Questions about British Styles and Titles 1: Ending 2022

[Moran]

Diana wouldn’t have been Queen because she was divorced, and because of her social errors AKA affairs. Camilla was Charles mistress. As such I don’t know that she should have been Queen But who knows what would have been? Diana may have remarried. But that doesn’t change she is the mother of the future King.

Or perhaps William shouldn't have been the future King, then? I mean, Diana admitted adultery on TV. Perhaps he was "soiled" by his mother? If Camilla is too soiled to be Queen, perhaps Diana's son was too soiled for a King?

That's what we end up with when we start applying arbitrary criteria. Rules exist for a reason and it isn't to oppress the young, the beautiful and the dramatic. It's because they (usually) spare many troubles now and in the future.

 

[Denville]

Diana wouldn’t have been Queen because she was divorced, and because of her social errors AKA affairs. Camilla was Charles mistress. As such I don’t know that she should have been Queen But who knows what would have been? Diana may have remarried. But that doesn’t change she is the mother of the future King.

so you think that a woman who has had affairs should not be queen? What about men? Shoudl Chalres not be king because he has had affairs?

 

[Gawin]

First off, she had an affair with Charles WAY before the marriage was over. One of many reasons the marriage ended, causing Diana much pain. Yes, I realize she wasn’t a saint. I realize that ideally Charles and Diana wouldn’t have gotten married.
I am not saying she’s not good enough to be his wife- I’m saying she MAY not be good enough to hold the title of Queen- there’s a difference between good wife, and good Queen IMO.
I’m really trying to understand all sides while I’m dealing with strong emotions.
Part of me says Diana is dead,Camilla is going to be the King’s wife, for the sake of the future, let her be Queen. The larger part says to reward her with Queen is wrong.

I understand what you are saying. IMO Charles and Camilla will never be command the same respect the Queen and Prince Philip deserve. Unlike their predecessors, their lives have been far from blameless. I remember watching an interview with Camilla on the occasion of Charles's 70th birthday. She went on about his sense of duty and my immediate reaction was "well, if he was really devoted to duty, you wouldn't be sitting there as his wife, now would you?" And it was Charles who muddied the waters in the first place by saying Camilla would not be Queen. The Queen had to undo the damage he did with his ill-thought-out statement.

But this is what bothers me... if Camilla should not be Queen because of her adultery, then why should Charles be King? Why single her out? Isn't he as guilty as she? I find that attitude very sexist.

And Charles and Camilla would hardly be the first adulterers to be crowned. Off the top of my head, I can think of Edward VII, James II, George I, George II, and George IV (who literally locked his estranged wife out of Westminster Abbey during his coronation).

IMO, Charles should be King and Camilla should be his Queen. They are far from perfect, but perfection has never been required to wear the British crown.

 

[Denville]

Charles had ot make some kind of concessions to public opinion at the time of the marriage.. hence the statement that Camilla would be known as Duchess of Cornwall and that she would be Princess Consort. Im sure the queen was aware of what he was doing and why, and while she might not exactly approve of these PR type statements, she accepted that it was necessary. I'm sure she hoped that given time, Camilla would be accepted as future queen consort.

 

[Kataryn]

Do you disagree, then, with the many posters here and elsewhere who have argued that legislation would be needed to displace Camilla from the status of queen?

No. Because I don't think the actual queen regnant could take a future title from her daughter-in-law by showing her will and that Charles simply wouldn't do it. He could announce that his wife, the queen, will in future be known as HRH the Princess Consort and create her title as a personal title for her but Camilla would, as the wife of the king, always "be" the queen (including holding the highest female rank in the realm) if not parliament strips her of the privileges of that position within the traditions of the constitution. And that only because parliament in the UK could even strip the king of his title and position in the society (aka deposing of the Windsors).

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

Why Her Highness, though? As if she hadn't done anything wrong and should get the highest rank the monarchy could give her while Camilla should settle for the second best?

Her Grace for Diana, perhaps. Or better yet, My Lady the King's Mother.

Denville, that's what I meant. With the clarification that Diana isn't unworthy of being queen. She would have been simply ineligible.

Had Diana married her beau, she was now known as Lady Diana Al-Fayed anyway. Likewise, had Sarah married a Mr Henry Smith now, she was now a plain Mrs Henry Smith.

