The Future of the British Monarchy 1: 2018 - 2022

[Denville]

Are you really claiming that the queen and duke of Edinburgh are just as active as they were 20-30 years ago?

I expect Anne to continue royal engagements as long as she can - and surely when her brother is on the throne. However, slowing down by the time she reaches 90 (if she is still alive and able to carry out royal duties) does seem far more likely than keeping up with her current speed.

Phil has retired and I think that before he gave up he was really pretty fragile and not up to any work... and the queen still does a lot for her age but she is in her 90s now and she cant keep up work indefinteily. Charles is taking over more of her work

 

[Tatiana Maria]

Right now, William and Kate are the only working royals in their generation and IMO the BRF has to figure out if that is sufficient, particularly during the reigns of Charles and William. [...]

At the moment only three working royals are significantly older than Prince Charles, namely his mother, the Duke of Kent, and Princess Alexandra. The rest are approximately his own age or significantly younger. Unless King Charles himself takes action, the number of working royals will probably not be significantly slimmed during his reign.

I don't think there is a desire for some sort of watered down, bicycling Monarchy a la Dutch.

I don't think the Dutch consider their monarchy to be watered down, and for me it seems no lighter on pomp and circumstance than the British monarchy.

The princess royal is turning 70 this month, while she might still do some royal activities if her brother is on the throne at that point, I do think her workload will have been reduced considerably.

The Princess Royal is younger than the Prince of Wales. Do you expect her brother to reduce his own workload while he is on the throne?

After Prince Charles, member countries that form the Commonwealth of Nations will most probably elect a new Head since this position is not hereditary and doesn’t have to be a British Monarchy. If that happens, then Prince William will just have to deal with the 16 Commonwealth Realms. In that case, I think William, Kate, Anne, Edward, and Sophie as full time working Royals will be sufficient. George, Charlotte, and Louse will grow up to become fulltime working Royals.

Does the monarch holding the position of the Commonwealth head actually have effects on the workload of the younger siblings?

 

[Tatiana Maria]

I don't think for a minute that Charles would ask Anne to step down. He wouldn't dare, for one thing - she'd tell him where to shove his suggestion! She's also seen as being very hard-working, and Save The Children and other charities would struggle to replace her and so they'd be furious.

He would not need to force her to step down from the positions she holds with her charities. All he would need to do to "step down" his sister is instruct the court to treat her charitable engagements the way it currently treats the charitable engagements of the Michaels of Kent, the Yorks, and the Sussexes: as private engagements unmentioned the Court Circular and unpromoted by the social media of Buckingham Palace.

However, slowing down by the time she reaches 90 (if she is still alive and able to carry out royal duties) does seem far more likely than keeping up with her current speed.

With her (biological) parents alive and physically able to carry out royal duties at 94 and 96 (and the latter being alive at 99), it is reasonable to predict she and her siblings will physically age at a similar rate.

 

[Mbruno]

Deleted (double post)

 

[Mbruno]

Why would they be asked to step down? If they want to go, or if their health is really poor (it already Is, I think for both Pss Alex and teh D of Kent), I am sure there would be no problem about letting them retrire...But I cant see why Charles would say "I want them to go". If they're up to doing the odd engagement, I cant see why he would say No, I don't want them doing that. If it is to do with money, he's goig to be paying them soemthing till they die anyway so its not like it will cost him more.

Maybe "asked" was not the right choice of word. I still think they will be perhaps "encouraged" to retire or gradually give up patronages and other appointments. Probably that will be also their personal choice.

Does the monarch holding the position of the Commonwealth head actually have effects on the workload of the younger siblings?

I think it still does. Harry was just the second son of the heir (not even a younger son of the sovereign), but he had two major Commonwealth tours after getting married and a substantive appointment as Commonwealth youth ambassador. Even junior royals regularly make official or private visits to other Commonwealth countries that go mostly unnoticed in the press and several royals keep Commonwealth patronages, see e.g. this list of royal tours of Canada in the 2000-2019 period.

 

[Darius1]

At the moment only three working royals are significantly older than Prince Charles, namely his mother, the Duke of Kent, and Princess Alexandra. The rest are approximately his own age or significantly younger. Unless King Charles himself takes action, the number of working royals will probably not be significantly slimmed during his reign.


