Questions about British Styles and Titles 1: Ending 2022

[Heavs]

I'm glad, although a little surprised she used Accession Day to make the announcement, although it makes sense thematically as it were.

We have never had official morganatic marriage in the UK (although there were alleged secret royal marriages) and the wife of a King Regnant should therefore be a Queen Consort, commonly known as King and Queen.

HM King Charles and HRH Princess Camilla just sounded awkward and awkwardly punitive.

I think the use of the DOC title was a great idea and allowed her to make it her own but Diana was never Queen, obviously.

 

[AC21091968]

One thing that will not change is the way HM, The Queen will be mentioned in the papers like the DM, Sun and perhaps American gossip sites. She'll still be referred to as "Camilla Parker Bowles". Some things just never go away.

Speaking of the devil, The Independent (left-wing republican newspaper in the UK, not tabloid) is referred as "Camilla Parker-Bowles", when she replaces "Meghan Markle" as the Royal Patron of the National Theatre. These republican rags along with the Guardian (AKA Grauniad) never failed show their disdain for the Royal Family and movement to abolish the Monarchy.

Camilla Parker Bowles Replace Meghan Markle as Royal Patron of National Theatre
Role was previously held by Duchess of Sussex when she was a working member of the royal family
https://www.independent.co.uk/life-...-meghan-markle-national-theatre-b2003645.html

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

Speaking of the devil, The Independent (left-wing republican newspaper in the UK, not tabloid) is referred as "Camilla Parker-Bowles", when she replaces "Meghan Markle" as the Royal Patron of the National Theatre. These republican rags along with the Guardian (AKA Grauniad) never failed show their disdain for the Royal Family and movement to abolish the Monarchy.

Camilla Parker Bowles Replace Meghan Markle as Royal Patron of National Theatre
Role was previously held by Duchess of Sussex when she was a working member of the royal family
https://www.independent.co.uk/life-...-meghan-markle-national-theatre-b2003645.html

Both the Guardian and the Independent have an international and an USA portal. I have the idea they use the names Meghan Markle and Camilla Parker-Bowles to fill the metatags of the search machines and to appease international readership.

But it is indeed weird as no one says Mathilde d'Udekem d'Acoz or Letizia Ortiz.

 

[Spheno]

One thing that will not change is the way HM, The Queen will be mentioned in the papers like the DM, Sun and perhaps American gossip sites. She'll still be referred to as "Camilla Parker Bowles". Some things just never go away.

exactly like Anne Neville, Elizabeth Woodville, Jane Seymour or Catherine Parr

 

[Hallo girl]

I'm glad, although a little surprised she used Accession Day to make the announcement, although it makes sense thematically as it were.

We have never had official morganatic marriage in the UK (although there were alleged secret royal marriages) and the wife of a King Regnant should therefore be a Queen Consort, commonly known as King and Queen.

HM King Charles and HRH Princess Camilla just sounded awkward and awkwardly punitive.

I think the use of the DOC title was a great idea and allowed her to make it her own but Diana was never Queen, obviously.

Great point, calling her POW would have caused constant comparison. Camilla has made DOC her own.

 

[Denville]

This is a definite actual speech from the queen?

 

[angieuk]

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...sort-royal-stamp-approval-Charles-craved.html

Prince Charles makes official statement re Camilla becoming Queen Consort.

Many thanks I will post anything new in the new link.

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...sort-royal-stamp-approval-Charles-craved.html

Prince Charles makes official statement re Camilla becoming Queen Consort.

Many thanks I will post anything new in the new link.

That horrible rag. "The royal stamp of approval that Charles has craved". As if Her Majesty is a Pinocchio in the hands of his creator Geppetto. As if maybe it was impossible that the Queen herself has admiration and love for Camilla. She has not put one foot wrong in the Royal House. There are not many members, present and past, who can show that track record.

 

[Somebody]

That horrible rag. "The royal stamp of approval that Charles has craved". As if Her Majesty is a Pinocchio in the hands of his maker Geppetto. As if maybe it was impossible that the Queen herself has admiration and love for Camilla. She has not put one foot wrong in the Royal House. There are not many members, present and past, who can show that track record.

Can't both be true? Although I don't think the queen's admiration and love for Camilla should determine whether she is known as queen or not...

As I expressed before. This seems a rather smart way to ensure that Camilla can be known is queen which is what someone in her position would traditionally be referred to but about which the waters were muddled by the previous statement at the wedding of Charles and Camilla to appease the people. In hindsight, they shouldn't have expressed any intent about her future role but just limited it to an announcement about her being known as Duchess of Cornwall.

