Questions about British Styles and Titles 1: Ending 2022

[branchg]

Wasn't it agreed on with The Queen and Parliament that Camilla has chosen to take up the title HRH The Princess Consort when Charles comes to the throne?

The key word is "intended" which is not the same as "legal". When this was questioned by members of Parliament, the Lord Chancellor confirmed Camilla would hold all the titles and styles of Prince Charles upon marriage and the question of her future title was not being addressed at this time.

So, in other words, she holds equal rank now and will in the future, therefore, if the public is adamantly opposed when the time comes, it will have to be addressed by Parliament with legislation.

 

[Dman]

Oh okay. I'm just not looking forward to the day where this stuff will be addressed.

 

[branchg]

Oh okay. I'm just not looking forward to the day where this stuff will be addressed.

It should be a non-issue by the time it happens and no one knows what life will bring in the meantime. Better to leave it alone and address today.

 

[tommy100]

I really don't see Parliament passing a new act to give Camilla the title "The Princess Consort", the wording from royal aides has always been that Camilla will be "known" as The Princess Consort, to me that suggests a big difference from what she is legally entitled to be called and which title she actually uses on a day to day basis.
When he becomes King surely Charles can create any title he wants (Within reason - and this title is based on Prince Consort of the past) for his wife.
To me it is like how Camilla is know as The Duchess of Cornwall, she holds the title The Princess of Wales at present but chooses not to use it, likewise she will, IMO, be Queen legally but not use the title.

 

[branchg]

Yes, but the difference is, her husband is The Duke of Cornwall, in addition to all of his other titles, which makes Camilla automatically The Duchess of Cornwall. Using her ducal title, instead of her title as Princess of Wales, as her primary style is her choice and not an issue because she holds equal rank as HRH.

Once Charles become King, his wife is automatically HM The Queen in her own right for life. She is no longer HRH or a Princess because her husband is no longer HRH or a Prince.

 

[Queen Penelope]

When Charles is King, he will be the Duke of Lancaster, as The Queen is right now. Perhaps Camilla may use the title Duchess of Lancaster, then there would not be a need to create the title of Princess Consort.

She will, however, not be Queen in her own right, as she is still taking her titles from Prince Charles. A "Queen Regnant", like Queen Elizabeth, is a queen in her own right. Camilla will be "Queen Consort".

 

[wbenson]

Except that she cannot just start using a title or style that (a) doesn't exist and has to be created by The Sovereign with Letters Patent; (b) is not held by her husband, The King, and creates a morganatic marriage since she would not hold equal rank as Her Majesty The Queen.

She can call herself just about whatever she wants so long as it's not fraudulent. There's very little in the way of "cannot" involved in what people say they are. She could wake up tomorrow calling herself the Queen of Siam if she wanted, and society at large would be free to call her that.

It's true that she might not be the Princess Consort, but people aren't required to be, for lack of a better word, truthful in their social interactions.

 

[Artemisia]

...I think there is zero chance any future Parliament would agree to pass legislation consenting to this, so Camilla will indeed be "HM The Queen" when her husband becomes King.

You are absolutely right if it had ever been intended to legally deny Camilla the title and style of the Queen - which I don't believe to be the case.

To me, the most logical scenario (again, if they ever do proceed with the whole Princess Consort thing) is for Camilla to be created The Princess Consort in her own right. Then, while she will legally be Her Majesty The Queen, she will be able to use the lesser of her two titles, The Princess Consort, on semi-official and/or private occasions, and The Queen on state and/or official occassions.

I do sincerely hope though that this will never take place and Camilla will be known only under the style and title she will be entitled as wife of the King - Her Majesty The Queen.

 

[branchg]

When Charles is King, he will be the Duke of Lancaster, as The Queen is right now. Perhaps Camilla may use the title Duchess of Lancaster...

That was actually the title proposed for Wallis Simpson back in 1936 if she married The King morganatically, but it was rejected by the Baldwin Government. The Sovereign cannot be a Peer as the fount of honour and it is merely a style used when in the Duchy on official business ("HM The Queen The Duke of Lancaster").

Camilla would be Queen Consort as the wife of The King but in her own right as "HM Queen Camilla" for the rest of her life.

I agree the best way to handle the issue would be to create her a Princess of the UK in her own right, but it would have to be done before her husband became King to avoid legislation. She would then have her own title and style and could choose to continue using it even though she is automatically Queen.

I highly doubt this will come to pass as it makes no sense to deny her the right to be Queen when she is entitled to share her husband's titles and styles now.