I don't think the Dutch consider their monarchy to be watered down, and for me it seems no lighter on pomp and circumstance than the British monarchy.


I think it is significantly less ceremonial. The Dutch RF has been relatively small for generations with two only-child Heads of State in the previous century.

 

[Queen Claude]

At the moment only three working royals are significantly older than Prince Charles, namely his mother, the Duke of Kent, and Princess Alexandra. The rest are approximately his own age or significantly younger. Unless King Charles himself takes action, the number of working royals will probably not be significantly slimmed during his reign.

My comment was not about overall numbers but generational representation. William and Kate are the only working royals of their generation. If that is deemed sufficient for the Charles and William's upcoming reigns, then no action is required. But if it is considered insufficient, then the insufficiency needs to be addressed.

 

[Denville]

He would not need to force her to step down from the positions she holds with her charities. All he would need to do to "step down" his sister is instruct the court to treat her charitable engagements the way it currently treats the charitable engagements of the Michaels of Kent, the Yorks, and the Sussexes: as private engagements unmentioned the Court Circular and unpromoted by the social media of Buckingham Palace.




With her (biological) parents alive and physically able to carry out royal duties at 94 and 96 (and the latter being alive at 99), it is reasonable to predict she and her siblings will physically age at a similar rate.

Not necessarily.. its probable that she's a fit woman who will go on being fit, but one can#t be sure...and P and the queen have had to slow down a lot as they got into their 90s...

 

[Denville]

My comment was not about overall numbers but generational representation. William and Kate are the only working royals of their generation. If that is deemed sufficient for the Charles and William's upcoming reigns, then no action is required. But if it is considered insufficient, then the insufficiency needs to be addressed.

Its hard to see what can be done. Charles does not want other younger relatives like teh York girls to work.. and I dont believe the public want them nor I think do Bae and Eugenie want to take on royal work now. Maybe some years ago they might have been more enthusiastic but I think now, they are settled down in marriage, they will be having babies and I doubt if they want to take it on.

 

[Somebody]

Phil has retired and I think that before he gave up he was really pretty fragile and not up to any work... and the queen still does a lot for her age but she is in her 90s now and she cant keep up work indefinteily. Charles is taking over more of her work

Exactly, so it is an unreasonable expectation that Anne will continue in her current pace 'just like her parents didn't slow down'...

Literal quote:

she will follow her mother and father's example on slowing down with age i.e. not doing so.

 

[Somebody]

The Princess Royal is younger than the Prince of Wales. Do you expect her brother to reduce his own workload while he is on the throne?

In 20 years time, sure! I would not expect a 91 year old to have the same energy as a 71 year old... So, no I would not expect them to undertake the same number of engagements. So, yes, I would see a need for supply of younger family members instead of pretending that both Anne and Charles will be able to carry on with the same amount when they are in their 90s. With that expectations they can only fail. However, if we acknowledge that they might indeed continue doing royal duties but too a smaller extent (depending on their health and other circumstances) given how active their parents have been in their 90s, that would both do justice to their work ethic and allows the younger generation to step up (the pace being partly dictated by how much work they - and Edward & Sophie- exactly are able to carry out).

If we would have the same expectations of monarchs/royals in their 90s than in their 60s/70s I would expect a lot more critical commentary how the queen dares to be less active than she was 20-30 years ago. Instead, I see a lot of understanding and admiration that even though she is getting older and older she still is carrying out her constitutional duties and some engagements while slowly but steadily transferring more and more activities she previously did herself to the Prince of Wales.

 

[Somebody]

I think it is significantly less ceremonial. The Dutch RF has been relatively small for generations with two only-child Heads of State in the previous century.

What ceremonies are you thinking about? For example, I would say that 'Prinsjesdag' is very ceremonial - comparable to the British; and far more ceremonial than the other monarchies' yearly opening of parliament.

While two monarchs ago (so more than 40 years ago) your comment might have been an accurate description as that was indeed the philosophy of queen Juliana, both her daughter and grandson do know how to use royal ceremony to their advantage.

In addition, how is the degree of 'ceremonialness' related to number of active family members?

