The Royal Forums Coat of Arms


Join The Royal Forums Today
Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #2961  
Old 02-24-2017, 11:41 AM
Osipi's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: On the west side of North up from Back, United States
Posts: 16,778
The one difference though between the ladies that you mentioned and Camilla, though, would be the ladies that you cited were born from the royal bloodline albeit the Fife daughters from a female line.

We're getting off topic of the monarchy under Charles a bit though and perhaps the moderators could deem it worthwhile to open up the Title for Camilla thread that was closed down in 2011 (after reaching part 4). New people have since joined and perhaps this conversation could be continued there? Its an interesting thread to read though still.

http://www.theroyalforums.com/forums...ing-32105.html

I do think, however, that when Charles is King, Camilla will be his Queen.
__________________

__________________
To be yourself in a world that is constantly trying to make you something else is the greatest accomplishment. ~~ Ralph Waldo Emerson ~~
  #2962  
Old 02-24-2017, 03:57 PM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 13,218
One thing not mentioned in this most recent discussion was Tony Blair's comment in the parliament - that 'yes Camilla was going to be Princess of Wales but wasn't going to use that title and that yes she would be Queen Consort and that parliament would have to pass legislation to strip her of that right for her to be known as Princess Consort.' That was a week or so before the wedding.

She won't have to be a Princess of the UK in her own right to be Princess Consort. Prince Albert was never a Prince of the UK and was Prince Consort. Philip, although never having the title as Prince Consort with capital letters, he too was the Consort of the monarch without being a Prince of the UK for 5 years.
__________________

  #2963  
Old 02-24-2017, 10:36 PM
MARG's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Christchurch, New Zealand
Posts: 9,869
Prior to marriage, Philip was a Prince in his own right as indeed was Prince Albert. Camilla was neither and as she takes her title from Charles, its a problem because when he becomes King, all his secondary titles devolve to Prince William.
__________________
MARG
"Words ought to be a little wild, for they are assaults of thoughts on the unthinking." - JM Keynes
  #2964  
Old 02-24-2017, 10:45 PM
Osipi's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: On the west side of North up from Back, United States
Posts: 16,778
What would really be odd is to solve it all in the most generic way. When Charles becomes King, Camilla then becomes Mrs. King.
__________________
To be yourself in a world that is constantly trying to make you something else is the greatest accomplishment. ~~ Ralph Waldo Emerson ~~
  #2965  
Old 02-24-2017, 11:04 PM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 13,218
Quote:
Originally Posted by MARG View Post
Prior to marriage, Philip was a Prince in his own right as indeed was Prince Albert. Camilla was neither and as she takes her title from Charles, its a problem because when he becomes King, all his secondary titles devolve to Prince William.
Philip had given up being a prince prior to his marriage and was only created a Prince of the UK by The Queen in 1957 by LPs. At the time of his marriage he was plain Lt Philip Mountbatten.

There is clear evidence that even George VI no longer saw Philip as a Prince as there was an entry made in the shooting book at either Sandringham or Balmoral where someone wrote in 'Prince Philip' and George crossed out the word 'Prince'.

Albert was never a Prince of the UK.

That is a clear point.

The fact that The Queen gave Philip the title of Prince of the UK, after he had voluntarily given up the title of Prince, is relevant to Camilla being created a Princess of the UK in her own right - her father-in-law had that title bestowed on him so why not on her?
  #2966  
Old 02-25-2017, 02:31 AM
Majesty
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 9,477
Quote:
Originally Posted by Osipi View Post
The one difference though between the ladies that you mentioned and Camilla, though, would be the ladies that you cited were born from the royal bloodline albeit the Fife daughters from a female line.