 

[AnnEliza]

This does seem like a very awkward thing, passing special laws and LPs to change her title to Princess Consort, which would perhaps create more attention than just having her automatically become Queen when Charles becomes King. I wish they'd never published that intention, but I guess they thought it was the best choice at the time. Surely Charles, when he becomes King, can simply say he wishes his wife to have full honors as Queen Consort.

 

[Duke-of-Earl]

Charles painted himself into a corner over this 'Princess Consort' issue , in much the same way with the Princess of Wales title. IMO, Camilla will be 'stuck' with princess consort.

 

[branchg]

I predict it will be a non-issue. Camilla is already accepted by the public as a member of the royal family at this point and I think it would be viewed as inappropriate to deny her the right to be Queen.

Given The Queen's good health, it could be 15 years before Charles becomes King if she lives as long as her mother did.

 

[AnnEliza]

True, it may never even come up, or not be very important by then.

 

[AnnEliza]

It seems very inappropriate to me for her not to be Queen Consort.

 

[Duke-of-Earl]

It seems very inappropriate to me for her not to be Queen Consort.

She will be Queen consort but IMO, she will never use tis title.

 

[padams2359]

I think the way in which she, and Prince Charles, wish her to be addressed, will be her title. I don't think it will require a special session of Parliament for it to take place, as many seem to think will be the case. If she want to be called HRH Rooty Tooty Fresh and Fruity, that is how she will be addressed, and there will be no constitutional crisis.

 

[kyle]

Consort question: While Elizabeth was Queen, there were years before Philip was made a prince of the United Kingdom where he was HRH the Duke of Edinburogh. How was he referred to as a consort during that time? Prince Albert was Prince Corsort as well, but he was a prince in his one right. Prince Philip had delinquished his prince title before marriage to Elizabeth. I'm just curious...

 

[branchg]

Philip was always referred to as "His Royal Highness The Duke of Edinburgh" as he is today. He is also correctly referred to as Prince Philip, but most of the time he is styled "The Duke".

 

[kyle]

Thank you, I just picked this up from wikipedia,
"Prince Philip of Greece and Denmark, husband of Elizabeth II, already raised to the peerage as Duke of Edinburgh in 1947, was made a Prince of the United Kingdom in 1957. He is not styled as Prince Consort."

more from wikipedia,

Prince Consort (capitalized) is a formal title. Prince Albert of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha is the only spouse of a British queen to have held it: it was awarded to him in 1857 by his wife, Queen Victoria (reigned 1837–1901). In 2005 Prince Henrik, the spouse of Margrethe II of Denmark, was awarded the same title.

 

[NGalitzine]

Philip was always HRH The Duke of Edinburgh before he became HRH The Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh. After the accession he enjoyed place and precedence next to HM so being made a Prince of the UK made no real difference in his status and how he was treated. Even without the official title the public frequently referred to him as Prince Philip anyway.
Alberts role was I think more difficult. He was HRH Prince Albert after his marriage but it was a number of years before Victoria got around to making him The Prince Consort but never a Prince of GB & I. He was never given a peerage.

 

[AdmirerUS]

Consort question: While Elizabeth was Queen, there were years before Philip was made a prince of the United Kingdom where he was HRH the Duke of Edinburogh. How was he referred to as a consort during that time? Prince Albert was Prince Corsort as well, but he was a prince in his one right. Prince Philip had delinquished his prince title before marriage to Elizabeth. I'm just curious...

I think when you marry a princess, you technically become a prince, so he became a prince when he wed. But as the Duke of Edinburgh and the Duchess of Cornwall have shown - sometimes another moniker is their preference.

Some of the websites I have visited have explained that to be named a Duke one ups being called a Prince, because in the first case you are "using" your spouse's titles and in the second case you carry your own title and the duties that your "Duchy" depends upon. The same goes for "Princess" and "Duchess."

I guess, I would be unbelievably proud to be named the Duchess of Edinburgh. It is a great city with great seats of learning and the arts. It was a center of "Scots Renaissance" while Robbie Burns lived! It is a lively city of sport and commerce. The Duke has made a life work of improving the city and its various constituencies. He loves the place and they love him for it. I say it is a lovely match!

 

[Iluvbertie]

Each country is different but in Britain the husband doesn't take the styles and titles of his wife so when Philip married Elizabeth he didn't become a Prince, anymore than Mark Philips, Tim Lawrence, The Earl of Harewood, Lord Snowdon or Angus Ogilvy became Princes when they married their princesses.

