queen, people feel as though the royal people just lie just to get their own ways always etc. By taking the style what she was supposed to take when the eventuality takes place (as in the Demise of the Crwon), people will think again about this poor poor woman who fell in love with this not-so-nice man, 'ah, she did stick to her word and she stays behind the scene as she truly wished' and maybe feel that she may be styled as HM the Queen posthumously or something but hope Tom will turn that down as the Spencers did when the palace offered the HRH attached to Diana.

I truly think that Camilla will be a lot happier if she can stay in this way as she told so many times before they got married etc.

 

[Skydragon]

There are some people who are still mourning for the death of Diana which is to me somehow rarther weird but that is their matters and not mine, so I shall leave those feelings to them. However, people whom I know who feel so uncomfortable re: her styling herself as HM the Queen, that includes myself, too, feel that by her becoming the queen our society accepts something that our society should respect such as feeling sorry for those who are less fortunate and this sort of notions but somehow promote the notions of the "winner takes it all" (in this case, it's not Camilla who is the winner but the Prince of Wales who plotted all this so that he could stay in his office and have his children with a woman who was approved by his own people et al and have his girlfriend as well etc etc) which is so prevalent nowadays in our society.

What has Camilla being styled (not styling herself as you state) to do with feeling sorry for those less fortunate? Where is your evidence that there was any plotting done by Charles? Is it not the case that the man fell in love at a young age, his hopes and dreams of a life with the woman of his dreams was thwarted? That the young woman he chose as his bride was damaged goods and despite every effort, his bride embarked on a series of affairs, whilst he adulterously returned to the love of his life? Where your suggestion of plotting comes into that, I don't know! 66.6% (2/3rds) of marriages in the UK end in divorce, would you really return to the 'good old days' where people lived in absolute misery and stayed together 'for the sake of the children'.

 

[Jo of Palatine]

By taking the style what she was supposed to take when the eventuality takes place (as in the Demise of the Crwon), people will think again about this poor poor woman who fell in love with this not-so-nice man, 'ah, she did stick to her word and she stays behind the scene as she truly wished' and maybe feel that she may be styled as HM the Queen posthumously or something but hope Tom will turn that down as the Spencers did when the palace offered the HRH attached to Diana.

I truly think that Camilla will be a lot happier if she can stay in this way as she told so many times before they got married etc.

Sorry? Do I understand you right that you think Camilla should be Princess Consort as long as she lives but Tom Parker Bowles, her son should be offered after her demise that his mother might be called HM The Queen posthumously? And why that nonsense? So that the world can see that Camilla "sticks to her word"? Now that really sounds weird to me.

Please show me evidence that Camilla in fact said anything at all about this. AFAIK, she never gave an interview and never published a statement.
And why elevate her posthumously to a rank she did not have in life?

really, I don't get your way of thinking. I understand Madame Royale, though for me "the wife of the king is the queen", but your argument is completely lost at me.

 

[Charlotte1]

So, even if Camilla is to take the style of the Princess Consort agreed by the Parliament or to take another title of her own like that Hong Kong born lady in Denmark does now, .

That Hong Kong lady in Denmark, Alexandra married a prince and therefore became a princess, she was Princess Alexandra in her own right, not like the British royals who only take the title through their husbands. Until she remarried she was entitled to be Princess Alexandra, although once divorced she was downgraded from HRH to HH. Queen Margrethe created the title of Countess of Frederiksberg for Alexandra should Alexandra remarry in acknowledgement of the work Alexandra had done for Denmark.
When Alexandra remarried she lost her princess title, if she didn't have the Countess title she would be a plain Mrs. QM didn't have to create a title for her.

 

[Charlotte1]

maybe feel that she may be styled as HM the Queen posthumously or something but hope Tom will turn that down as the Spencers did when the palace offered the HRH attached to Diana.

.

The Palace did not offer to reinstate Diana's HRH title after she died! It would have been a pointless exercise. The HRH is a status for the living, having a precedence in society, it means nothing in death. The Spencers didn't turn anything down since the Palace of all people know how titles and styles work wouldn't have even suggested it. Along with the story of William reinstating Diana's HRH when he is king it is nothing more than tabloid nonsense.

It's insulting to suggest that Camilla in life could be humilated by being known as a lesser title that she is due as the wife of a King and then in death, when it doesn't matter anymore she should be elevated to Queen!

 

[jcbcode99]

The Palace did not offer to reinstate Diana's HRH title after she died! It would have been a pointless exercise. The HRH is a status for the living, having a precedence in society, it means nothing in death. The Spencers didn't turn anything down since the Palace of all people know how titles and styles work wouldn't have even suggested it. Along with the story of William reinstating Diana's HRH when he is king it is nothing more than tabloid nonsense.