Neither Diana nor Sarah acquired a title upon marriage. Both were simply addressed, by tradition and social custom, with their husband's style and title. That is no different for a Marie-Christine Baroness von Reibnitz who is now known as "Princess Michael of Kent".

 

[Kataryn]

Changing things up for one reign sets a precedence. It would denote that Camilla isn't as "likeable" or "worthy" of being Charles' Queen whereas Catherine, being so well suited to William is "better" and deserves to be a full blown HM, The Queen. The monarchy doesn't work like that and plays favorites here and there and whenever public opinion takes a turn downwards.

The monarchy and it's "Firm" has been set with traditions and ways of doing things for centuries. It's what gives it that patina of continuity from the mists of time into the present day. If things change for just one person, it should be a change made that affects all future incidents in the future. Making an exception for one person's title or role breaks another link in continuity that the monarchy has come to represent, IMO.

Plus it would give a flashlight to the fact that while the successor to the throne aka Prince of Wales could marry whoever he wants (as that is what the law says for any British citizen), it is the public's opinion which counts when it comes to granting this wife the "appropriate" title. While it is the right of parliament to do so, it would certainly cheapen the rank of the king or queen regnant within the state which is still a parliamentarian kingdom and not a parliamentarian democracy. And which parliament wants to do that? There is the assumption that having a Head of State has advantages and to protect these. That's what every parliament around the world does!


It seems to me Charles was willing to accept for his beloved wife that she might not be able to become his queen in a clear exchange for the privilege to marry her. But I can't imagine he liked that idea one bit!

As a historian and keen connaisseur of the law of the country when it came to the Royal family, he must have known who actually rules the land: not the "public" as expressed through the media, but the establishment's chosen political leaders in parliament. (We should never forget the acts about the succession of protestand electress Sophia and her offspring to the British throne which actually till today deprived hundreds of people close to the thrones of England and Scotland due to their religion!! What is the title of Camilla Windsor when it comes to the loss of James The Old Pretender's actual throne? And still it is legal that Charles is the heir and not Duke Franz of Bavaria!) Charles must have known that Camilla would be his queen once he acceedes his throne as long as parliament did nothing to change the current law, as he could be quite sure neither his mother nor himself would do anything to change the status quo when it came to Camilla's actual title in law.

 

[Kataryn]

Had Diana married her beau, she was now known as Lady Diana Al-Fayed anyway. Likewise, had Sarah married a Mr Henry Smith now, she was now a plain Mrs Henry Smith.

Neither Diana nor Sarah acquired a title upon marriage. Both were simply addressed, by tradition and social custom, with their husband's style and title. That is no different for a Marie-Christine Baroness von Reibnitz who is now known as "Princess Michael of Kent".

Diana had her title of "Lady" as a courtesy to being the daughter of an earl. She took on the female form of her husband's titles when she married Charles. That marriage elevated her from a commoner to the rank of a peeress consort as the wife of a peer. But she never had a title of her own, just the right to use titles (and the rank) because she was the daughter of and then was married to the holder of these titles. I know that HM regards the rank of a princess born of the Blood Royal as a kind of personal title (hence the ranking in her personal court) but even the title of princess is just courtesy of the princess's Royal father and the princess is a commoner under British law. Modern times have given the divorced wife the possibility to use a certain form of her former name as her own name but that doesn't mean she could stick to the rank or the styles of that. That's the difference with a dowager peeress - she keeps the style and title of her late husband and can decide if she wants to be named The Dowager (title) or First name, tile without the prefix "The" and the style that goes with it.



When HM cleared up the question if this way to deal with the marriage situation of a former couple in her LP after the divorces of Diana and Sarah, she went along the then established custom of the land when it came to dicorced peeresses: no styles and the title without the "The" in front.



And yes, she should have done more at least for Diana who was the mother of a future king, but with all Diana had done to tank the monarchy and her ex, I think we can give a bit of understanding to HM. So maybe she let it go to William when be would have become king with his mother still alive to restore Diana to a Royal style. Who knows?

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

Diana had her title of "Lady" as a courtesy to being the daughter of an earl. She took on the female form of her husband's titles when she married Charles. That marriage elevated her from a commoner to the rank of a peeress consort as the wife of a peer. [...]