 

[Mbruno]

What ceremonies are you thinking about? For example, I would say that 'Prinsjesdag' is very ceremonial - comparable to the British; and far more ceremonial than the other monarchies' yearly opening of parliament.

But not quite as ceremonial as the British state opening with the imperial state crown and so on.

Overall, I agree that the British monarchy keeps certain ceremonies that have been abandoned elsewhere, such as coronations or the "collar days" with full robes for the orders of knighthood. The British monarch also has a closer association with the state Church and the Armed Forces than some of her counterparts in the continent. Finally, the wording of legal documents like letters patent, commissions and royal warrants, and the ceremonial involving those documents (e.g. how they are sealed, published or signed) are still more old-fashioned in the UK than in other countries.

Neverthless, as I keep repeating, the ceremonial has already been actually toned down in part compared to what it was under George V or even George VI. Prince Charles seems to be rather conservative and, being not so popular himself and succeeding after his mother's very long reign, I don't think he will be comfortable to introduce many radical changes. I expect changes to ceremonial to ramp up in William's reign mostly. And here we are talking about a time horizon maybe thirty years into the future (2050) when, who knows, the world may be sharply different from what it is today.

 

[Darius1]

What ceremonies are you thinking about? For example, I would say that 'Prinsjesdag' is very ceremonial - comparable to the British; and far more ceremonial than the other monarchies' yearly opening of parliament.

While two monarchs ago (so more than 40 years ago) your comment might have been an accurate description as that was indeed the philosophy of queen Juliana, both her daughter and grandson do know how to use royal ceremony to their advantage.

In addition, how is the degree of 'ceremonialness' related to number of active family members?

I wasn't equating the ceremonial with the number of active family members. I was referring to the scope of the monarchy and the panoply of State Occasions as opposed to a scaled back monarchy where this would by necessity be reduced significantly. Although fewer members would entail fewer military ceremonies, flag flying on Royal birthdays, foreign tours, Trooping the Colour (what would happen to Royal Colonels with a reduced role for some?). So I guess yes, a smaller Firm would impact on the ceremonial aspect of the institution. According to Bagehot the monarchy represents the “dignified” branch of the state. Its job is to symbolise the state through pomp and ceremony.

 

[Somebody]

But not quite as ceremonial as the British state opening with the imperial state crown and so on.

Overall, I agree that the British monarchy keeps certain ceremonies that have been abandoned elsewhere, such as coronations or the "collar days" with full robes for the orders of knighthood. The British monarch also has a closer association with the state Church and the Armed Forces than some of her counterparts in the continent. Finally, the wording of legal documents like letters patent, commissions and royal warrants, and the ceremonial involving those documents (e.g. how they are sealed, published or signed) are still more old-fashioned in the UK than in other countries.

Neverthless, as I keep repeating, the ceremonial has already been actually toned down in part compared to what it was under George V or even George VI. Prince Charles seems to be rather conservative and, being not so popular himself and succeeding after his mother's very long reign, I don't think he will be comfortable to introduce many radical changes. I expect changes to ceremonial to ramp up in William's reign mostly. And here we are talking about a time horizon maybe thirty years into the future (2050) when, who knows, the world may be sharply different from what it is today.

Yes, that makes sense. Knighting ceremonies for example don't exist in the Netherlands (as nobody is knighted) - and instead of the crowning of a monarch, a new monarch is inaugurated - however, with much more pomp and circumstance than in several other monarchies that had an inauguration ceremony in the last decades. It will be interesting to see how much 'watered down' Charles' ceremony will be compared to his mother.

Nonetheless, while Britain probably holds the top spot (at least for Europe) I don't think the Dutch monarchy is the least ceremonial - which wasn't stated but implied by stating that the UK shouldn't become as low-ceremonial as the Dutch bicycling monarchy.

 

[Somebody]

I wasn't equating the ceremonial with the number of active family members. I was referring to the scope of the monarchy and the panoply of State Occasions as opposed to a scaled back monarchy where this would by necessity be reduced significantly. Although fewer members would entail fewer military ceremonies, flag flying on Royal birthdays, foreign tours, Trooping the Colour (what would happen to Royal Colonels with a reduced role for some?). So I guess yes, a smaller Firm would impact on the ceremonial aspect of the institution. According to Bagehot the monarchy represents the “dignified” branch of the state. Its job is to symbolise the state through pomp and ceremony.

