The Future of the British Monarchy 1: 2018 - 2022

[Osipi]

The moment that Charles becomes King, Camilla will become his Queen Consort. At that moment, as Marg has pointed out, what Camilla will be known as will be furthest thing from Charles' mind and in order for Camilla to be "Princess Consort", he would have to issue letters patent creating Camilla a Princess of the UK in her own right.

Over the past 15 years that Charles and Camilla have been married, she has proven time and time again her dedication and duty to Charles and to the monarchy which he serves. The Queen, herself, has honored Camilla and has shown her appreciation of her service by not only awarding Camilla with the Dame Grand Cross of the Victorian Order but also assigning Camilla to a position on her Privy Council. That, in and of itself, says a mouthful.

People have long memories and I'm sure there'll be those that will still be aghast if Camilla is Queen but the thing is, the way things are done don't change because a group of people don't like the idea. Things are done by tradition and with a world in mourning over the loss of their beloved and iconic Queen, public noise about what Camilla is known as will be a quieter one.

As for Camilla, from what I've seen of her in her role as Charles' consort, what I know of her personality from following her engagements, tours and appearances, how she comes across to people that she meets even who have stated she's a warm, down to earth and sometimes even witty person to be around, I don't think she gives two figs if she's Queen Camilla, Princess Consort or Gladys. Whatever she's called, she's got a job to do, a husband to support and love and that's that. She'll do it with grace and dignity to the best of her ability. *That* is what really matters. ?

 

[Tatiana Maria]

If that official or what people assumed? I only ask because I don't see the official documents of it.

From the website of the Prince of Wales, this is the official announcement issued in 2005:

Announcement of the marriage of HRH The Prince of Wales and Mrs Camilla Parker Bowles

I agree with the predictions in this thread that the tradition will be followed, regardless of what was announced in advance. But as the official announcement that she will be known as HRH The Princess Consort has not yet been retracted, members of the public are not wrong to assume it will be followed.

[...] in order for Camilla to be "Princess Consort", he would have to issue letters patent creating Camilla a Princess of the UK in her own right.

I don't think that would be an issue, but it would not be required. The King would merely need to make his will known, as was done for instance to vary Archie's title from what was established in Letters Patent.

Unfortunately someone didn't do their homework before they posted that. Camilla is not a princess anymore than Sophie, Catherine and Meghan are.

While the Palace formerly contended that Sophie, Camilla, and Catherine were not princesses, they have subsequently changed their view. Both Catherine and Meghan were listed as Princess of the United Kingdom in the birth certificates of their children.

 

[Mbruno]

From the website of the Prince of Wales, this is the official announcement issued in 2005:

Announcement of the marriage of HRH The Prince of Wales and Mrs Camilla Parker Bowles

I agree with the predictions in this thread that the tradition will be followed, regardless of what was announced in advance. But as the official announcement that she will be known as HRH The Princess Consort has not yet been retracted, members of the public are not wrong to assume it will be followed.



I don't think that would be an issue, but it would not be required. The King would merely need to make his will known, as was done for instance to vary Archie's title from what was established in Letters Patent.




While the Palace formerly contended that Sophie, Camilla, and Catherine were not princesses, they have subsequently changed their view. Both Catherine and Meghan were listed as Princess of the United Kingdom in the birth certificates of their children.

I think what MARG was trying to say was that Camilla, like Catherine and Sophie, is not a princess in her own right. They are princesses by marriage as you stated correctly.

In any case, Charles issuing LPs to make Camilla a princess in her own right is actually a fairly easy and straightforward exercise of royal prerogative. So I don’t see what would prevent him from doing it.

Charles’ accession , as any other royal succession, will inevitably invite some people in the UK and the Commonwealth to question the future of the monarchy. The last thing Charles would want in a moment of turbulence like that would be to add more noise to the system by insisting on having Camilla named ( and crowned) queen when the polls still show a significant percentage of the population against it. So, the simplest and least costly course of action is to stick with the Princess Consort designation as he promised he would do. The fact that the “ intention” was announced and kept for so many years is a sign that the courtiers believe it can be legally done.

 

[Lumutqueen]

While the Palace formerly contended that Sophie, Camilla, and Catherine were not princesses, they have subsequently changed their view. Both Catherine and Meghan were listed as Princess of the United Kingdom in the birth certificates of their children.

They weren't listed as Princesses.

On George, Charlotte and Louis's Birth Certificates under Name, Surname of the Mother, Catherine is listed as Catherine Elizabeth Her Royal Highness The Duchess of Cambridge.

On Archie's Certificate Meghan is listed as Rachel Meghan Her Royal Highness The Duchess of Sussex.

On all four documents, Catherine and Meghans occupation is listed as Princess of the United Kingdom. Being a Princess is simply their job. That doesn't make them the same as Anne, Beatrice and Eugenie though.