Lady Sarah Armstrong-Jones became Lady Sarah Chatto. Lady Gabriella Windsor became Lady Rose Gilman, Lady Melissa Percy became Lady Melissa van Straubenzee, later Lady Melissa Trafelet. By all tradition and custom, the divorced Diana, Princess of Wales, born Lady Diana Spencer, would have been Lady Diana [husband's surname] had she remarried an untitled gentleman.

Diana's own stepmother showed what happens when she would have married another titled gentleman: Raine McCorquodale -> The Countess of Dartmoor (marriage 1) -> The Countess Spencer (marriage 2) -> la comtesse Jean-François Pineton de Chambrun (marriage 3).

 

[Somebody]

(...)
I imagine asking Parliament to pass legislation would not have been needed. Had the family not wanted Camilla to be known as Queen, she could have voluntarily declined to use her queenly title, in the same way she currently declines to use her title of Princess of Wales.

However, on the basis of which of her husband's titles as king, will she be able to claim to be a 'princess'. He won't be a prince of the UK any longer as he moved on to be the king of the UK at that point. So, I still don't see a way for her to use a title that she doesn't have unless she would be made a princess of the UK in her own right. In that case, she could indeed be known as Princess (who happens to be the) Consort (to the king).

Currently, she is using one of the other titles she is entitled to as wife of the Duke of Cornwall.

Camilla just will be HM The Queen or HM Queen Camilla.
We only need to look to the other side of the North Sea that an intention by the lawmaker not always works out in practice (officially Princess Máxima, no difference with male consorts, but "on historic grounds" she is -by courtesy- addressed as Queen Máxima).

The situation isn't fully comparable as Máxima was made a princess of the Netherlands in her own right, so, she is indeed princess of the Netherlands who is addressed as 'Queen Máxima' because of her husband's position as king. She could lawfully use 'Princess Máxima (of the Netherlands)' if she chose to as that is indeed one of her other titles.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

But claim that there are "rules" about Royal titles apart from the souvereigns will? Nope, I think.

Do you disagree, then, with the many posters here and elsewhere who have argued that legislation would be needed to displace Camilla from the status of queen?

No. Because I don't think the actual queen regnant could take a future title from her daughter-in-law by showing her will and that Charles simply wouldn't do it. He could announce that his wife, the queen, will in future be known as HRH the Princess Consort and create her title as a personal title for her but Camilla would, as the wife of the king, always "be" the queen (including holding the highest female rank in the realm) if not parliament strips her of the privileges of that position within the traditions of the constitution. And that only because parliament in the UK could even strip the king of his title and position in the society (aka deposing of the Windsors).

I appreciate the response. Since you agree with the general opinion that only Parliament could strip the status of a queen (consort), why do you consider there to be no "rule" that the wife of the King is entitled to the title of Queen?

[...] in case George has a daughter first, who is the woman who was born to be queen and who is her wedded husband! (If she decided that he should have the title of King Consort instead of the usual Prince Consort.)

I don't think Prince Consort can be regarded at this point as the usual title for male consorts either in the UK or in wider Europe. Albert is the only British consort who has borne that title, and after him, Henrik of Denmark has been the only European consort to use it.

However, on the basis of which of her husband's titles as king, will she be able to claim to be a 'princess'. He won't be a prince of the UK any longer as he moved on to be the king of the UK at that point. So, I still don't see a way for her to use a title that she doesn't have unless she would be made a princess of the UK in her own right. In that case, she could indeed be known as Princess (who happens to be the) Consort (to the king).

Isn't the position under UK common law that everyone may choose to be known however they wish? And if it would be legally tidier to create her a princess in her own right, I don't think there would be an impediment to that.

The situation isn't fully comparable as Máxima was made a princess of the Netherlands in her own right, so, she is indeed princess of the Netherlands who is addressed as 'Queen Máxima' because of her husband's position as king. She could lawfully use 'Princess Máxima (of the Netherlands)' if she chose to as that is indeed one of her other titles.

But Duc_et_Pair's point, I think, was that some of the Dutch legislators intended for her to not only be a princess but be addressed as Princess instead of Queen when her husband was King.

Denmark is another kingdom with other traditions. Margrethe decided to let Alexandra be Her Highness [...]

The Queen's decision to allow Alexandra to be HH Princess of Denmark until remarriage wasn't in conformity with Danish royal traditions. There was no consistent tradition for the titles of previous divorced wives of Kings and Princes of Denmark, but at minimum, all of them had lost the territorial designation "of Denmark".