http://www.theroyalforums.com/forums...ing-32105.html

I do think, however, that when Charles is King, Camilla will be his Queen.
YES OF course she will and she will be crowned as queen if he is crowned King. Which being a traditionalist he's sure to want. As his wife, she IS princess of Wales, she just does not use that title out of deference to Diana. I think that the Princess Consort thing was just there to try and soften things for ardentn Diana fans, who didn't like the thought of her being queen.. but it is going to happen...
  #2967  
Old 02-25-2017, 03:08 AM
Duc_et_Pair's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: City, Netherlands
Posts: 11,202
Quote:
Originally Posted by MARG View Post
[...] because when he becomes King, all his secondary titles devolve to Prince William.
The King has secondary titles as well, for an example Duke of Lancaster. And of course he -fons honorum- can create peerages and/or bestow titles:

"The King has been pleased by Letters Patent under the Great Seal of the Realm bearing date [dd mm yy], to give and grant unto the most honourable Dame Camilla Rosemary Mountbatten-Windsor GCVO the style and titular dignity of a Princess of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

The King has been pleased to declare his will and pleasure that the most honourable Dame Camilla Rosemary Mountbatten-Windsor GCVO shall henceforth be known as Her Royal Highness The Princess Camilla."

:-)
  #2968  
Old 02-25-2017, 03:26 AM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 13,218
To do that first off parliament has to pass legislation stripping her of the title of Queen. Otherwise it is unnecessary to grant her a lower title to the one that she would hold as the equal partner of the King.

What being Princess Consort means is that the marriage is morganatic - something that it was decided in 1936 wasn't possible in British/English law.
  #2969  
Old 02-25-2017, 03:48 AM
wbenson's Avatar
Moderator Emeritus
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: -, United States
Posts: 2,546
Quote:
Originally Posted by Osipi View Post
Isn't it true also that in order to use the style of Princess Consort, Camilla would have to be made a Princess of the UK in her own right as Charles, being King, will not have a princely title for his wife to take the feminine version. Her style then would be Princess Consort but she would also be Princess Camilla.
Have to be? I don't think so. As far as I know, under English law, anybody can call themselves HRH the Princess Consort so long as it's not done for fraudulent purposes. They don't even have to go down the route of letters patent. If the Palace simply releases a statement saying that Camilla "wishes to be known as HRH the Princess Consort," and people call her HRH the Princess Consort, then for all intents and purposes she is HRH the Princess Consort. Someone's wish to be called something can't be illegal, so unless the government were prepared to force the issue, I think it would have to end there, and whatever one thinks of Camilla I think it's safe to say that there won't be a populist uprising pushing the government to demand a crown on her head.

And Britain doesn't have morganatic marriages, but that doesn't place a mandate on a woman to use her husband's title. Married women have the same rights as everyone else to decide what they call themselves. The Duchess of Kent doesn't violate the law by asking people to call her Katharine Kent.

Again, I think it could become a political issue, with the government advising the King that his courtiers should not call his wife anything but HM the Queen...but that would be a political question, not a legal one, and I think it's unlikely that the politics of the issue would compel a government to act. I can think of no legal process that could compel a woman to call herself by her husband's title, and if one did exist, I can't imagine it would last long, because if HM the King's wife can be forced to call herself HM the Queen, then presumably Mr. John Smith's wife would be compelled to call herself the archaic Mrs. John Smith.
  #2970  
Old 02-25-2017, 04:51 AM
Duc_et_Pair's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: City, Netherlands
Posts: 11,202
We see a similar situation in the Netherlands: Máxima legally is HRH Princes Máxima of the Netherlands but "is known as" Queen Máxima. The Dutch Government suddenly developed weak knees in 2013 and left their intention that the title of the spouse will be non-discriminatory and gender neutral: all consorts, male or female, have the title of Prince(ss).

When the dot came to the i, the Government thought it was "undesireable" that Máxima was known with a lesser title than the spouses of other Kings. (Why this undesireability did not stretch out to male spouses, was not mentioned...) and sadly they allowed the blurring of the in essence so logical, clear, gender-neutral and non-discriminatiory titulature coming with the Royal House Act 2002.

We will see this same phenomenon in politics in the UK. Despite earlier intentions, like in the Netherlands, the UK Government will not only point to legislation but also use the argument that it would be "undesireable" that the spouse of the British King is "lower" than other spouses of Kings. Mark my words. To the left, to the right, despite earlier intentions, Camilla will be Queen.