 

[Osipi]

Using the royal prerogative to create a spouse a prince(ess) of the UK is not something new. Its happened in my lifetime. The Queen, by letters patent, created The Duke of Edinburgh a Prince of the UK in his own right in 1957.

Actually, I think that if Charles does make his will be known that Camilla will be a Princess of the UK in her own right, it actually is going to appease the those that do not want Camilla to be known as HM, The Queen along with actually elevating Camilla in status in her own right as a Princess of the UK. So, in actuality, its a win-win situation. ?

 

[Mbruno]

They weren't listed as Princesses.

On George, Charlotte and Louis's Birth Certificates under Name, Surname of the Mother, Catherine is listed as Catherine Elizabeth Her Royal Highness The Duchess of Cambridge.

On Archie's Certificate Meghan is listed as Rachel Meghan Her Royal Highness The Duchess of Sussex.

On all four documents, Catherine and Meghans occupation is listed as Princess of the United Kingdom. Being a Princess is simply their job. That doesn't make them the same as Anne, Beatrice and Eugenie though.

They take all of their husbands’ titles , so they are indeed Princess William, the Princess Edward and the Princess Charles for example. I agree that they are not, however, Princess Catherine, Princess Sophie or Princess Camilla.

Anyway, my point was that nothing precludes a Queen consort from being simultaneously a princess in her own right. Queen Maxima is legally both Princess of the Netherlands and Princess of Orange-Nassau in her own right as Queen Mathilde is legally a Princess of Belgium in her own right. The Dutch and Belgian courts , however, chose to call them instead by the courtesy title of Queen that they get from their husbands. Letizia is in a somewhat different situation because she is no longer a princess and, under Spanish law, she officially has the title of Queen ( though not Queen of Spain ) as long as she is married to the King, so it is not just a courtesy title as in the case of Maxima and Mathilde.

In Camilla’s case, I believe she would have to be created a princess in her own right by LPs and then the King would make it known that it is his will that she be referred as the Princess Consort rather than the Queen. Whether she would still be the Queen or not ( as she is now the Princess of Wales ) would be immaterial. The only complication I foresee is the coronation ceremony and what would be done in that case.

 

[muriel]

They take all of their husbands’ titles , so they are indeed Princess William, the Princess Edward and the Princess Charles for example. I agree that they are not, however, Princess Catherine, Princess Sophie or Princess Camilla.

Anyway, my point was that nothing precludes a Queen consort from being simultaneously a princess in her own right. Queen Maxima is legally both Princess of the Netherlands and Princess of Orange-Nassau in her own right as Queen Mathilde is legally a Princess of Belgium in her own right. The Dutch and Belgian courts , however, chose to call them instead by the courtesy title of Queen that they get from their husbands. Letizia is in a somewhat different situation because she is no longer a princess and, under Spanish law, she officially has the title of Queen ( though not Queen of Spain ) as long as she is married to the King, so it is not just a courtesy title as in the case of Maxima and Mathilde.

In Camilla’s case, I believe she would have to be created a princess in her own right by LPs and then the King would make it known that it is his will that she be referred as the Princess Consort rather than the Queen. Whether she would still be the Queen or not ( as she is now the Princess of Wales ) would be immaterial. The only complication I foresee is the coronation ceremony and what would be done in that case.

If they do go down the HRH Princess Consort route (which I do not think is likely), Camilla will legally still be Queen, unless an act of Parliament clarifies the position. The King may, however, let it be known that his wife will be styled as HRH The Princess Consort. IMO, this will not require her to be created as a Princess in her own right, as she will continue to legally be HM Queen Camilla.

 

[Lumutqueen]

They take all of their husbands’ titles , so they are indeed Princess William, the Princess Edward and the Princess Charles for example. I agree that they are not, however, Princess Catherine, Princess Sophie or Princess Camilla.

They do indeed take all their husbands titles. However on the birth certificates of their children (Catherine and Meghan in particular) they are not listed as Princess William or Princess Harry.

 

[Denville]

They do indeed take all their husbands titles. However on the birth certificates of their children (Catherine and Meghan in particular) they are not listed as Princess William or Princess Harry.

No because they are Duchess of Cambridge and Duchess of Sussex.. however they are still princesses... by virtue of their marriages to Princes

 

[tommy100]

The reality is that unless there is a change in the law, Camilla will be Queen. I really can't see parliament or indeed Charles pushing through legislation to actively strip a title from his wife who has done a fairly decent job being wife to the heir and representing the UK and Commonwealth for the past 15 years.
If Charles and the Household allow her to be called Princess Consort as well it will not change the fact she will still be legally Queen Consort, just as she is legally Princess of Wales now but by convention due to it being her own wish, is not known by that title.