 

[Somebody]

Isn't the position under UK common law that everyone may choose to be known however they wish? And if it would be legally tidier to create her a princess in her own right, I don't think there would be an impediment to that.

I am not familiar with UK common law to know whether that would extend to all people being free to call themselves prince/princess and be expected to be treated as such by the British Royal Family and all other foreign countries/royal houses purely based on a personal choice. Would that same position apply to the use of the style 'HRH' because as the wife of the king she would share his style, which is 'HM', so, in that case she might have ended up being 'Her Majesty The Princess Consort' (by personal wish and not based on any real title). I don't think that would be a smart decision by the court, so I do think that creating her a princess in her own right would be required (which means 'additional legislation' (LP)). However, wouldn't making her a princess in her own right create even more controversy that letting her use her husband's title without herself formally being 'The Princess Camilla of the UK'?

But Duc_et_Pair's point, I think, was that some of the Dutch legislators intended for her to not only be a princess but be addressed as Princess instead of Queen when her husband was King.

I am not sure which Dutch legislators that would be. The ones that made her a princess of the Netherlands when she married her husband (2002) or legislators at a later point in time? I don't recall legislation being passed about Máxima's title at the time of W-A's succession to the throne (2013) - although her title was debated and the conclusion was reached that she was in her own right a princess of the Netherlands but would be referred to by the title of queen. Formally, she is not supposed to be reference as 'HM Queen Máxima of the Netherlands' (it should be either 'HM Queen Máxima or 'HM Queen Máxima, princess of the Netherlands') but in practice that does happen.

 

[Osipi]

Getting back to the basics, this whole discussion has absolutely nothing to do with the personalities and the "worthiness" or even how the public opinion could or should hold importance in how a wife of a king should be referred to.

What we need to do here is separate an institution from the people involved in it. Camilla's title of "Queen" whether or not the word "Consort" is used is in relation to her place now within the "Firm" and the institution that surrounds the monarchy of the UK. If the US had a president that held the office for a much longer time than four years, no matter how many times a sitting president married and divorced, each one of his wives would be entitled to hold the moniker of "FLOTUS" or "First Lady Of The United States".

None of this kerfluffle is in any way indicative of "worthiness" or "merit" or whatever else we want to put on it and lately it's getting Diana people up in arms because Camilla was the horrible "Rottweiler" that caused Diana pain and angst and destroyed her marriage and preventer her from being Queen. Diana is dead and through divorce, became a former Princess of Wales (example of a woman that is divorced legally entitled to use her former husband's title until she remarries. Same with Sarah, Duchess of York).

We need to separate the people and the personalities away from the institution of the monarchy and how it does things. Every single one of Henry VIII's wife was "Queen" until they were done away with or died. Edward VIII gave up his title and position as King in order to marry a twice divorced woman he loved (times and attitudes towards divorce has changed immensely since 1936 in both the institution of the monarchy and the Church of England).

The bottom line is that it always was and in a monarchy where continuity is the glue that holds it all together, legally, a wife of any reigning king will always be his queen. It's possible, and it makes sense to me that although Charles and Clarence House perceived the idea of "Princess Consort" for Camilla a good idea, it then developed into all kinds of hassles doing that. To strip Camilla from her rightful title of "Queen", it would take Parliamentary action and then Camilla would be created with that title *in her own right*. Just as Prince Philip was created a prince of the UK *in his own right*. We've also learned from both Andrew's and Harry's "bad behavior" that the *only* time in modern history of the UK that someone has been stripped of their peerage title is for the reason of treason. Along the lines of treason though, the only one that actually has committed high treason against the monarchy actually *is* Diana in admitting to having an affair with Hewitt while still married to the heir to the throne.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_treason_in_the_United_Kingdom

We need to leave emotions and moral outrage and what we feel about certain personages when discussing Camilla's title to be when Charles becomes king. It has nothing to do with the people involved. It has everything to do with how the monarchy works. ?

 

[Tatiana Maria]

I am not familiar with UK common law to know whether that would extend to all people being free to call themselves prince/princess and be expected to be treated as such by the British Royal Family and all other foreign countries/royal houses purely based on a personal choice. Would that same position apply to the use of the style 'HRH' because as the wife of the king she would share his style, which is 'HM', so, in that case she might have ended up being 'Her Majesty The Princess Consort' (by personal wish and not based on any real title).