Other than fewer flag days, what ceremonies would you expect to no longer take place? I could indeed see how it might impact honorary military positions but other than that?

Many continental royal families seem to have more state visits and probably an equal number of official visits; the adult heirs are typically rather active. I guess the main difference is that the British royal family is currently the only one that has 3 generations of active royals instead of 2 (or 1) - I guess that might be the situation again at the end of Charles' reign but I wouldn't be surprised if William would be the first to abdicate resulting in a greater likelihood of having 2 'active' generations instead of 3 in the future.

 

[tommy100]

Are you really claiming that the queen and duke of Edinburgh are just as active as they were 20-30 years ago?

I expect Anne to continue royal engagements as long as she can - and surely when her brother is on the throne. However, slowing down by the time she reaches 90 (if she is still alive and able to carry out royal duties) does seem far more likely than keeping up with her current speed.

Rather obviously not and I'm not expecting Anne to keep up exactly the same number of duties she did 10 years ago in another 10 years time. The point is she has said herself she likes to keep busy and follow in the footsteps of her parents who (at the time of the comments) were still working. Will she retire when she gets to age 96 like her father? Very possibly, but thats 16 years away so let's worry about that in time. For now she is following in the footsteps and example of her parents who at age 70 were still doing hundreds of duties a year.

Again, I don't think Charles will force his family to either carry on working on retire, but those who want to will carry on even if the "official focus" shifts onto C&C and W&K.

 

[Somebody]

Rather obviously not

Yes, which is why I was surprised that you previously stated that Anne wouldn't slow down as the queen and duke of Edinburgh did not slow down. So, I'm glad that is clarified now; they did slow down but mainly in the last decade

and I'm not expecting Anne to keep up exactly the same number of duties she did 10 years ago in another 10 years time. The point is she has said herself she likes to keep busy and follow in the footsteps of her parents who (at the time of the comments) were still working. Will she retire when she gets to age 96 like her father? Very possibly, but thats 16 years away so let's worry about that in time. For now she is following in the footsteps and example of her parents who at age 70 were still doing hundreds of duties a year.

This topic is about the future of the British monarchy and this specific part of the discussion was about whether in 20+ years time the Cambridge children were needed. So, the argument that in the next few years Anne will continue to take on a huge load of royal work isn't really relevant for that decision - of course children that are still in primary or secondary school will not take up any workload.

Again, I don't think Charles will force his family to either carry on working on retire, but those who want to will carry on even if the "official focus" shifts onto C&C and W&K.

That's another discussion; but I agree fully that I don't see a reason to 'retire' the older generations that have worked for the firm for all those years - and even less so his younger siblings.

N.B. I will refrain from further discussion to avoid going around in circles. It seems we mostly agree but by taking comments out of context misunderstandings occurred.

 

[Eskimo]

When Charles talked about slimming down the Monarchy, I think he meant his sibling's children. He will get a ton of bad PR if he "forced" the Kent's or the Gloucester's to retire- to mention nothing of his own siblings. He just won't add as many people to the full time royal work list as under previous reigns. I fully expect everyone, that is currently working as a full time Royal, to continue doing so until they retire/die.

 

[Lilyflo]

There's nothing that Charles has said or done that indicates to me that he'll expect or ask the older members to do anything other than those things they wish to do. If that's carrying on with their engagements or retiring, he'll support them because there's no compelling reason not to. They'll gradually reduce their official diaries and they don't distract from the core BRF work by being media fodder. It's possible that in the next reign, they'll cease to be included in the court circular and continue their engagements privately if that's agreeable to everyone.

I think he'll be keen to include Princess Anne as a key support because she's so reliable, experienced and not likely to use such an elevated position to puff up her own importance or seek to profit from it. He'll want people around him he can trust 100% to support him as King and her track record shows that she's more than capable and her whole working life has been about service and duty to the crown. The Wessexes will also feature but perhaps less so than Anne. Their engagements appear to be fewer than hers anyway and I haven't seen any evidence to suggest that would change. Andrew is out of public life now and likely to stay there. I think it's highly unlikely that Charles will ask any of his siblings' children to 'join the firm'. The Queen didn't do that either so he wouldn't be breaking a tradition.