 

[Lumutqueen]

No because they are Duchess of Cambridge and Duchess of Sussex.. however they are still princesses... by virtue of their marriages to Princes

Please refer to my earlier post on the subject, where I state exactly that.

 

[tausi]

Once Charles or William becomes King - do you think they will ask Catherine, HRH The Duchess of Cambridge to be named a Regent in case of an event George becomes a King before of age? Similar to what QEII did with Prince Philip when Charles was a minor?

I really don't see Prince Harry as a suitable Regent.

 

[Mbruno]

Once Charles or William becomes King - do you think they will ask Catherine, HRH The Duchess of Cambridge to be named a Regent in case of an event George becomes a King before of age? Similar to what QEII did with Prince Philip when Charles was a minor?

I really don't see Prince Harry as a suitable Regent.

If Harry moves out of the UK, he will become ineligible by law to be regent. But then the next in line who is eligible would be Prince Andrew, who is not a good choice either.

In any case, a special act of Parliament would be needed to make Catherine eligible to be regent ( as was done with Prince Philip). It is not really difficult to do it, as it does not require the consent of the Commonwealth realms, but King William V and his government in the United Kingdom would have to agree to it for the necessary legislation to be introduced in parliament.

Anyway, I think it is unlikely that George will still be a minor when William is king , so a potential regency won’t be an issue.

 

[Osipi]

Once Charles or William becomes King - do you think they will ask Catherine, HRH The Duchess of Cambridge to be named a Regent in case of an event George becomes a King before of age? Similar to what QEII did with Prince Philip when Charles was a minor?

I really don't see Prince Harry as a suitable Regent.

I imagine that when William becomes King, its possible that Catherine will then be a Counsellor of State in the UK according to the Regency Act 1937 which states "The Counsellors of State are the consort of the monarch and the first four people in the line of succession who meet the qualifications."

Qualifications are to be over the age of 21 (18 for the heir apparent/presumptive), be a British citizen and domicile in the UK.

So, I believe that yes, Catherine would be named a regent for George until he reached his majority.

 

[tausi]

thank you both for your responses. I have learnt a lot in this forum

 

[Jacknch]

Indeed, I think it would make every sense if Catherine became regent in the event one was required and George was still in his minority. Keep it simple, I say.

 

[Somebody]

If they do go down the HRH Princess Consort route (which I do not think is likely), Camilla will legally still be Queen, unless an act of Parliament clarifies the position. The King may, however, let it be known that his wife will be styled as HRH The Princess Consort. IMO, this will not require her to be created as a Princess in her own right, as she will continue to legally be HM Queen Camilla.

However, how can they decide that Camilla will be named as something she is not: a princess. Right now she is a princess by virtue of being married to a prince (the princess Charles and the princess of Wales); when Charles becomes king he is no longer a prince, so she is no longer a princess. So, for her to be called 'princess consort' they'll have to make her a princess.

 

[tausi]

Interesting enough, I found an article discussing the issue of Counselors of State
From current list, basically 3 of them are not viable options

Prince Philip (who is retired)
Duke of York (forced out)
Prince Harry (wants out)

That leaves only Prince Charles and his eldest son. Only 2 Options.

https://royalcentral.co.uk/features...he-line-of-succession-must-be-changed-136001/

 

[Iluvbertie]

When Andrew stood down last year it was announced that he would continue to serve as a Counsellor of State, as well as attend events such as Trooping the Colour and the Remembrance Day ceremonies.

Harry will only disqualify himself if he moves out of the UK. His statement said he will continue to support the Queen and that would presumably include being a CoS or Regent.

The Regency Act would need to be amended for Catherine to be Regent as the current act, and the amended version from 1953, says the Regent must be the next adult in the line of succession over 18 (that was the amendment) so long as the Regent is three years older than the monarch if between 18 and 21. It was realised that a person who was 18 could be the active monarch but not the Regent.

As the last time any CoS was officially was called on to do something was 2002 and the Queen no longer undertakes overseas tours there won't be a call for any for the foreseeable future.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

However, how can they decide that Camilla will be named as something she is not: a princess. Right now she is a princess by virtue of being married to a prince (the princess Charles and the princess of Wales); when Charles becomes king he is no longer a prince, so she is no longer a princess. So, for her to be called 'princess consort' they'll have to make her a princess.

I think the point muriel was making was that Letters Patent would not be required, as in Britain the "King's Will" has always sufficed to confer the style of prince/ss.

On a side note, the practice of a wife being "named as something she is not" already exists in other European royal families. For example, the wives of the current Dutch princes continued to legally be commoners after marriage, but are named as princesses.

 

[Somebody]

I think the point muriel was making was that Letters Patent would not be required, as in Britain the "King's Will" has always sufficed to confer the style of prince/ss.