I am confused by the connection you are drawing between being legally free to call oneself a prince/princess purely based on a personal choice (which seems to be allowed, based on members of various deposed royal and noble houses who have no real titles but use titles in the UK) and being treated by the British royal family and foreign royal houses as a prince/princess. Those seem to be separate issues, and one is a legal issue whereas the other is a diplomatic one.

I cannot imagine other members of the British royal family or foreign royal courts refusing to address Camilla as Princess Consort if that was the title the King chose for his wife, with or without additional legislation. Disrespecting the King's and Camilla's will would cause a family rift (in the case of other members of the British royal family) or a diplomatic incident (in the case of foreign courts), which would not be in anyone's interest.

[...] I do think that creating her a princess in her own right would be required (which means 'additional legislation' (LP)). However, wouldn't making her a princess in her own right create even more controversy that letting her use her husband's title without herself formally being 'The Princess Camilla of the UK'?

Your guess is as good as mine, but I cannot imagine the general public distinguishing between a title made by letters patent and a title made by royal press release/personal choice. In fact, I would be surprised if the average member of the public knew what letters patent were (articles in the British media referring to the 1917 letters patent often include an explanation of what letters patent are).

 

[UglyAmerican]

I remember reading somewhere (maybe here?) that Edward had hoped to have the Duke of Edinburgh title, but Charles wanted Camilla to be Duchess of Edinburgh for continuity, as the monarch's consort. But if she'll be known as Queen (which, IMHO, should always have been the case), then the Edinburgh title is no longer such as issue. So does this mean Charles is more likely to let Edward have it?

 

[Osipi]

I remember reading somewhere (maybe here?) that Edward had hoped to have the Duke of Edinburgh title, but Charles wanted Camilla to be Duchess of Edinburgh for continuity, as the monarch's consort. But if she'll be known as Queen (which, IMHO, should always have been the case), then the Edinburgh title is no longer such as issue. So does this mean Charles is more likely to let Edward have it?

This is a moot point to start with. The moment Charles becomes king, all the titles he holds at the present moment (including Duke of Edinburgh) revert to the Crown. There's no way that the consort of a monarch could use a title previously held as the heir to the throne because, frankly, he doesn't hold it anymore. ?

 

[Tatiana Maria]

I remember reading somewhere (maybe here?) that Edward had hoped to have the Duke of Edinburgh title, but Charles wanted Camilla to be Duchess of Edinburgh for continuity, as the monarch's consort. But if she'll be known as Queen (which, IMHO, should always have been the case), then the Edinburgh title is no longer such as issue. So does this mean Charles is more likely to let Edward have it?

I don't believe there have been media reports to that effect. What was reported last year (and implicitly confirmed by a comment from the Prince of Wales's office) was that the Prince of Wales was considering the possibility of reneging on his agreement in 1999 to recreate the dukedom of Edinburgh for his brother Edward.

https://www.theroyalforums.com/foru...d-royal-ducal-titles-7948-32.html#post2415128
https://www.theroyalforums.com/foru...d-royal-ducal-titles-7948-35.html#post2416015

Nothing was said about who, if not Edward, would be the next duke (or duchess) of Edinburgh.

This is a moot point to start with. The moment Charles becomes king, all the titles he holds at the present moment (including Duke of Edinburgh) revert to the Crown. There's no way that the consort of a monarch could use a title previously held as the heir to the throne because, frankly, he doesn't hold it anymore. ?

Hypothetically, couldn't the female consort of a monarch be created Duchess of Edinburgh in her own right? Or would her sharing the status of her husband, the King, result in any peerage she holds automatically merging with the crown?

 

[irish_royalist]

Just looking into this forum now, so I haven't read all of the comments.
But I can't work out what the confusion is.

Surely the Queen is just asking that Camilla should be a Queen Consort, rather than a Princess Consort.
Even had she been Charles' first wife, she would have been Queen Consort (as opposed to Queen Regnant), but known as HM The Queen.

The point of this exercise is not that she will be HM the Queen Consort, rather than HM The Queen? The point is that she will be HM The Queen rather than HRH The Princess Consort?

Am I missing something important?