I wonder whether she is also going to take care of other title issues that might arise in the future (such as the titles of grandchildren of the monarch other than those of the direct heirs) or will leave that to Charles.

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

Can't both be true? Although I don't think the queen's admiration and love for Camilla should determine whether she is known as queen or not...

As I expressed before. This seems a rather smart way to ensure that Camilla can be known is queen which is what someone in her position would traditionally be referred to but about which the waters were muddled by the previous statement at the wedding of Charles and Camilla to appease the people. In hindsight, they shouldn't have expressed any intent about her future role but just limited it to an announcement about her being known as Duchess of Cornwall.

I wonder whether she is also going to take care of other title issues that might arise in the future (such as the titles of grandchildren of the monarch other than those of the direct heirs) or will leave that to Charles.

This would imply the providing of fabulous jewels, the granting of the Royal Family Order, the Royal Victorian Order, the Order of the Garter and her publicly expressed wish are all spins by Charles, as if the Queen is a lady unable to make her own wishes, desires and decisons.


From what I see, notably when the Queen and the Duchess of Cornwall met each other at the Senedd (Welsh Parliament): a total no holds barred contact between mother and daughter in law. With the Margarets, the Sarahs, the Charleses, the Dianas, the Meghans, the Harries and the Andrews as leaping frogs out of the royal pond, Her Majesty probably counts her blessings that at least the two future Queens have not put a foot wrong since their entrance into the Royal Firm.

 

[Somebody]

I guess your interpretation of that sentence is just different than mine. Imo that Charles craved this specific stamp of approval (I do think he very much wanted it (some might call that 'craving') and expressed his wish for the queen to make some kind of announcement as that will ease his transition to the throne considerably when the time comes) can exist without the queen being a puppet just doing as she is told by her son. She is a smart lady and will have concluded that this was indeed best for the stability of the monarchy.

In addition, she has come to appreciate Camilla for who she is as a person and especially for the support and stability she has given her son after the many tumultuous years of the past (as I said previously, it was for a reason that she specifically mentioned both Camilla and Catherine in her Christmas speech). So, I think she is also convinced that Camilla will do a good job as queen. However, whether she personally likes Camilla or not has no bearing on Camilla being her eldest son's spouse... and therefore on her position. Whether she would have made a similar statement if she had been less fond of Camilla is something we won't know as that situation didn't occur, so I won't speculate on that issue.

 

[Mbruno]

Will Camilla's new style set a precedent? How does Prince William feel about Kate also becoming HM The Queen Consort instead of HM The Queen? I noticed that the Cambridges retweeted the Queen's statement without any comment, which prompted speculation about a split opinion in the Family.

 

[Denville]

Will Camilla's new style set a precedent? How does Prince William feel about Kate also becoming HM The Queen Consort instead of HM The Queen? I notice that the Cambridges retweeted the Queen's statement without any comment, which prompted speculation about a split opinion in the Family.

what precedent? Camilla will be Charles' queen consort. Kate will be WIlliams. the only thing is that we were orignally told htat Cam would be Princess Consort and now the queen is bascially saying that she wishes that her daugher in law will indeed be queen when she herself is gone

 

[Tatiana Maria]

She will be HM The Queen the instant The Queen dies and will then have to be stripped of that title by legislation - as under British common law a wife is always entitled to take all of her husband's titles.

There has never been any suggestion of being stripped by legislation. The Prince of Wales's official "intention" (for now) is that his wife will simply be known as HRH The Princess Consort.

I stand corrected; apologies to Iluvbertie. Longtime royal correspondent Richard Palmer confirmed that in 2005, the Prince of Wales's private secretary stated at a press conference that the palace would support a change in the law.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1490082852280676352

The Queen has used a Platinum Jubilee message to the nation to say it is her “sincere wish” that the Duchess of Cornwall becomes Queen Camilla when Prince Charles accedes to the throne. Charles and Camilla have indicated they will follow her wishes.

The message marks a huge U-turn and reneges on a commitment given by the Royal Family in 2005 when Charles and Camilla got engaged. Senior royal aides have spent 17 years telling the public that Camilla will become Princess Consort and didn’t want to be Queen.

Camilla has overcome hostility from the public who in the 1990s and early 2000s often blamed her for the breakdown of Prince Charles’s marriage to Princess Diana. But polls have consistently shown the British public opposed to her becoming Queen.

In June last year the Daily Express commissioned a poll of the British public - not the paper’s readers - and found 63 per cent of Britons opposed to Camilla becoming Queen. A YouGov poll last year found only 13 per cent wanted Camilla to be Queen.

