Questions about British Styles and Titles 1: Ending 2022

[Ish]

Now to be known (styled) as Princess, that would also have to come somewhere from her husband's titles. As King, there wouldn't be one. When Charles becomes King, nowhere in his titles will he be a Prince of anything. For Camilla to be a Princess and even styled as one, she would have to have the masculine form of a husband's title of Prince to take it from. If the option was to make her a Princess in her own right as Queen Elizabeth did with Philip, then her rank and style would be of a Princess of the UK which is below ranking of a King.

Exactly. In the case of Philip, his being a Prince and not King is deliberate because a husband does not take on the titles of their spouse. He is granted all of the precedences of any other monarch's consort, regardless of (or despite) his gender.

I really don't think Charles or the whole slew of folks at CH and BP and wherever thought this through when they said that Princess Consort thing.

In a way, Royalty is kind of like any other fandom. The "creators" (in this case the BRF) say one thing and the fans (us) go insane analyzing (and over analyzing) its meaning. A lot of authors and TV personnel have said that they suspect their fans know more about the world they created than they themselves do. I doubt we know more about the BRF than they do, but we definitely have the analysis down pat.

 

[Osipi]

\In a way, Royalty is kind of like any other fandom. The "creators" (in this case the BRF) say one thing and the fans (us) go insane analyzing (and over analyzing) its meaning. A lot of authors and TV personnel have said that they suspect their fans know more about the world they created than they themselves do. I doubt we know more about the BRF than they do, but we definitely have the analysis down pat.

And to think I came here originally for weird looking, funny Ascot hats. Go figure.

 

[Roslyn]

So.....if Charles is King and Duke of Lancaster, and Camilla is Queen but doesn't call herself Queen and is known as Duchess of Lancaster, there should be no problem, should there? No need for Letters Patent or Act of Parliament, just an announcement from Charles. And we forget all about Princess Consort.

 

[Osipi]

Then again, going over the link I've posted, it also said this:

"However, the declaration included in the O.D.L.
Report of 1930, the alteration of the laws of succession
in 1936-37 and that of the royal style and titles in 1947
and 1952 suggest that the second paragraph of the
preamble to the Statute should be considered a
constitutional convention rather than a rule of strict law.
The lack of assent to a morganatic marriage by the
Canadian parliament or any other Commonwealth
parliament would have no legal effect.

Color me paisley and trim my eyebrows with a banana. I didn't read far enough.

 

[DukeOfAster]

i say lets just move forward with the Camillia thing and stop the confusion and let her be the Queen to her husband Queen. lets also honor the fact that before there is a moment of confusion the monarchy will fix the problem in all it's glory. please note that the Queen issued LP allowing for both male and female children of Will and Kate to be prince and princess before they are born so if a future young lady is born she can be Princess thanks to great granny.

 

[Osipi]

So.....if Charles is King and Duke of Lancaster, and Camilla is Queen but doesn't call herself Queen and is known as Duchess of Lancaster, there should be no problem, should there? No need for Letters Patent or Act of Parliament, just an announcement from Charles. And we forget all about Princess Consort.

I just think whatever it is going to be is going to have to be decided on soon. Its not going to do the nation or anyone good to have this big anchor around the neck kind of thing happening when HM passes and that's when its going to start up. She's either Queen or whatever other title the powers that be can all decide on. This isn't picking out an online persona.

Most people in the world wouldn't see why Princess Consort wouldn't work for Camilla and to be honest, I think Camilla herself would be happy with it. She's not in this for the fame and glory and tiaras and stuffs and the public life but stands by her man. That's what a best friend does. She'd rather really be the consort and not the queen. Like Philip is. Two steps behind with a tickle when he needs it.

I can't imagine that the implications of this title of Princess Consort have totally escaped Charles' mind and if its to be so, this is the man that will delve into the legalities and the how does one do it. We just really have to wait and see. In the meantime, we find out a lot of things we didn't know before.

 

[Roslyn]

I just think whatever it is going to be is going to have to be decided on soon. Its not going to do the nation or anyone good to have this big anchor around the neck kind of thing happening when HM passes and that's when its going to start up. She's either Queen or whatever other title the powers that be can all decide on. This isn't picking out an online persona.