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

I remember reading somewhere (maybe here?) that Edward had hoped to have the Duke of Edinburgh title, but Charles wanted Camilla to be Duchess of Edinburgh for continuity, as the monarch's consort. But if she'll be known as Queen (which, IMHO, should always have been the case), then the Edinburgh title is no longer such as issue. So does this mean Charles is more likely to let Edward have it?

Camilla already is Princess of Wales, Duchess of Cornwall, Duchess of Rothesay, Duchess of Edinburgh (!) Etc. Etc. but is known by her husband's eldest peerage titles: Duke of Cornwall (1952), in general and Duke of Rothesay (1952), in Scotland.

Most likely the new King will designate his brother the Earl of Wessex and Forfar as 1st Duke of Edinburgh of a new creation: the title is available when it merges with the Crown after Charles assuming the kingship.

 

[Osipi]

I don't believe there have been media reports to that effect. What was reported last year (and implicitly confirmed by a comment from the Prince of Wales's office) was that the Prince of Wales was considering the possibility of reneging on his agreement in 1999 to recreate the dukedom of Edinburgh for his brother Edward.

https://www.theroyalforums.com/foru...d-royal-ducal-titles-7948-32.html#post2415128
https://www.theroyalforums.com/foru...d-royal-ducal-titles-7948-35.html#post2416015

Nothing was said about who, if not Edward, would be the next duke (or duchess) of Edinburgh.




Hypothetically, couldn't the female consort of a monarch be created Duchess of Edinburgh in her own right? Or would her sharing the status of her husband, the King, result in any peerage she holds automatically merging with the crown?

If she was created Duchess of Edinburgh, it'd be the first time a woman was created a royal peerage in her own right. Camilla, being a married-in, is legally entitled to the feminine form of the titles her husband holds.

Duke of Edinburgh, named after the city of Edinburgh, Scotland, is a substantive title that has been created three times for members of the British royal family since 1726. If Camilla was created The Duchess of Edinburgh, it would be the fourth creation of that title and solely in her own right. ?

At least that's how I understand it.

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

Just looking into this forum now, so I haven't read all of the comments.
But I can't work out what the confusion is.

Surely the Queen is just asking that Camilla should be a Queen Consort, rather than a Princess Consort.
Even had she been Charles' first wife, she would have been Queen Consort (as opposed to Queen Regnant), but known as HM The Queen.

The point of this exercise is not that she will be HM the Queen Consort, rather than HM The Queen? The point is that she will be HM The Queen rather than HRH The Princess Consort?

Am I missing something important?

The one says she will be Queen Consort but, like all royal consorts, be known as HM The Queen or as HM Queen Camilla.

The other says she will be known as HM The Queen Consort or as HM Queen Consort Camilla.

My take is that the Queen wishes her daughter-in-law Camilla to be Queen Consort indeed, being the King's wife. Not that she will be HM Queen Consort Camilla. Others say the opposite.

By the way, it is a wish by the Queen. It is not law. And Sovereigns do not rule beyond the grave.

 

[irish_royalist]

The one says she will be Queen Consort but, like all royal consorts, be known as HM The Queen or as HM Queen Camilla.

The other says she will be known as HM The Queen Consort or as HM Queen Consort Camilla.

My take is that the Queen wishes her daughter-in-law Camilla to be Queen Consort indeed, being the King's wife. Not that she will be HM Queen Consort Camilla. Others say the opposite.

By the way, it is a wish by the Queen. It is not law. And Sovereigns do not rule beyond the grave.

In my opinion, this one is correct :

"The one says she will be Queen Consort but, like all royal consorts, be known as HM The Queen or as HM Queen Camilla"

And this one is nonsense :

"The other says she will be known as HM The Queen Consort or as HM Queen Consort Camilla"

 

[Somebody]

I am confused by the connection you are drawing between being legally free to call oneself a prince/princess purely based on a personal choice (which seems to be allowed, based on members of various deposed royal and noble houses who have no real titles but use titles in the UK) and being treated by the British royal family and foreign royal houses as a prince/princess. Those seem to be separate issues, and one is a legal issue whereas the other is a diplomatic one.

I cannot imagine other members of the British royal family or foreign royal courts refusing to address Camilla as Princess Consort if that was the title the King chose for his wife, with or without additional legislation. Disrespecting the King's and Camilla's will would cause a family rift (in the case of other members of the British royal family) or a diplomatic incident (in the case of foreign courts), which would not be in anyone's interest.