I suspect there might be some tension over Camilla's position. She has never sought the limelight for herself and she'll be aware of the popularity polls so I'm sure she'd be very happy to be 'Princess Consort' rather than Queen Camilla. I doubt that's what Charles has in mind though. He adores her and will want her to be his Queen in name as well as fact. I've said before that I hope they'll be brave and just do it. King Charles and Queen Camilla might have a rough time initially but if they hold their nerve through the transition (as they did with their wedding, which so many commentators said wouldn't happen) she'll be accepted.

Obviously William, Catherine and family will feature hugely because not only will they be the King and Queen in waiting, they are young, photogenic and popular. It's a great pity that Harry and Meghan aren't also part of Charles' supporting team but that's for another thread.

 

[Fijiro]

Answer me a question then. If the Commonwealth nations don't want anything to do with the British monarchy, why did they vote to have Charles as the head of this organization called the Commonwealth of Nations when the Queen passes back in 2018?

"“We recognise the role of the Queen in championing the Commonwealth and its peoples. The next head of the Commonwealth shall be his Royal Highness Prince Charles, the Prince of Wales,” they said."

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/apr/20/prince-charles-next-head-commonwealth-queen

Because @Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting (CHOGM) in April 2019, the Queen hosted the 53 Heads of the Nations that form the Commonwealth @BP, and used the occasion to campaign for Prince Charles.

And I quote the Queen here “… It remains a great pleasure and honour to serve you as Head of the Commonwealth and to observe, with pride and satisfaction, that this is a flourishing network. It is my sincere wish that the Commonwealth will continue to offer stability and continuity for future generations, and will decide that one day The Prince of Wales should carry on the important work started by my father in 1949. By continuing to treasure and reinvigorate our associations and activities, I believe we will secure a safer, more prosperous and sustainable world for those who follow us: a world where the Commonwealth's generosity of spirit can bring its gentle touch of healing and hope to all. …”https://www.royal.uk/speech-given-her-majesty-queen-head-commonwealth-formal-opening-chogm

And I imagine a lot of talk and cajoling went on behind the scene before she made the above statement.

And this is an unfair advantage. The CHOGM should be allowed to decided their next Head without giving some members unfair advantage.

 

[Somebody]

There's nothing that Charles has said or done that indicates to me that he'll expect or ask the older members to do anything other than those things they wish to do. If that's carrying on with their engagements or retiring, he'll support them because there's no compelling reason not to. They'll gradually reduce their official diaries and they don't distract from the core BRF work by being media fodder. It's possible that in the next reign, they'll cease to be included in the court circular and continue their engagements privately if that's agreeable to everyone.

I think he'll be keen to include Princess Anne as a key support because she's so reliable, experienced and not likely to use such an elevated position to puff up her own importance or seek to profit from it. He'll want people around him he can trust 100% to support him as King and her track record shows that she's more than capable and her whole working life has been about service and duty to the crown. The Wessexes will also feature but perhaps less so than Anne. Their engagements appear to be fewer than hers anyway and I haven't seen any evidence to suggest that would change. Andrew is out of public life now and likely to stay there. I think it's highly unlikely that Charles will ask any of his siblings' children to 'join the firm'. The Queen didn't do that either so he wouldn't be breaking a tradition.

The tradition (if we can speak of it) was for the royal dukes to be active; as Elizabeth only had a sister it was consistent with the previous generation (princess Mary/the princess Royal's children weren't included either) that her children weren't. The only exception she made was for princess Alexandra, as she needed more female representation. Her younger brother has consistently not been taken into account for royal work.

So, with that in mind, (if times hadn't changed): James would be the most likely candidate of his cousins to support his uncle Charles and cousin William as his father's heir. And if female representation was needed, they could turn to princess Beatrice as the most senior princess in her generation.

Regaring the Wessexes, I could see them take on a larger load now the children are getting older. One of their main focuses will remain the Duke of Edinburgh Awards but over the last few months we seem to have seen Sophie at least as much as Anne on video calls.

