The Monarchy under Charles

[AdmirerUS]

I don't there's anything saying that Camilla can't be Queen Consort. The Palace said that when Charles comes to the throne, Camilla would be titled Princess Consort. A PR tactic of course and it worked. The Palace and Clarence House current position is that it will be her title when Charles is King.

I think it really don't matter anyway. Princess Consort or Queen, people will get used to it after a while. No matter what, Camilla will be Queen, even with a different title. She's the current Princess of Wales but it's not the title that she officially go by.

I think that some people on the forums think that if the DOCornwall is called anything other than the Princess Consort (it used to be on the royal.gov site that she would be so called) it will mean the Palace has gone back on its word. I'm not arguing - I am just saying that some people her believe that and I understand why.
When the Queen issued the writ (or whatever) that made Anne The Princess Royal, we called her that going forward.
I think all of us here on the forums have an opinion about The DOCornwall's future title.
IMHO, it will be what it will be, the vast majority of people won't much care and we can argue it until we turn purple here on the Forums. It just won't change what Charles chooses to do when he is King.

 

[Ish]

Catherine isn't in the same position as Camilla. Camilla's past is totally different from Catherine's past. So, no, none of this applies to Catherine.

So what you're saying is that because Camilla had an affair with a man 20 years ago - while that man's wife was having affairs as well for the record - she should be treated as less than someone else in her position who didn't have an affair?

That having an affair is enough to ruin a woman's reputation forever? That she should not be treated as her husband's wife? That parliament should pass legislature specifically for her to strip her of the right to hold a title that she gains through her marriage just because 20 years ago she had an affair with a man?

And you're okay with it because the title HRH Princess Consort sounds good?

That's ludicrous. That's ridiculous. That's sexist.

 

[Iluvbertie]

Beautifully said Ish.

 

[AdmirerUS]

So what you're saying is that because Camilla had an affair with a man 20 years ago - while that man's wife was having affairs as well for the record - she should be treated as less than someone else in her position who didn't have an affair?

That having an affair is enough to ruin a woman's reputation forever? That she should not be treated as her husband's wife? That parliament should pass legislature specifically for her to strip her of the right to hold a title that she gains through her marriage just because 20 years ago she had an affair with a man?

And you're okay with it because the title HRH Princess Consort sounds good?

That's ludicrous. That's ridiculous. That's sexist.

Agreed - no one is taking anything away from Charles - and he was the other half of the equation. Sexist.
But I still think that what WE THINK does not matter. This hand of cards will play out as it is played out.

 

[Rudolph]

But the fact Charles and his advisors went down the road of Princess Consort was for damage control. There are many, many people in Britain that don't want Camilla as Queen. Its the same reason Camilla doesn't style herself as PoW.

If she were more palatable to the public none of this would have been necessary in the first place.

 

[royalistbert]

The main worry is a that the tradition of a Kings wife being called Queen could be lost forever.

 

[Dman]

So what you're saying is that because Camilla had an affair with a man 20 years ago - while that man's wife was having affairs as well for the record - she should be treated as less than someone else in her position who didn't have an affair?

That having an affair is enough to ruin a woman's reputation forever? That she should not be treated as her husband's wife? That parliament should pass legislature specifically for her to strip her of the right to hold a title that she gains through her marriage just because 20 years ago she had an affair with a man?

And you're okay with it because the title HRH Princess Consort sounds good?

That's ludicrous. That's ridiculous. That's sexist.

You totally got me wrong. I think Camillia should be crowned Queen or Princess Consort. I'm just stating the reasons why It's been officially stated why this debated continues. I'm in no way sexist.

But the fact Charles and his advisors went down the road of Princess Consort was for damage control. There are many, many people in Britain that don't want Camilla as Queen. Its the same reason Camilla doesn't style herself as PoW.

If she were more palatable to the public none of this would have been necessary in the first place.

I agree.

I also wanted to point out to everyone that just because I think the title "HRH The Princess Consort" sounds good and have a nice ring to it, does not mean I think that's the only title Camilla should have. I really like the sound of that title; just like the title The Princess Royal.

The main worry is a that the tradition of a Kings wife being called Queen could be lost forever.

I don't think that would happen.

 

[Winnie]

Back to the type of Monarchy Charles will reign, I truly believe he will oversee a really tight ship. He will have very few "hanger-on" individuals. I believe he knows exactly how he wants his country to be directed and will strive to see it happen. That being said, I don't believe this will happen for another good ten plus years.

 

[GracieGiraffe]

When Charles becomes King, Camilla will be crowned Queen.

 

[casualfan]

When Charles becomes King, Camilla will be crowned Queen.

Sure, but this thread has given me a reason to live--just to see what happens. ?

 

[Dman]

Back to the type of Monarchy Charles will reign, I truly believe he will oversee a really tight ship. He will have very few "hanger-on" individuals. I believe he knows exactly how he wants his country to be directed and will strive to see it happen. That being said, I don't believe this will happen for another good ten plus years.

He's going to make a great King indeed. His reign isn't as far off as it used to be though.

 

[Lady Nimue]

Sure, but this thread has given me a reason to live--just to see what happens. ?

That's funny!

 

[GracieGiraffe]

Sure, but this thread has given me a reason to live--just to see what happens. ?

That's funny!

I'm waiting for all the outraged commentary.

 

[Ish]

He's going to make a great King indeed. His reign isn't as far off as it used to be though.

His reign has been a heartbeat away for 62 years now. He is no closer to being King than he was on 7 February 1952.