It's insulting to suggest that Camilla in life could be humilated by being known as a lesser title that she is due as the wife of a King and then in death, when it doesn't matter anymore she should be elevated to Queen!

Beautifully stated,, Charlotte1. The idea is foolilshly assinine.

 

[branchg]

The Palace did not offer to reinstate Diana's HRH title after she died! It would have been a pointless exercise.

Actually, it was confirmed by The Earl Spencer that Robert Fellowes did, in fact, extend an offer from The Queen to restore Diana's royal rank as HRH in honour of her memory on the train ride to Althorp.

The Earl declined the offer as he felt Diana would not have wanted her style changed after her death.

 

[jcbcode99]

The offer was extended after the funeral, on the ride to Althorp?

 

[PrinceOfCanada]

The idea is foolilshly assinine.

This whole 'debate' is asinine. The wife of a King is a Queen, at least in the UK. The only reason she is styled HRH Duchess of Cornwall is out of respect for Diana. Since Diana was never Queen--indeed, had she not suffered that tragic accident, she would still never have been Queen--that does not apply.

Royalty throughout the centuries has committed adultery, abused power, and generally been much like common folk. They sit on their thrones due to historical accident; trace far enough back and someone was King because he had a bigger army than the next guy.

Yet, we still respect and venerate them, as they fill a very necessary position in society. Part of that is accepting that no matter what your feelings for Saint Diana may be, she and Charles were divorced 16 years ago and she died 11 years ago. There is a time and a place for memory and respect, but turning centuries of accepted practice on its head for no other reason than the hagiographers have a hate-on for Camilla is patently ridiculous.

 

[jcbcode99]

This whole 'debate' is asinine. The wife of a King is a Queen, at least in the UK. The only reason she is styled HRH Duchess of Cornwall is out of respect for Diana. Since Diana was never Queen--indeed, had she not suffered that tragic accident, she would still never have been Queen--that does not apply.

Royalty throughout the centuries has committed adultery, abused power, and generally been much like common folk. They sit on their thrones due to historical accident; trace far enough back and someone was King because he had a bigger army than the next guy.

Yet, we still respect and venerate them, as they fill a very necessary position in society. Part of that is accepting that no matter what your feelings for Saint Diana may be, she and Charles were divorced 16 years ago and she died 11 years ago. There is a time and a place for memory and respect, but turning centuries of accepted practice on its head for no other reason than the hagiographers have a hate-on for Camilla is patently ridiculous.

Princeof Canada, I completely agree with your well-written summation of this topic. Common sense should prevail within this situation, and keeping the wife of the King from her rightful title because of a ex-wife who happens to have died is really quite foolish. Very nice post!
Janet

 

[sirhon11234]

This whole 'debate' is asinine. The wife of a King is a Queen, at least in the UK. The only reason she is styled HRH Duchess of Cornwall is out of respect for Diana. Since Diana was never Queen--indeed, had she not suffered that tragic accident, she would still never have been Queen--that does not apply.

Royalty throughout the centuries has committed adultery, abused power, and generally been much like common folk. They sit on their thrones due to historical accident; trace far enough back and someone was King because he had a bigger army than the next guy.

Yet, we still respect and venerate them, as they fill a very necessary position in society. Part of that is accepting that no matter what your feelings for Saint Diana may be, she and Charles were divorced 16 years ago and she died 11 years ago. There is a time and a place for memory and respect, but turning centuries of accepted practice on its head for no other reason than the hagiographers have a hate-on for Camilla is patently ridiculous.

Actually they divorced 12 years ago. Some people are just not comfortable with Camilla becoming Queen. I don't know why but they just feel that way.
IMO if she wants to become Queen then she should; unlike the "Princess of Wales" style it is not affliated with the late Princess.

 

[muriel]

Actually they divorced 12 years ago. Some people are just not comfortable with Camilla becoming Queen. I don't know why but they just feel that way.
IMO if she wants to become Queen then she should; unlike the "Princess of Wales" style it is not affliated with the late Princess.

I fully agree with the view that as the wife of the King, Camilla should be Queen, and no less. That said, the monarchy rules by the will and popular consent of the people of the UK, and if public opinion - rightly or wrongly, is strongly against Camilla using the title of Queen, Charles will be foolish to persist with the idea. I do strongly believe that time will heal a lot of the anti-Camilla feelings, as they already have. Public opinion in relation to Camilla is far stronger today, than it was at the time of the wedding in 2005. She just needs to continue the good work she is doing, and be seen to be working hard. Whilst no one knows when the time will come, but I would have thought that in another five years or so, and the current trend continuing, public opinion will swing in favour of Camilla being referred to as Queen when Charles becomes King.