The Royal Household, which had promised to support a change in the law to ensure Camilla did not become Queen Consort, hopes that the current Queen’s endorsement in her Platinum Jubilee year will help to change public opinion.

In 2005 the Prince of Wales’s principal private secretary stood in front of the world’s media in St James’s Palace and insisted Camilla would not be Queen out of deference to the memory of Princess Diana. He insisted (wrongly) that the wife of a King wasn’t automatically a Queen.

He pledged to work with the government to have the law changed if necessary to ensure Camilla wouldn’t be Queen Consort. In 2018 the pledges made in 2005 were wiped from official royal websites. Aides claimed nobody ever asked about it any longer.

It will be interesting to see if the Queen’s endorsement leads to a change in public opinion.

I can’t find a better quality image at the moment but this was our splash on Feb 12, 2005, two days after Charles and Camilla’s engagement. From the start, royal sources were admitting that Clarence House didn’t mean what it said about Camilla becoming Princess Consort.

 

[Nico]

I stand corrected; apologies to Iluvbertie. Longtime royal correspondent Richard Palmer confirmed that in 2005, the Prince of Wales's private secretary stated at a press conference that the palace would support a change in the law.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1490082852280676352

Wel all know that the "Princess Consort" statement back in 2005 was ill advised at best, but somewhat necessary at that time.

Let's face it : the average Joe in the street can't tell the difference between a Queen regnant and a Queen consort. The polls have always played on that ambiguity, some people just imagined that Camilla's face will be on the stamps at one point.

The "Consort" with a capital "C" in HM's statement is of course not innocent. Again, she's teaching to everyone how Monarchy works. It's not "à la carte", and the spouse of the King is the Queen. End of the story.

 

[angieuk]

They may well both be 80, before that time happens.
Charles sons would, I am sure, both have been consulted. But what they think personally, may never be known.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

issue was that some people who had taken that the Queen in her statement tonight was in some way lowering Camillas status by referring to her as queen consort

If Camilla is titled Queen Consort I do not think it would lower her legal status. At bottom line, she would be a queen. However, it would still distinguish her from the previous queens consort, who were simply titled as Queen, and invite the question of why she has been treated differently.


For that reason, I hope that those of you who believe that the statement was poorly worded and the intent is for Camilla to be styled HM The Queen or at least HM Queen Camilla are correct in your interpretation.

But if that is the case, then what did the source who talked with Hannah Furness in January mean by saying "the word "consort" would always be used"?

From the Sunday Times:
"Sources close to the Queen said she was keen to use her decades of experience to resolve the issue of Camilla’s future role while she still can and has been focusing on tying up loose ends since Philip died last year.
A senior royal aide said: "Ever since the duke’s passing, there has been an element of ‘I won’t be here for ever’, and an eagerness to pass on her experience to people and put certain things in place. She is making the point that she learnt from her own mother and father, and her own experience, what that role of consort takes.
"This reflects the duchess’s 17 years of loyal service and Her Majesty can see within her own family how happy she makes the prince." "

Thank you for sharing this.

I am not sure I agree with linking the title announcement to the well-deserved recognition of the Duchess of Cornwall's service and role. It implies that if the duchess had been disloyal to the monarchy and made her spouse unhappy then she would not deserve to be called Queen. But that is not how British royal titles normally work.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

In my country Heinrich von Mecklenburg-Schwerin, Bernhard zur Lippe-Biesterfeld and Claus von Amsberg were the prins-gemaal (the Prince Consort). However they were never styled as such. It was always "The Prince". There is even a private letter from Queen Wilhelmina to her son-in-law Bernhard, on the eve of her abdication in 1948, that she sees him supporting her daughter in his own individual role as The Prince and not as The Prince-Consort indeed because she felt it as her son-in-law just being an appendix to his spouse. (That letter is mentioned in the official biography, second part, Wilhelmina, Warlike in a Formless Coat).

Claus elected to remain styled as Prince Claus of the Netherlands rather than The Prince of the Netherlands out of respect for his father-in-law.

We saw the same in Denmark. Henri de Laborde de Monpezat was first known as HKH Prinsgemalen (HRH The Prince Consort). Later he had the same opinion as his Dutch colleagues: the title optically makes him just an appendix to his spouse and denies his unique own position in the Royal House. So also in Denmark the Royal House started to style him as HKH Prinsen (HRH The Prince).

Henrik was first known as HRH The Prince. It was that title which he opined did not sufficiently distinguish him from the princes of the royal house, and in answer to his wishes the Queen changed it in 2005 to HRH The Prince Consort. Upon his retirement in 2016 he reverted to HRH Prince Henrik, as he was known before his wife's ascension to the throne.