 

[Eskimo]

There's nothing that Charles has said or done that indicates to me that he'll expect or ask the older members to do anything other than those things they wish to do. If that's carrying on with their engagements or retiring, he'll support them because there's no compelling reason not to. They'll gradually reduce their official diaries and they don't distract from the core BRF work by being media fodder. It's possible that in the next reign, they'll cease to be included in the court circular and continue their engagements privately if that's agreeable to everyone.

I think he'll be keen to include Princess Anne as a key support because she's so reliable, experienced and not likely to use such an elevated position to puff up her own importance or seek to profit from it. He'll want people around him he can trust 100% to support him as King and her track record shows that she's more than capable and her whole working life has been about service and duty to the crown. The Wessexes will also feature but perhaps less so than Anne. Their engagements appear to be fewer than hers anyway and I haven't seen any evidence to suggest that would change. Andrew is out of public life now and likely to stay there. I think it's highly unlikely that Charles will ask any of his siblings' children to 'join the firm'. The Queen didn't do that either so he wouldn't be breaking a tradition.

I suspect there might be some tension over Camilla's position. She has never sought the limelight for herself and she'll be aware of the popularity polls so I'm sure she'd be very happy to be 'Princess Consort' rather than Queen Camilla. I doubt that's what Charles has in mind though. He adores her and will want her to be his Queen in name as well as fact. I've said before that I hope they'll be brave and just do it. King Charles and Queen Camilla might have a rough time initially but if they hold their nerve through the transition (as they did with their wedding, which so many commentators said wouldn't happen) she'll be accepted.

Obviously William, Catherine and family will feature hugely because not only will they be the King and Queen in waiting, they are young, photogenic and popular. It's a great pity that Harry and Meghan aren't also part of Charles' supporting team but that's for another thread.

Charles does not have to do anything. There is no such title as Princess Consort for the spouse of the Sovereign in the UK- so they cannot just choose for her to be called that. Parliament would have to agree to actually grant her the title otherwise she would be HM The Queen and nothing else.

 

[tommy100]

What makes me laugh a bit is that most of this "slimmed down RF" comes from comments made not even by Charles in the late 90s/early 2000s when his PR people spun anything to make him look good, they actively pushed stories no matter how true or not that got him good PR. I'm sure it came about after moans of a full trooping colour balcony and royal finances when saying he wanted a slimmed down RF looked good.

That said I think in the long run Charles likely does want to limit those "working royals" so we don't end up in a situation where slightly distant relatives are representing the sovereign , in honesty that has pretty much been done for him already - Zara and Peter have no title and their own private working lives, James and Louise were not given (or don't use at least) HRH as they could with the suggestion they will have more private lives.

What I do wonder is if we will still see the likes of Anne undertaking official visits overseas. These are often delegated out by the royal visits committee with the royal household and Foreign Commonwealth office. These are the sort of things I can see Charles limiting to him and Cams, Wills and Kate but then thinking of it Anne and Ed/Sophie undertook these even when HM was undertaking state visits and Charles was doing his official visits so maybe they will still need Anne especially now Harry isn't around to do them as he once did.

 

[Osipi]

There are really a lot more variables to look at when thinking about a British monarchy in the future besides the size and scope of what members of the family will be working or not. That's just one small part of the whole mechanism.

How they do things in the future (regardless of the number or working royals) is one of those variables. How much will the world change and how will the monarchy have to adapt and conform and reevaluate how they do things? We've seen quite vividly just how much our world has changed from August 2019 to August 2020. No one would have ever figured in "how to deal with a global pandemic" this time last year. We saw how the monarchy adapted and found ways to keep flying the flag and be in support of the British people even from a lock down.

The pandemic has opened the door to doing virtual engagements in place of the physical being there and photo op. It didn't lessen the impact of what they were doing. They just did it differently while stressing following health guidelines in place to stop the spread of Covid-19. We even witnessed (somewhat) the very first ever Covid-19 royal wedding.

If such a drastic change could happen seemingly overnight now, looking at the British monarchy 20 years from now makes me wonder what other kinds of variables and monkey wrenches will be thrown in the soup to bring about changes.