Which persons were 'made' princes or princesses based on the king's will? I do know that 'demotions' have been based on the king's will; and princesses being allowed to be known with their first name. But I cannot think of any example (but I expect you will be able to point me to one) where someone who was not a prince or princess (by either their own right or based on their husband's title) who was a prince(ss) purely based on the king's will being made known.

On a side note, the practice of a wife being "named as something she is not" already exists in other European royal families. For example, the wives of the current Dutch princes continued to legally be commoners after marriage, but are named as princesses.

Imo that situation is completely different. According to custom the Dutch princesses are known by their husband's title. Just as Catherine is known as 'the duchess of Cambridge' because of her husband's title.

In Camilla's case whose title of prince would her 'princess consort' be based upon?

 

[Tatiana Maria]

Which persons were 'made' princes or princesses based on the king's will? I do know that 'demotions' have been based on the king's will; and princesses being allowed to be known with their first name. But I cannot think of any example (but I expect you will be able to point me to one) where someone who was not a prince or princess (by either their own right or based on their husband's title) who was a prince(ss) purely based on the king's will being made known.

I cannot think of a recent example either, but according to the information in this article, the style of prince(ss) was not based on Letters Patent until 1917.

https://www.heraldica.org/topics/britain/prince_highness.htm

Imo that situation is completely different. According to custom the Dutch princesses are known by their husband's title. Just as Catherine is known as 'the duchess of Cambridge' because of her husband's title.

In Camilla's case whose title of prince would her 'princess consort' be based upon?

The legal situation in Britain is a bit different insofar as Catherine is legally a duchess, whereas the Dutch princesses are legally commoners but known as princesses.

In Camilla's (hypothetical) case it would be based upon a public announcement that she would be styled as HRH The Princess Consort.

 

[Spheno]

The legal situation in Britain is a bit different insofar as Catherine is legally a duchess, whereas the Dutch princesses are legally commoners but known as princesses.

In Camilla's (hypothetical) case it would be based upon a public announcement that she would be styled as HRH The Princess Consort.

In UK all current duchesses are commoners.

 

[Somebody]

I cannot think of a recent example either, but according to the information in this article, the style of prince(ss) was not based on Letters Patent until 1917.

https://www.heraldica.org/topics/britain/prince_highness.htm




The legal situation in Britain is a bit different insofar as Catherine is legally a duchess, whereas the Dutch princesses are legally commoners but known as princesses.

In Camilla's (hypothetical) case it would be based upon a public announcement that she would be styled as HRH The Princess Consort.

Do you mean that in Britain wives legally take their husband's name and in the Netherlands they legally keep their own family name (which is why Camilla was known as Parker Bowles rather than Shand when marrying Charles; something that would be unthinkable in the Netherlands)? Because otherwise, Catherine is as Sphero indicated a commoner married to a peer and therefore known by the female form of her husband's peerage.

And if I am not mistaken the HRH is the style and the 'Princess' part is the title, so for Camilla to be known as HRH The Princess Consort, I still think she would need to BE a princess. Just like the Duke of Edinburgh was made a prince. Until that moment, he was the duke of Edinburgh but not the prince consort. Since he was made a prince he is both: prince Philip and the duke of Edinburgh.

 

[Frozen Royalist]

So, when this whole situation about the Duke and Duchess of Sussex blows over, what will be the impact on the popularity of the monarchy as a whole?

Could this lead to the monarchy outright collapsing and an establishment of a Commonwealth of Britain? I just think there should be some discussion about the ramifications and impacts of the situation is all and I'd like some opinions from this forum.

https://www.thenational.scot/news/18150230.last-monarchy-starting-crumble/

Prince Harry’s decision to ‘step back’ from the monarchy is a gift to republicans

https://www.theverge.com/2020/1/8/2...uke-british-monarchy-quit-step-back-instagram

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/royal-f...ignals-modern-monarchy-safe-cambridges-hands/

-Frozen Royalist

So what are your opinions?

 

[Pranter]

They've survived a lot worse than this.


LaRae

 

[ACO]

The monarchy and the Sussexes will both be fine. There will be the expected transition. It might be awkward for a while but then things will become the new normal.

 

[Friedrich Karl II]

I don't think that this will be end of monarchy. The queen is still popular and monarchy has seen much worse than this Sussex case. And act of Sussexes hardly was very big surprise. They have always done quiet differently as expected. This was probably going to happen sooner or latter.

 

[Claire]

I don't think it will end the monarchy, but it will be a sore point and a potential headache for ever.

 

[VictoriaB]

I don't think it will have any effect. The succession is secure - Charles, William, George. Had it been William and Kate who decided to bolt it would have been different but Harry leaving is an annoyance and disappointment but largely irrelevant.