Yes. The last thing anyone will want when the family and the nation is grieving over Elizabeth's death is a petty fight about what to call the woman who will already, the moment HM dies and Charles becomes King, be Queen. If it's left till then and she is not to be Queen, she will have to be stripped of that title and demoted.

Most people in the world wouldn't see why Princess Consort wouldn't work for Camilla and to be honest, I think Camilla herself would be happy with it. She's not in this for the fame and glory and tiaras and stuffs and the public life but stands by her man. That's what a best friend does. She'd rather really be the consort and not the queen. Like Philip is. Two steps behind with a tickle when he needs it.

Agreed. If indeed that's what she wants, I say let her have it. Though I do have a preference for Duchess of Lancaster.

I can't imagine that the implications of this title of Princess Consort have totally escaped Charles' mind and if its to be so, this is the man that will delve into the legalities and the how does one do it. We just really have to wait and see. In the meantime, we find out a lot of things we didn't know before.

I am constantly learning new things because of this forum.

 

[wbenson]

HM is Queen of 16 realms, Duke of Normandy, Lord of Mann, and Duke of Lancaster. 3 of those titles do not have King/Queen.

"Is" is a strong word for the two ducal titles. While she holds the duchy of Lancaster there's debate on whether it's correct for her to be called the "Duke of Lancaster." In any case she's consented to the title's use in the loyal toast when given in Lancaster, but actually being her own duke is a little harder. (Which I think might provide a lesson. There's a well-established principle that the sovereign can't be a peer, but the Queen and several of her predecessors have decided to allow the use the title anyways.)

And the title of Duke of Normandy is also on quite shaky ground.

 

[Osipi]

Yes. The last thing anyone will want when the family and the nation is grieving over Elizabeth's death is a petty fight about what to call the woman who will already, the moment HM dies and Charles becomes King, be Queen. If it's left till then and she is not to be Queen, she will have to be stripped of that title and demoted.

She'd actually not be demoted if she was to be declared as being known as Her Majesty, The Duchess of Lancaster. The press and public might see it that way though.

It would right royal throw the media in the a constant loop and comfuzzlement as they try to figure it all out. The King is the Duke of Lancaster? Why didn't we know this? What?? HM the Queen was the Duke too?

Actually it might serve for them to get some facts right for once.

 

[Osipi]

There's a well-established principle that the sovereign can't be a peer, but the Queen and several of her predecessors have decided to allow the use the title anyways.)

So, following this principle, Camilla couldn't hold the title of Duchess of Lancaster then correct?

 

[Iluvbertie]

I will take the Court Circular's opinion of whether or not The Queen is Duke of Lancaster as she signs off on what is in that - and they says that she is.

 

[Ish]

"Is" is a strong word for the two ducal titles. While she holds the duchy of Lancaster there's debate on whether it's correct for her to be called the "Duke of Lancaster." In any case she's consented to the title's use in the loyal toast when given in Lancaster, but actually being her own duke is a little harder. (Which I think might provide a lesson. There's a well-established principle that the sovereign can't be a peer, but the Queen and several of her predecessors have decided to allow the use the title anyways.)

And the title of Duke of Normandy is also on quite shaky ground.

I will take the Court Circular's opinion of whether or not The Queen is Duke of Lancaster as she signs off on what is in that - and they says that she is.

Well, let's use some philosophy here.

1. The Monarch cannot be a peer.
2. The Monarch is considered the Duke of Lancaster.
-- Therefore the Duke of Lancaster is not a peer.

Just because it looks like a duke and quacks like a duck does not mean that it must be a duke.

 

[Osipi]

"Is" is a strong word for the two ducal titles. While she holds the duchy of Lancaster there's debate on whether it's correct for her to be called the "Duke of Lancaster." In any case she's consented to the title's use in the loyal toast when given in Lancaster, but actually being her own duke is a little harder. (Which I think might provide a lesson. There's a well-established principle that the sovereign can't be a peer, but the Queen and several of her predecessors have decided to allow the use the title anyways.)

And the title of Duke of Normandy is also on quite shaky ground.

It takes a good man to blow my mind and I think you've done it.

So then, if the Duke of Lancaster is just a honorary title for the present monarch, we can rule out the Duchess of Lancaster for Camilla? And by chance, doesn't the monarch get funding from the Duchy of Lancaster such as the Duke of Cornwall does from his duchy?