It is a bit sad because with a Princess Lalla Salma, a Princess Máxima and a Princess Camilla it would become "normal" in modern monarchies with gender neutral successions that the consort, no matter the gender, is a Prince or Princess in their own right.
  #2971  
Old 02-25-2017, 04:55 AM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 13,218
Quote:
Originally Posted by wbenson View Post
Mr. John Smith's wife would be compelled to call herself the archaic Mrs. John Smith.
She does if she wants to attend many events such as Royal Ascot e.g. Carole Middleton is clearly seen being titled as Mrs Michael Middleton when she attend there while Zara Tindall is shown as Mrs Michael Tindall at the same events.

Calling herself Mrs Zara Tindall actually says she is divorced - like Sarah, Duchess of York.

Archaic - maybe but still correct form.
  #2972  
Old 02-25-2017, 05:00 AM
wbenson's Avatar
Moderator Emeritus
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: -, United States
Posts: 2,546
Royal Ascot changed the rules on that last year. Married women may now use their own names. They had to have been one of the last institutions to insist on that.

In any case, just as the law doesn't require a woman to use a particular name or title, it also doesn't require that anyone else refrain from using it.
  #2973  
Old 02-25-2017, 05:15 AM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: England, United Kingdom
Posts: 3,533
The fact is no one knows what will happen when the Queen dies and Charles becomes King, who knows what Camilla's title will be? Quite on purpose IMO Clarence House has been vague on the issue and I don't blame them for this, why make a statement that might in a few years seem out of touch?

The facts are Charles will be King, Camilla will become Queen. The fact is she will only lose the title if Parliament takes it off her.

Anything else is speculation. And I personally speculate that Parliament is not going to get involved in taking the title of Queen away from her. I suspect most politicians don't want to been seen as petty enough to take the title of the wife of the new King for something that happened decades before.

I'm not getting into the they were right or wrong/Diana was right or wrong debate, I'm saying most politicians would run a mile rather than getting involved in this.

I really don't think Parliament will get involved in this so Camilla will still be legally called Queen....whether she uses it or not will be for her and Charles to decide and that's the part no one knows. I suspect at worst we will be in the same position as now...Camilla is legally Princess of Wales but uses a lesser title, she would legally be Queen but use a lesser title by choice.

Just completely personally I really don't see why Camilla should not be Queen. By the time the Queen died she will probably have been married to Charles for just as long if not longer than Diana was and whatever else you think of her as a person she has done a decent job as a member of the RF. I also worry about the precedence it sets for future consorts - when they aren't popular enough we take the title off them? Its like when people turned against the Queen in the wake of Diana's death and there were suggestions she should abdicate, looking back on that now it seems ridiculous and shows that people shouldn't try and make decisions based purely on personal emotions at the time.
  #2974  
Old 02-25-2017, 05:31 AM
wbenson's Avatar
Moderator Emeritus
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: -, United States
Posts: 2,546
Yes, I'd be very surprised if this went as far as legislation. It's simply not necessary, IMO.

(And whatever happens, I expect it to be presented as a fait accompli on day one. I don't think this is going to be any kind of deliberative process. The decision will be made, and the justification will fit the decision rather than the other way around. And there are sound arguments on both sides, so they won't even have to reach.)
  #2975  
Old 02-25-2017, 05:51 AM
muriel's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: London / Guildford, United Kingdom
Posts: 10,550
I think the justification will be a simple one. HM The King will be advised by his PM that his wife should be known as HM Queen Camilla.
  #2976  
Old 02-25-2017, 06:00 AM
Lee-Z's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Heerlen, Netherlands
Posts: 3,262
Legally unless something is actively changed she will be the queen, but imo she herself would much rather be untitled or at most "just a duchess"; i don't think Camilla particularly is looking forward to be a "first lady" but will go along with it to support Charles
__________________
Wisdom begins in wonder - Socrates
  #2977  
Old 02-25-2017, 07:21 AM
Duc_et_Pair's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: City, Netherlands
Posts: 11,202
HM The King and HRH The Duchess of Lancaster
HM The Queen and HRH The Duke of Edinburgh
Not such a shocking difference to me.