Not sure if I can explain it any better than I did. You stated that anybody can call themselves however they like. So, going along with that suggestion... in the situation that Camilla decides to start calling herself 'HRH The Princess Consort' when she is NOT a royal highness NOR a princess, that would invite everyone to do exactly the same and the British royal house (and any other royal houses) would for consistency treat everybody by their 'made-up' title when officially addressing them, as they expect people to do the same for Camilla.

While it might be up to the Sovereign as the found of all honours to bestow a title upon someone, that is a different route imho: he would have to MAKE her a Royal Highness and a Princess (Consort), not just go along with a made-up style and title by his wife (even if it is by his own suggestion).

Your guess is as good as mine, but I cannot imagine the general public distinguishing between a title made by letters patent and a title made by royal press release/personal choice. In fact, I would be surprised if the average member of the public knew what letters patent were (articles in the British media referring to the 1917 letters patent often include an explanation of what letters patent are).

While the general public might indeed not know the difference, I am quite sure the media will be quick to point out that Camilla has been made a princess in her own right (an honour that Philip only got after X years) if that were to happen. The other option in my opinion is not a feasible one as there is no such title available for Camilla when Charles is king (so, this is different from press releases about members of the royal family using a lower title or not using a title they are entitled to).

 

[Osipi]

Not sure if I can explain it any better than I did. You stated that anybody can call themselves however they like. So, going along with that suggestion... in the situation that Camilla decides to start calling herself 'HRH The Princess Consort' when she is NOT a royal highness NOR a princess, that would invite everyone to do exactly the same and the British royal house (and any other royal houses) would for consistency treat everybody by their 'made-up' title when officially addressing them, as they expect people to do the same for Camilla.

While it might be up to the Sovereign as the found of all honours to bestow a title upon someone, that is a different route imho: he would have to MAKE her a Royal Highness and a Princess (Consort), not just go along with a made-up style and title by his wife (even if it is by his own suggestion).



While the general public might indeed not know the difference, I am quite sure the media will be quick to point out that Camilla has been made a princess in her own right (an honour that Philip only got after X years) if that were to happen. The other option in my opinion is not a feasible one as there is no such title available for Camilla when Charles is king (so, this is different from press releases about members of the royal family using a lower title or not using a title they are entitled to).

I could go around asking everyone I meet online to call me "The Queen of Typos" (I've held that title for over 30 years now) but to use that title legally in the UK, I'd have to petition the court to legally change my name to that moniker in order to *legally* use it.

At least that's how I understand it. This, too, is the difference between title and style. One is the legal title that is acceptable by the law of the land. The style is how one is "known" as. Charles could issue letters patent the day he becomes King that Camilla, forevermore, will be known as Gladys (and yeps... he'd choose King Fred as his regnal name.. but that would also be his *legal* title) but legally, Camilla would be HM, The Queen (Consort).

Camilla holds all the feminine versions of every title that Charles holds as his wife. She, however, had the choice of what she would be "known" as.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

Not sure if I can explain it any better than I did. You stated that anybody can call themselves however they like. So, going along with that suggestion...

Do you disagree? For example, is there reason to suggest that Edoardo Mapelli Mozzi's father, who has called himself Count Alessandro in British newspapers although he is legally untitled, has been forbidden from continuing to use that title?

in the situation that Camilla decides to start calling herself 'HRH The Princess Consort' when she is NOT a royal highness NOR a princess, that would invite everyone to do exactly the same and the British royal house (and any other royal houses) would for consistency treat everybody by their 'made-up' title when officially addressing them, as they expect people to do the same for Camilla.

The British royal house already officially addresses people by what you refer to as "made-up titles". Buckingham Palace for some reason declined to use Count for Alessandro Mapelli Mozzi, but they have used other titles which are not backed by legislation, such as King for the former monarch of Greece.

I am not sure the British royal family would find the "treat everybody consistently" argument compelling. They have not been models of consistency even in regards to well-established titles.

While the general public might indeed not know the difference, I am quite sure the media will be quick to point out that Camilla has been made a princess in her own right (an honour that Philip only got after X years) if that were to happen. The other option in my opinion is not a feasible one as there is no such title available for Camilla when Charles is king (so, this is different from press releases about members of the royal family using a lower title or not using a title they are entitled to).