I can see how it was way back that a king could be a duke elsewhere. There were more kingdoms. I'm still Queen of the realm of bellyachers here but I do travel to relations where I'm just a Grand mother.

 

[wbenson]

So then, if the Duke of Lancaster is just a honorary title for the present monarch, we can rule out the Duchess of Lancaster for Camilla?

What I was getting at was more that we shouldn't make strictly legalistic presumptions about what can and can't happen, because there's very little actual law regarding what people can be called (as opposed to what they are). The title police aren't going to come along and correct your stationery if you call yourself something that, traditionally and customarily, you shouldn't call yourself.

 

[vkrish]

I wanna suggest a rather simple solution to all this..
When the Queen dies, usually there is no need for any immediate mention of Camilla. The Privy Council and Instrument of Accession are all regarding King Charles III,and his stuff.
So the palace keeps mum on Camilla..
The Prime Minister and Leader of Opposition and a few foreign leaders, in their condolences, will also "wish the new King and Queen" a good reign, once a few people start referring to her as Queen, the newspapers will automatically stick to that.
No one will dare raise a debate on that or organise protests/demonstrations in those mourning days, that she should not be Queen.
Just a few strings with politicians, BBC and ITN presenters, and she will be Queen Camilla forever, straight, simple and perfectly right.
Basically I think this entire "Princess Consort" stuff was unnecessary. They wanted to be too magnanimous and generous at the time of wedding. Whats the need to announce all that then and create such a confusion..
Basically, I dont think it helped anyway. Those who accepted her, would have done that anyway, in the long run.
Those who hate her fanatically will do so even if she becomes a nun and go meditate in Himalayas..
This entire "Princess Consort" thing was not at all my favourite.

 

[Dman]

I'm not sure Camilla will be called Duchess of Lancaster. I think The Duke of Lancaster only extend to the King or Queen.

 

[Osipi]

What I was getting at was more that we shouldn't make strictly legalistic presumptions about what can and can't happen, because there's very little actual law regarding what people can be called (as opposed to what they are). The title police aren't going to come along and correct your stationery if you call yourself something that, traditionally and customarily, you shouldn't call yourself.

Actually, the title police (Parliament) did come out full force when Edward VIII abdicated. It was them that decided that he'd be the Duke of Windsor and retain all honors and style and whatnot that a son of a monarch should have and that includes his HRH but not his wife. That was specific. She was The Duchess of Windsor but could not carry the HRH. She wasn't royal and that irked David and he actually insisted on the royal address anyhow.

Very probable too is they're joking in the middle of the night that she's be Queen Gladys and he'll be Fred.

What they can be known as (even perhaps Kermit I for Charles) will take a wee bit of thought with advisors.

Come to think of it.. I like Kermit I. its not easy being green y'know.

 

[MarNoe]

But isn't this only tradition, or custom, not law? Traditions can be broken and new ones set.

But that was my point. Traditions are VERY important to royalty. People are trying to impose their personal requirements for 21st century customs on an ancient institution. It just doesn't work that way.

 

[4Pam]

I find the titles & precedence a lot more confusing than a math class. Thank goodness there are so many who are so patient and knowledgeable to explain.

 

[branchg]

Actually, the title police (Parliament) did come out full force when Edward VIII abdicated. It was them that decided that he'd be the Duke of Windsor and retain all honors and style and whatnot that a son of a monarch should have and that includes his HRH but not his wife. That was specific. She was The Duchess of Windsor but could not carry the HRH. She wasn't royal and that irked David and he actually insisted on the royal address anyhow.

Parliament had no say in what status, rank or style the former King would hold upon abdication. The Act of Abdication simply stated Edward was relinquishing his right, and that of any future descendants, to the throne. It also stated he would not be subject to the Royal Marriages Act. What he would be was entirely within the gift of The Sovereign.

Under the 1917 Letters Patent, he was automatically "HRH The Prince Edward" as a son of George V. George VI declared he would create his brother a Royal Duke and announced he would be known as "HRH The Duke of Windsor". In March 1937, Letters Patent were issued creating the Dukedom officially.

The issue of status for his future wife was addressed with Letters Patent issued a week before their wedding in May 1937. While Wallis would automatically assume the title of Duchess of Windsor as the wife of a Peer, her rank was limited to a Duchess, rather than a Princess, and she would not be HRH. The King took the position that Edward's wife and children could never succeed to the throne and royal rank was therefore limited to him as a son of The Sovereign.