I do believe the whole issue of using the title of Princess Consort was raised only to manage any potential adverse reactions to the announcement of the engagement of Charles and Camilla. Having crossed that bridge, they just need to let the idea die a natural death! Also, the mechanics of using the title have not really been fully examined. The reality is that as the wife of the King, Camilla will legally be Queen. It would then have to be announced that she wishes to be referred to as Princess Consort - but that is just an eyewash! I can't see them going to Parliament and asking for Camilla, who at that stage will already be Queen, loose her title!

 

[branchg]

The issue will be dealt with by Parliament when and if the time comes. Camilla can only share the title, style and rank of her husband, and once he is King, she must be HM The Queen.

If public opinion is clearly opposed, Parliament will have no choice but to introduce legislation depriving her of her current title and rank as Queen Consort, allowing The Sovereign to create her a Princess of the UK in her own right. This is the only mechanism for Camilla to be known as HRH The Princess Consort once Charles is King.

The other issue is whether the Crown Commonwealth will accept and consent to the change. It is not automatic and may take time to achieve. In the meantime, the controversy will have damaged the standing of the monarchy at a critical time and may result in another Abdication.

In my view, Camilla must be Queen or the monarchy is on the road to extinction.

 

[noldorlord]

In my view, Camilla must be Queen or the monarchy is on the road to extinction.

A very fair Comment. There is always that possibility. Maybe the Queen can make some sort of statement that will lessen the turmoil? This in its self remains a topic for the future and no amount of debating or conjecture on what should/might be will change what WILL BE (at this time still an unknown).

 

[Madame Royale]

In my view, Camilla must be Queen or the monarchy is on the road to extinction.

Given all the monarchy has survived for thousands of years, it can certainly evolve and move on from his wife not being Queen Consort.

I confess I find you quite inconsistent from time to time.

The monarchy on a road to extinction as a result of Camilla bearing a lesser style and title? That is incredibly unlikely and I find it perculiar to suggest that be the cause. The monarchy survives not on the merit of one indavidual (if it did it would be long gone by now), and certainly not on the supporting spousal's form of address, but the worth of it's constitutional ascendancy and exisiting relevance, socially. There's no need to be melodramatic.

 

[wbenson]

I think it will become extremely less relevant if an extremely small minority (the Diana Circle types) manage to make it seem like "Queen Camilla" shouldn't happen.

 

[PrinceOfCanada]

The monarchy on a road to extinction as a result of Camilla bearing a lesser style and title?

My understanding is that Royal marriages in the UK are not morganatic, meaning that she must share his title. (Special case for the Queen; Philip could not be made King, as Kings technically outrank Queens, which simply wouldn't do. Yes, that should be changed).

 

[Madame Royale]

Conventionally does share his title, though can be created a lesser style and rank. It's possible, and may well happen.

Though being possible doesn't mean it's going to happen, and by the time Charles succeeds his mother, Camilla may well remain Queen. Not to my liking but I'm sure whatever her title, I'll remain supportive of the lady that is Camilla.

 

[PrinceOfCanada]

You're ignoring the point about morganatic marriages. One of the issues with Wallis Simpson was that Edward suggested simply creating her a Duchess, so she wouldn't take the title & style of HM Queen, which would have got everyone's noses out of joint. That was flatly rejected, as it would therefore have been a morganatic marriage, which is not permitted in the UK.

 

[LadyCat]

But that was a first marriage and any children would have presumably been in the line of succession. This is not the case with Charles and Camilla.

Cat

 

[wbenson]

If Charles and Camilla have children (which is highly unlikely and probably impossible now*), those children would be in the line of succession.

*Edit: Definitely impossible unless she has some divine ability to regenerate her uterus.

 

[PrinceOfCanada]

That doesn't have much to do with it, as children inherit titles from the father anyway (barring circumstances when the Sovereign is Queen in her own right).

 

[LadyCat]

If Charles and Camilla have children (which is highly unlikely and probably impossible now*), those children would be in the line of succession.

*Edit: Definitely impossible unless she has some divine ability to regenerate her uterus.

Which is exactly my point. Camilla is unable to have children and would hardly desire to at this stage of the game I'm sure. My other point was that with David and Wallis it was the first marriage for David and any offspring would have been in the line of succession. With the marriage not being recognized by the CoE due to Wallis' status as being divorced, it would have been an impossible situation, which evidently everyone knew as David chose to abdicate in order to marry Wallis.

Cat

 

[branchg]

You're ignoring the point about morganatic marriages. One of the issues with Wallis Simpson was that Edward suggested simply creating her a Duchess, so she wouldn't take the title & style of HM Queen, which would have got everyone's noses out of joint. That was flatly rejected, as it would therefore have been a morganatic marriage, which is not permitted in the UK.

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".

 

[branchg]

But that was a first marriage and any children would have presumably been in the line of succession. This is not the case with Charles and Camilla.

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.