The British, the Dutch and the Danes have experienced loooong periods with a male consort. Seeing Victoria, Ingrid Alexandra, Elisabeth, Estelle, Leonor and Catharina-Amalia, the male consort will become the new norm in the foreseeable future. It would be trendsetting for the UK to make the title of the spouse gender neutral. Otherwise we keep the discussion why male spouses are no Kings but female spouses are.
  #2978  
Old 02-25-2017, 06:41 PM
rominet09's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: LIEGE, Belgium
Posts: 4,945
I think that, when the Queen disappears, people in UK will be too sad and upset to grant any importance to things like titles and so on.
  #2979  
Old 02-25-2017, 10:41 PM
MARG's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Christchurch, New Zealand
Posts: 9,869
Quote:
Originally Posted by Duc_et_Pair View Post
HM The King and HRH The Duchess of Lancaster
HM The Queen and HRH The Duke of Edinburgh
Not such a shocking difference to me.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rominet09 View Post
I think that, when the Queen disappears, people in UK will be too sad and upset to grant any importance to things like titles and so on.
I have no problem with the concept of the Duchess of Lancaster if it marks the end of 1000 years if tradition. Meaning that the consort of future kings will never be Queen.

If it is just to 'punish' Camilla then no, it's total hypocracy.

But, to be honest, I agree with rominet09 that such quibbles will not be central on the death of our beloved Queen.
__________________
MARG
"Words ought to be a little wild, for they are assaults of thoughts on the unthinking." - JM Keynes
  #2980  
Old 02-26-2017, 02:44 AM
Majesty
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 9,477
Quote:
Originally Posted by rominet09 View Post
I think that, when the Queen disappears, people in UK will be too sad and upset to grant any importance to things like titles and so on.
WIll they?
Titltes are important to the RF. If Camilla weren't treated as queen and called QUeen, I think it would bother Charles and many of his relatives, because it would be implying that she "wasn't good enough" or popular enough. I don't think it will be an issue though. I think that some Diana fans will object but there wont be that many.. just as some Diana fans and some High Anglicans were unhappy about the remarriage after the divorce.
__________________

Closed Thread

Tags
british, camilla, charles iii, charles of wales, coronation, crown jewels, duchess of cornwall, legacy, prince charles, prince of wales, queen camilla, titles, william v


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Monarchies & Republics: Future and Benefits marian Royalty Past, Present, and Future 552 04-07-2021 03:53 PM
The Monarchy after Elizabeth II ysbel British Royals 523 05-22-2018 02:06 PM
The Monarchy in Greece Fireweaver The Royal Family of Greece 310 04-09-2018 01:37 PM
The Monarchy And The Media Alexandria Royal House of Norway 12 04-08-2004 04:06 PM




Popular Tags
american archie mountbatten-windsor asia asian british british royal family buckingham palace camilla camilla's family camilla parker-bowles camilla parker bowles carolin china china chinese ming dynasty asia asian emperor royalty qing chinese clarence house commonwealth countries coronation crown jewels daisy doge of venice dresses duchess of sussex duke of sussex edward vii family tree genetics george vi gradenigo harry and meghan hello! highgrove history hochberg hypothetical monarchs japan japanese imperial family japan history jewellery kensington palace king edward vii king juan carlos książ castle liechtenstein lili mountbatten-windsor line of succession list of rulers meghan markle monarchists monarchy mongolia names plantinum jubilee pless politics portugal prince harry queen elizabeth ii queen victoria royal ancestry solomon j solomon spanish royal family st edward sussex suthida thai royal family unfinished portrait united states united states of america welsh


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 03:33 AM.

Social Knowledge Networks

eXTReMe Tracker
Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2021
Jelsoft Enterprises
×