Then we have two other 20th C Prince Consorts: Félix de Bourbon de Parme (spouse of Charlotte de Luxembourg) and Pierre de Polignac (spouse of Charlotte de Monaco). Also both were known as The Prince.

In all these cases, these six gentlemen were princes-consort but none of them was adressed as such (except Henrik of Denmark in the first half of his consortship). The seventh gentleman was Prince Philip, also he was never named Prince-Consort while actually being the consort indeed.

Indeed, during the 20th century Henrik of Denmark was the only prince consort to have the title of Prince Consort.

 

[Gawin]

Will Camilla's new style set a precedent? How does Prince William feel about Kate also becoming HM The Queen Consort instead of HM The Queen? I notice that the Cambridges retweeted the Queen's statement without any comment, which prompted speculation about a split opinion in the Family.

I think it's still debatable whether Camilla will have a new style. The Queen's statement may have been rather poorly written.

As I mentioned in a previous post, the Queen is a stickler for tradition and it would be unusual if she wanted a new style/title created for Camilla.

In her statement, she emphasized the importance of the "role of consort" [bold-facing mine] and "the sacrifices that go with it," in reference to Prince Philip and her mother. In the next paragraph, she states her wish that Camilla be known as "Queen Consort as she continues her own loyal service." She's clearly linking Camilla with the traditional role of royal consort. It's possible she wants her to receive full recognition for that role during Charles's reign, as his Queen (just as her mother was styled) and not as Princess Consort (or whatever), a title/stye which is not only second-best but very non-traditional.

 

[Gawin]

Thank you for sharing this.

I am not sure I agree with linking the title announcement to the well-deserved recognition of the Duchess of Cornwall's service and role. It implies that if the duchess had been disloyal to the monarchy and made her spouse unhappy then she would not deserve to be called Queen. But that is not how British royal titles normally work.

Yes, but it seems "how British royal titles normally work" does not apply to Camilla. Normally, it would not be necessary for one monarch to expressly make it known that it is her wish that her son and successor's wife be known as Queen rather than another title. Traditionally, the King's wife was automatically called Queen. The issue was not subject to speculation or debate. Likewise, the wife of the Prince of Wales was known as Princess of Wales, not Duchess of Cornwall.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

Yes, that is a good point, and it does not seem fair to the duchess to arbitrarily impose different rules in her case.

This is a definite actual speech from the queen?

It was a letter to the public which was released to the media. Read a transcript here: https://www.express.co.uk/news/royal/1561628/queen-jubilee-letter-full-statement-camilla-evg

We have never had official morganatic marriage in the UK (although there were alleged secret royal marriages) and the wife of a King Regnant should therefore be a Queen Consort, commonly known as King and Queen.

While it may not be official legal terminology in the UK, morganatic marriage is effectively the rule of UK common law when a woman marries a man of lower status than herself. In contrast to some other systems in Europe, both spouses in such a marriage will maintain their own rank and titles, instead of the woman taking on the lower status of her husband. (The same rule now applies when a person of rank marries somebody of the same gender.)

Will Camilla's new style set a precedent? How does Prince William feel about Kate also becoming HM The Queen Consort instead of HM The Queen? I noticed that the Cambridges retweeted the Queen's statement without any comment, which prompted speculation about a split opinion in the Family.

what precedent? Camilla will be Charles' queen consort. Kate will be WIlliams. the only thing is that we were orignally told htat Cam would be Princess Consort and now the queen is bascially saying that she wishes that her daugher in law will indeed be queen when she herself is gone

The statement that the Queen wishes for Camilla to "be known as Queen Consort" (note the capitalized C) could be read to mean that Camilla will not only be a queen consort, which follows established precedent, but be styled as The Queen Consort, which would change the established precedent that the queen consort is styled as The Queen.

"And when, in the fullness of time, my son Charles becomes King, I know you will give him and his wife Camilla the same support that you have given me, and it is my sincere wish that, when that time comes, Camilla will be known as Queen Consort as she continues her own loyal service."​

 

[Queen Claude]

I think that, in addition to cleaning up / reversing the 2005 Princess Consort statement, another aspect regarding Camilla's future title/designation and the use of the word Consort, is that when Queen Elizabeth is no longer with us, that will be the end of a very long era where the Regnant was a Queen, so she is stating that Camilla will be Queen, but Camilla is not her successor, but the spouse of her successor.