Philip gave up being a Prince of Greece and Denmark and it was then incorrect to call him a Prince until 1957 - although many people did.

To be a Prince in the UK one has to be born a Prince or created a Prince not marry a Princess - whereas to become a Princess one has only to marry a Prince, as well as be born a Princess or be created a Princess.

With Philip there is also the story of his name being written in the game book at either Balmoral or Sandringham as Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh and George VI crossing out the word 'Prince' as Philip wasn't a Prince after 1947 until 1957.

 

[kyle]

I mistakenly thought Philip was the Prince Consort. I was looking at it in relation to Camilla being Princess Consort. I thought maybe they were looking at that as a precident.

When that announcement was made at Charles and Camelia's wedding about Princess Consort, my thought was that there would only be Queen regents from now on. I think it is a good idea, since it is possible that William's daughter could be a queen regent. It would set "queen" apart and make it only by birth.

I know I have no say in it, but it was my first thought.

 

[Artemisia]

There is a difference between a prince consort (husband of a Queen Regnant) and The Prince Consort - an official and independent title that has only been created once in British history (for Prince Albert). Prince Philip is a prince consort but he is not The Prince Consort.

In regards to the title of wives of future Monarchs, if Commonwealth Realms pass Acts of Parliament is passed whereby all spouses of future Sovereigns are to be known as The Prince/Princess Consort, I will be fine with that. After all, the Dutch did something pretty similar (although Maxima will still be a Queen). But to deprive only one woman - Camilla - of a title and style that should rightfully be hers as soon as Charles ascends to the Throne is not only wrong, it would create a dangerous precedent and would turn Monarchy into some sort of a popularity contest.

 

[AnnEliza]

I think when you marry a princess, you technically become a prince, so he became a prince when he wed.

I don't see how that can be right. Neither of Princess Anne's husbands became a prince upon marrying her.

...my thought was that there would only be Queen regents from now on. I think it is a good idea, since it is possible that William's daughter could be a queen regent. It would set "queen" apart and make it only by birth.

There is a regent only if the monarch is a minor. For example, if a king died and his oldest child was say 10 years old, a regent could be appointed to act in the child monarch's name, and the regent could be the widowed queen, the child's mother. That's the only way you could have a queen regent.

Or do you mean a queen regnant, like the present Queen, as opposed to a Queen Consort?

 

[Duke-of-Earl]

I have question. Can Harry if he wanted to verbally renounce his titles as Prince Philip did and would it be legal?

Can Harry just wake up tomorrow and quit being a prince or is there more to it than this?
Again it appears Phillip just 'quit' being a prince.

 

[branchg]

Harry could voluntarily choose not to use his royal styles, just as his cousins James and Louise Wessex are not using theirs. But legally, he would remain HRH Prince Henry of Wales because the 1917 Letters Patent states he is automatically entitled to it at birth, just as Louise and James are.

The Queen would technically have to issue a Royal Warrant, but if she chose not to, he would be "Lord Henry Mountbatten-Windsor" as the son of a Duke.

 

[Artemisia]

I have question. Can Harry if he wanted to verbally renounce his titles as Prince Philip did and would it be legal?
Can Harry just wake up tomorrow and quit being a prince or is there more to it than this?

If Prince Harry made a verbal declaration through St James Palace, Clarence House and/or Buckingham Palace officially declining the honour of being a British Prince, along with the style of Royal Highness, then I am pretty certain there wouldn't be major obstacles. it has, after all worked for Viscount Severn and Lady Louise; legally born a British Prince and Princess, their status was "changed" to that of children of a Peer by a mere proclamation.

In order for Harry to officially cease to become a British Prince, the Sovereign would need to issue Letters Patent or Royal Proclamation to that effect.

 

[HRHHermione]

I think it would be a much, much bigger deal if he chose to do it, and I don't think he ever would. His father is the future king and then his brother. Harry is much closer to the throne than James and Louise and he's been raised to be a major member of the Royal Family.

 

[Artemisia]

I think it would be a much, much bigger deal if he chose to do it, and I don't think he ever would. His father is the future king and then his brother. Harry is much closer to the throne than James and Louise and he's been raised to be a major member of the Royal Family.

Obviously, if it were to happen, it would have been a major issue. Harry is considered to be one of the core members of the Royal Family, current and future.
However, once the decision were made and all it took was an announcement, the manner in which the renouncement was made would hardly matter.