 

[Osipi]

Charles does not have to do anything. There is no such title as Princess Consort for the spouse of the Sovereign in the UK- so they cannot just choose for her to be called that. Parliament would have to agree to actually grant her the title otherwise she would be HM The Queen and nothing else.

Correct. The stickler being that a woman takes her title from her husband hence Camilla is The Duchess of Cornwall because Charles is the Duke. To be a princess consort, first off, there is no "princess" title available to Camilla from Charles when he is king as he'll no longer be a "prince". Parliament would then have to approve of Camilla being a "princess in her own right" just as Philip, when the time came, was created a prince in his own right by his wife. Until then, he was Lt. Philip Mountbatten-Windsor, Duke of Edinburgh.

In other words, should Camilla becomes "Princess Consort", she would be the first married in female to the royal family to attain the title of princess in her own right right besides those females that were born a princess of the royal blood.

Some people feel that "Princess Consort" is a "lesser" title when in actuality it elevates Camilla's status to not being dependent on her husband's titles. ?

I think I got that right. Need more coffee.

 

[Somebody]

Correct. The stickler being that a woman takes her title from her husband hence Camilla is The Duchess of Cornwall because Charles is the Duke. To be a princess consort, first off, there is no "princess" title available to Camilla from Charles when he is king as he'll no longer be a "prince". Parliament would then have to approve of Camilla being a "princess in her own right" just as Philip, when the time came, was created a prince in his own right by his wife. Until then, he was Lt. Philip Mountbatten-Windsor, Duke of Edinburgh.

In other words, should Camilla becomes "Princess Consort", she would be the first married in female to the royal family to attain the title of princess in her own right right besides those females that were born a princess of the royal blood.

Some people feel that "Princess Consort" is a "lesser" title when in actuality it elevates Camilla's status to not being dependent on her husband's titles. ?

I think I got that right. Need more coffee.

I fully agree on Camilla but I believe that The Duke of Edinburgh peerage came with the style of royal highness; and wikipedia seems to suggest the same - or more precisely, indicates that he regained the HRH-style one day earlier.

10 June 1921 – 28 February 1947: His Royal Highness Prince Philip of Greece and Denmark
28 February 1947 – 19 November 1947: Lieutenant Philip Mountbatten
19 November 1947 – 20 November 1947: Lieutenant His Royal Highness Sir Philip Mountbatten
20 November 1947 – 22 February 1957: His Royal Highness The Duke of Edinburgh
22 February 1957 – present: His Royal Highness The Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh

On 19 November 1947, the day preceding his wedding, King George VI bestowed by Letters Patent the style His Royal Highness on Philip, and on the morning of the wedding, 20 November 1947, further Letters Patent of that day created him Duke of Edinburgh, Earl of Merioneth, and Baron Greenwich of Greenwich in the County of London. Consequently, being already a Knight of the Garter, between 19 and 20 November 1947 he bore the unusual style His Royal Highness Sir Philip Mountbatten and is so described in the Letters Patent of 20 November 1947.

 

[Osipi]

I fully agree on Camilla but I believe that The Duke of Edinburgh peerage came with the style of royal highness; and wikipedia seems to suggest the same - or more precisely, indicates that he regained the HRH-style one day earlier.

Seems like I forgot the HRH part. The point though was to illustrate that Philip was created a prince of the UK in his own right which is what would happen if the process went through and Camilla was created Princess Consort. Actually, if I'm not mistaken, it would be The Princess Consort? ?

This belongs in the title and style thread anyways.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

Charles does not have to do anything. There is no such title as Princess Consort for the spouse of the Sovereign in the UK- so they cannot just choose for her to be called that. Parliament would have to agree to actually grant her the title otherwise she would be HM The Queen and nothing else.

Correct. [...]

I fully agree on Camilla [...]

I disagree, but as I agree with Osipi that it properly belongs to the thread on titles and styles I will post my reply there.

ETA: However, you will observe here that princely titles are granted by the Sovereign through Letters Patent or Royal Warrants, which do not require the agreement of Parliament.

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

 

[maria-olivia]

We all know that the Prince of Wales will not have a long Reign !