I don't know what the intentions are, but I don't have an issue if Camilla is referred to as Queen Consort Camilla. I don't see it as punitive or some kind of downgrade, rather it is a sign of the times. While of course there were exceptions, for the most of European monarchical history, the Kings were the Regnant and Queens were the Consorts, so for that reason there was no reason to tag on Consort to a Queen's title. With equal primogeniture now in place in the UK and most other European monarchies, there may be more of a need to distinguish that the person being referenced is the Queen Consort. I will tag on that I foresee a change coming, perhaps not in my lifetime, that either female spouses of monarchs will be titled Princess Consorts or male spouses of monarchs will be King Consorts.

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

That is my idea too. Any Brit younger than 80 probably will not have an active memory to anyone else as Head of State than The Queen. Emphasizing that it she would like to see Camilla as Queen Consort indeed means: not The Queen, as in the 70 years until present.

 

[Kataryn]

I am not sure I agree with linking the title announcement to the well-deserved recognition of the Duchess of Cornwall's service and role. It implies that if the duchess had been disloyal to the monarchy and made her spouse unhappy then she would not deserve to be called Queen. But that is not how British royal titles normally work.

How the titles "normally" work? The British system of Royal and other titles has always been amended to the times.



Let's just start with "The Empress Matilda". From 1141 she was the first female regent in her own right of England (as "mistress of the English"), but as she already was known as "the Empress" she did not have a coronation to become queen. But she was never Empress Regnant, but Empress Consort of the Holy Roman Empire through her marriage with Emperor Heinrich V.



Later princesses were just known as "ladies", like later queens Mary I. and Elizabeth II. James I/VI.'s daughter was known as "Lady Elizabeth Stuart" after she was born as the king's daughter in Scotland in 1596, but finally she was known as the queen of Bohemia, even though her husband had only been a king for a winter. With the German descendants of her, following her grandson George I., German titles became part of the Royal title while George II. was the first Hanoveran prince to get the now "classic" combination of a dukedom (plus Marquisate), Earldom and Baronship in the peerage of England in 1705. But the German titles were kept as well, as was stated by German laws.


And so on...


Today, even though Andrew of York and Harry of Sussex are still "princes of the UK", their HRH-styles have been removed. But other than HRH Princess Katherine of Connaught, princesses Beatrice and Eugenie did not have to give up their Royal titles to marry British commoners. The granting and removing of Royal titles has always been a Royal privilege (hence William's son is Prince George while Harry's son Archie could only claim the title of "Lord" or "Earl" as son of a duke.) and while "granting" Camilla the title of Queen is the one thing that is not in Elizabeth II. power, what the Queen did for herson's "Darling wife" is the most she can do now. But claim that there are "rules" about Royal titles apart from the souvereigns will? Nope, I think.

 

[Somebody]

Given that the last official communication was that Camilla would be known as Princess Consort, the evolution in thinking within the BRF is that she won't be PRINCESS but QUEEN Consort. So, I am not so sure that they are trying to communicate she will be styled exactly in this way but rather that she will be queen instead of princess.

 

[Gawin]

Given that the last official communication was that Camilla would be known as Princess Consort, the evolution in thinking within the BRF is that she won't be PRINCESS but QUEEN Consort. So, I am not so sure that they are trying to communicate she will be styled exactly in this way but rather that she will be queen instead of princess.

That's it in a nutshell!

 

[Heavs]

I think it's possible that Charles, Camilla and their team are thinking of emphasising the Consort bit in her style "HM The King and HM The Queen Consort have arrived..." but I also think it's likely that it will just be "TMs the King and Queen have arrived" or when she's by herself just "the Queen/Queen Camilla visited today...".

From the statements it can be argued either way, maybe we'll get an "I understand that.." article from one of the RRs in the next few days. The papers unanimously went with Queen Camilla I saw, not that that means much.

Queen Consort Camilla and Queen Consort Catherine are alliterative and a little tongue twisty to say out loud but people will no doubt get used to whatever they choose.

 

[sophie25]

Queen Camilla??

 

[Osipi]

All this is showing me that the "Firm" doesn't leave anything to chance "when the time comes". They plan ahead and take care of business before it has a chance to happen. The Queen has been steadfast in her care of her monarchy for 70 years now and is very actively involved in assuring as smooth of a transition between monarchs going into the next reign as she possibly can. It means that much to her.

Everything is exactly as it should be.

 

[HenRach Dominion]

This conversation brings up an interesting question: if HM The Queen Consort becomes a legal title in itself and becomes the norm for the female spouse of a monarch, if HRH Prince George of Cambridge has a daughter who becomes queen regnant in about 100 years, would she have to be styled HM The Queen Regnant to avoid confusion?