I respect your point of view, but I think that would be too nuanced for the kind of controversy-stirring media coverage which I think you are alluding to. It is more likely in my eyes that such coverage would focus on the simpler issue of Camilla not being called queen. But as this is very speculative, we probably should agree to disagree.

 

[muriel]

However, on the basis of which of her husband's titles as king, will she be able to claim to be a 'princess'. He won't be a prince of the UK any longer as he moved on to be the king of the UK at that point. So, I still don't see a way for her to use a title that she doesn't have unless she would be made a princess of the UK in her own right. In that case, she could indeed be known as Princess (who happens to be the) Consort (to the king).

Currently, she is using one of the other titles she is entitled to as wife of the Duke of Cornwall.

Here is my understanding of the matter. Irrespective of the Queen's wish as set out in the statement issued last weekend, once Charles is King, Camilla's title will be HM Queen Camilla.

Once King, if Charles would like Camilla to be known as HRH Princess Consort, she could be styled as HRH Princess Consort, but still legally hold the title of HM Queen Camilla. As the monarch is font of all honour, Charles could either issue LPs to that effect, or just let it be known that it is his will that his wife be styled as HRH Princess Consort. She does not need to be created a Princess in her own right to the styled as HRH Princess Consort.

Given the recent statement by the Queen, my sense is that once Charles is King, Camilla will be called HM Queen Camilla, which will be her title as consort to the King.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

Just looking into this forum now, so I haven't read all of the comments.
But I can't work out what the confusion is.

Surely the Queen is just asking that Camilla should be a Queen Consort, rather than a Princess Consort.
Even had she been Charles' first wife, she would have been Queen Consort (as opposed to Queen Regnant), but known as HM The Queen.

The point of this exercise is not that she will be HM the Queen Consort, rather than HM The Queen? The point is that she will be HM The Queen rather than HRH The Princess Consort?

Am I missing something important?

Have you read the statements that caused the confusion?


https://www.telegraph.co.uk/royal-f...et-back-duchess-cornwall-boost-queen-camilla/

At the time of her marriage to the Prince of Wales, the palace said she would be styled as "Princess Consort" when her husband was King, in the same way she chooses to use her Duchess title rather than "Princess of Wales".

In recent years, royal watchers predicted that this idea would be quietly forgotten when the time comes, with aides hoping the public will accept "Queen Camilla".

As the wife of a King, she would be a Queen Consort rather than a Queen Regnant – a monarch who reigns in her own right – with a source emphasising on Friday that the word "consort" would always be used. Clarence House declined to comment.​

https://www.express.co.uk/news/royal/1561628/queen-jubilee-letter-full-statement-camilla-evg

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.​

Here is my understanding of the matter. Irrespective of the Queen's wish as set out in the statement issued last weekend, once Charles is King, Camilla's title will be HM Queen Camilla.

Do you mean HM Queen? "Camilla" would remain a name and not part of the title, I would think.

 

[Kataryn]

Lady Sarah Armstrong-Jones became Lady Sarah Chatto. Lady Gabriella Windsor became Lady Rose Gilman, Lady Melissa Percy became Lady Melissa van Straubenzee, later Lady Melissa Trafelet. By all tradition and custom, the divorced Diana, Princess of Wales, born Lady Diana Spencer, would have been Lady Diana [husband's surname] had she remarried an untitled gentleman.

Diana's own stepmother showed what happens when she would have married another titled gentleman: Raine McCorquodale -> The Countess of Dartmoor (marriage 1) -> The Countess Spencer (marriage 2) -> la comtesse Jean-François Pineton de Chambrun (marriage 3).

Yes (apart from the fact that Lady Gabrielle Windsor did not become Lady Rose Gilmore - but I see where you lead here...). But that's exactly what I said: the daughter of Earl Spencer, by courtesy Lady Diana, would have kept this title whoever she married and only if her husband was higher or a peer, she would have given it up for as long as she was married.



As for Diana's stepmother: Raine McCorquodale did not have her own courtesy title as she was not the daughter of an earl, marquess or duke.

 

[Hallo girl]

I have an idea, maybe we could wait and see what happens at the time. Hopefully it is a long way off

 

[TLLK]

I have an idea, maybe we could wait and see what happens at the time. Hopefully it is a long way off

IMO this is a reasonable suggestion. ?