The Duke never accepted the validity of the Letters Patent, stating he was entitled to HRH by right of his birth and there was no question his wife was entitled to share his rank. But the rank and style can be bestowed or removed at any time by The Sovereign, so that was the end of that.

Technically, the marriage was morganatic because legally The Duke's wife and any future children were prohibited from sharing his rank. But they could share his title as a Peer and the Dukedom was hereditary to the male heirs of the body.

 

[branchg]

It's morganatic if she has a title that is not equal to her husband's. It is not morganatic if she has a title that is equal but choses to use instead a title that is lesser.

Currently, she known as a Duchess which is less than her husband's title of Prince of Wales. It is not morganatic, however, because she also has the title of Princess of Wales but choses not to use it.

Her rank is equal as "HRH The Princess Charles" the wife of a son of The Sovereign. As the eldest son and heir to the throne, Charles holds many titles, which Camilla also shares as his wife. At her choice, she used her ducal title as her style, but remains HRH no matter which title she is using.

 

[Ish]

Parliament had no say in what status, rank or style the former King would hold upon abdication. The Act of Abdication simply stated Edward was relinquishing his right, and that of any future descendants, to the throne. It also stated he would not be subject to the Royal Marriages Act. What he would be was entirely within the gift of The Sovereign.

Under the 1917 Letters Patent, he was automatically "HRH The Prince Edward" as a son of George V. George VI declared he would create his brother a Royal Duke and announced he would be known as "HRH The Duke of Windsor". In March 1937, Letters Patent were issued creating the Dukedom officially.

The issue of status for his future wife was addressed with Letters Patent issued a week before their wedding in May 1937. While Wallis would automatically assume the title of Duchess of Windsor as the wife of a Peer, her rank was limited to a Duchess, rather than a Princess, and she would not be HRH. The King took the position that Edward's wife and children could never succeed to the throne and royal rank was therefore limited to him as a son of The Sovereign.

The Duke never accepted the validity of the Letters Patent, stating he was entitled to HRH by right of his birth and there was no question his wife was entitled to share his rank. But the rank and style can be bestowed or removed at any time by The Sovereign, so that was the end of that.

Technically, the marriage was morganatic because legally The Duke's wife and any future children were prohibited from sharing his rank. But they could share his title as a Peer and the Dukedom was hereditary to the male heirs of the body.

The Duke never accepted it, and as a morganatic marriage was deemed impossible through the questioning of whether or not the Duchess could marry the Duke and have him remain King, then the validity of the LPs stating that she was not an HRH are questionable. Yes, they were issues, yes they were followed in Britain (the Duke himself insisted that his wife be treated as an HRH while they lived in France), but that doesn't mean they were legal.

 

[Ish]

I'm not sure Camilla will be called Duchess of Lancaster. I think The Duke of Lancaster only extend to the King or Queen.

I think the only reason why the Duchess of Lancaster thing came up because we were looking for an alternative to Princess Consort. The consensus here seems to be that no one likes the idea of Camilla being called Princess Consort (alternatively because it's ridiculous, it's morganatic, it's too complicated, and it's given too much to the late Diana who would not have been Queen herself), but are willing to see Camilla take one of Charles' lesser titles as the title she is commonly known by, as she's done now. Duchess of Lancaster simply got tossed in because HM is the Duke of Lancaster and while it's debatable whether that's a valid title or an honorary one, it's still one that exists already.

The point overall, is that if this forum and those engaging in this debate are an adequate representation of people who care about the monarchy, then the title "Princess Consort" is not one that's viewed as palatable.

 

[branchg]

So.....if Charles is King and Duke of Lancaster, and Camilla is Queen but doesn't call herself Queen and is known as Duchess of Lancaster, there should be no problem, should there? No need for Letters Patent or Act of Parliament, just an announcement from Charles. And we forget all about Princess Consort.

The Sovereign is not The Duke of Lancaster and it is impossible for a wife to be known by that title because her husband is not a Duke. It is simply a style used when the monarch decides to use it for him/herself as a point of honour and/or informally (i.e. Queen Victoria liked to travel incognito to Nice as "Countess of Lancaster").

Remember it was proposed in 1936 that Wallis Simpson could become The Duchess of Lancaster if The King married morganatically and this was rejected by the Baldwin Government. Constitutionally, the wife of The King is automatically Queen in her own right by virtue of marriage and remains a queen if she is widowed.

So, the idea that Camilla could be known by some lesser title or style when the time comes ignores the fact that the precedents of 1936 have already established this is not possible without legislation.

 

[branchg]

The Duke never accepted it, and as a morganatic marriage was deemed impossible through the questioning of whether or not the Duchess could marry the Duke and have him remain King, then the validity of the LPs stating that she was not an HRH are questionable. Yes, they were issues, yes they were followed in Britain (the Duke himself insisted that his wife be treated as an HRH while they lived in France), but that doesn't mean they were legal.

It was legal because Letters Patent were issued making it law. Whether it was appropriate or fair is irrelevant because The Sovereign alone decides who may hold royal rank as HRH Prince/Princess of the UK.

Wallis did become a Duchess automatically as the wife of a Peer and the eldest male child would have inherited the Dukedom had there been any children. So from a legal perspective, she held her husband's title and style, but did not enjoy his rank, which was entirely within the gift of The Sovereign.

 

[Roslyn]

So, the idea that Camilla could be known by some lesser title or style when the time comes ignores the fact that the precedents of 1936 have already established this is not possible without legislation.

I wonder though, whether on re-examination by different legal minds, and with a different object in mind, there might be a different outcome. I have serious doubts about the soundness of those precedents of 1936.

Sir Walter Monckton told Diana Mosley that nothing and nobody could take away the Duke's title, as son of a sovereign, of Royal Highness, and that being legally married his wife was automatically a Royal Highness too, and that the Duke would have won an action to establish the Duchess' right to be HRH if he were to bring one. "The Duchess of Windsor", Diana Mosley, 1980, as revised 2003, paperback, p. 138.

 

[NGalitzine]

If she was suitable to become the legal, non-morganatic wife of HRH The Prince of Wales I see no good reason why upon his accession to the throne she should not be HM Queen Camilla. The whole HRH The Duchess of Cornwall bit was to ease over the Dianiacs hysteria and avoid comparissons to his late wife. Diana has been dead for 15 years now, they have been married for nearly 8 years and she seems to have been accepted by most of the public as his wife and as a member of the royal family. No good reason why she should not become Queen.

 

[Dman]

I think if Camilla wants to be called The Princess Consort, then I think she should be granted to be called HRH The Princess Consort. I wouldn't argue with her on that. I know that debate will come up again in the future though. The press will milk that debate until all members of the royal family run out of Buckingham Palace screaming.

If she's called Her Majesty The Queen, I wouldn't argue with that either. I think the best thing is to let it go and let it be once the time comes.

 

[Meraude]

Should the right to be called Her Majesty The Queen for the spouse of a monarch to be some kind of beauty or popularity contest?? I don't see any reason for Camilla not to accept the title queen when her husband ascends the throne. That she was to be called the duchess of Cornwall when married in 2005 was due to the fact that the death of Diana was still fairly recent, but I think Camilla have done a great job as consort to Charles and should have the right to the title queen as every other female spouse to British kings have had.

Or should the title queen be reserved for the first spouse of a king, and that every time in the future a king for some reason remarries, be it due to divorce or the death of a wife, a second wife would have to accept a lesser title?

 

[cepe]

Should the right to be called Her Majesty The Queen for the spouse of a monarch to be some kind of beauty or popularity contest?? I don't see any reason for Camilla not to accept the title queen when her husband ascends the throne. That she was to be called the duchess of Cornwall when married in 2005 was due to the fact that the death of Diana was still fairly recent, but I think Camilla have done a great job as consort to Charles and should have the right to the title queen as every other female spouse to British kings have had.

Or should the title queen be reserved for the first spouse of a king, and that every time in the future a king for some reason remarries, be it due to divorce or the death of a wife, a second wife would have to accept a lesser title?

Great post. Charles should not fudge it - she's his wife; she is queen - end of story. There will not be riots in the streets; some unknown MPs will tut-tut in the House but the fact is divorce is acceptable these days; they are married - just get on with it.

I also think that his rating will, in the long term, improve if he is seen not to compromise in any way.