 

[Ish]

You totally got me wrong. I think Camillia should be crowned Queen or Princess Consort. I'm just stating the reasons why It's been officially stated why this debated continues. I'm in no way sexist.

The problem is that the title Princess Consort itself is sexist. You yourself may not normally be sexist, but supporting is a moment of sexism.

You have said on several occasions that you support the idea of Camilla being crowned Princess Consort, including in the post I've quoted. That means that you're supporting a sexist title.

 

[MARG]

Catherine isn't in the same position as Camilla. Camilla's past is totally different from Catherine's past. So, no, none of this applies to Catherine.

Wrong! Creating, in law, the title of Princess Consort changes the British Royal Family forever. It sets a precedent that will turn to the proverbial when there is any Official Statement to the effect that it will apply to Camilla only.

Question: Is the UK a signatory of the UN Convention of the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women?

I'm waiting for all the outraged commentary.

Why on earth would you want to indulge in troll -like behaviour. Most people come here to participate in the discussion, and yes there are definitely "For" and "Against" parties on this board. But, there are also a large number of "I don't Knows" and "Not quite Sure's" that read and learn and maybe take a stand for or against.

Trolls contribute nothing but anger and dissention which is, of course, their raison d'être.

 

[Ish]

Wrong! Creating, in law, the title of Princess Consort changes the British Royal Family forever. It sets a precedent that will turn to the proverbial when there is any Official Statement to the effect that it will apply to Camilla only.



Question: Is the UK a signatory of the UN Convention of the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women? [/b]

If I'm reading the UN's page on the treaty right then yes, they have.

Of HM's realms, Antigua and Barbuda, the Bahamas, Papua New Guinea, St. Kitts and Nevis, St. Lucia, St. Vincent and the Grenadines, the Solomon Islands, and Tuvalu have all just ratified it, while Australia, Barbados, Belize, Canada, Grenada, Jamaica, New Zealand, and the UK have all signed and ratified it.



Why on earth would you want to indulge in troll -like behaviour. Most people come here to participate in the discussion, and yes there are definitely "For" and "Against" parties on this board. But, there are also a large number of "I don't Knows" and "Not quite Sure's" that read and learn and maybe take a stand for or against.



Trolls contribute nothing but anger and dissention which is, of course, their raison d'être.

I don't think Giraffe is trolling here. She's merely saying that she's looking forward to witnessing the insanity that this board and those like it will be when the day comes. Either way, Queen or Princess Consort, some people are going to be very vocal in their disapproval. Personally, even though I can't guarantee that I won't be one of the voices in that foray, I have to admit that for an observer it will probably be entertaining. People fighting on the Internet about things that are completely out of their control often can be.

 

[Dman]

The problem is that the title Princess Consort itself is sexist. You yourself may not normally be sexist, but supporting is a moment of sexism.

You have said on several occasions that you support the idea of Camilla being crowned Princess Consort, including in the post I've quoted. That means that you're supporting a sexist title.

Well, I most definitely don't want to support anything that would come off as "sexist" but the title "HRH The Princess Consort" came from the palace with The Queen, Prince of Wales & Duchess of Cornwall and palace officials approval. May have been a PR tactic but they are the ones that laid that idea out there...plain and simple. Then I guess they're all "sexist" or support sexism or at least didn't consider how the title would come off to others.

Very interesting conversation.

 

[Ish]

I think the title was one of those things that a PR team came up with in an attempt to appease the masses and make them accept the marriage.

I don't think that they really considered the implications of the title or what would be necessary to actually make it happen. The family isn't always the best at PR and I wouldn't be surprised if they said it with the expectation that after the wedding we all would forget about it.

The problem with the title is more than just the sexism though.

It creates a really bad precedent. It calls into question whether any future wife of a British King will be Queen.

It creates morganatic marriage in a realm that in more than 1,000 years of history has never had it. If Henry VIII can have 6 separate women as Queen - 1 who was his brother's widow, 1 who was his mistress during his previous marriage, and 1 who was not only his mistress previously but also the sister of another of his mistresses - then Charles should be allowed to have his second wife as his Queen. Seriously. We are being less accepting today than they were 500 years ago.

In order for Camilla to not be Queen, then Parliament has to pass legislature stripping her of that title. Charles can't just say "she's not Queen," Parliament has to do it. It is ridiculous to have at least one parliament - and it's entirely possible that every realm will have to pass such legislature - passing legislature that will affect literally one person just because some people aren't over an affair that happened 20 years ago.

It says to Camilla that she isn't good enough. That all the work she has done as Charles' wife isn't enough. I'm not a big Diana fan, I admit that, but I do respect the work that she did as a Princess. However, I don't think that just because she was good at being a Princess we have to punish Camilla for not being Diana - Camilla is good in her own right. What's more is that we would be punishing her for having an affair with a man who had decided his marriage was in a sense over. We aren't punishing him for it, we didn't punish Diana who also had affairs, we didn't punish the men who Diana had her affairs with. Only Camilla is singled out in this. Even if I thought that Camilla deserved to be punished in some way for her behaviour - and in turn, I would also think that Charles, Diana, and James Hewitt would also deserve punishment - I don't agree that stripping her of her title is the right way to go about it.

I'm reminded of Margaret Atwood's Handmaid's Tale[/b] in this attitude. There women are treated as less than, and divorce is made illegal. The narrator is a woman who prior to the start of the book was married to a man who had been divorced and, as shown in her memories, through the course of the revolution that created the dystopian world the book is set in the narrator loses her position as her husband's wife. She starts off as... Well the book's equivalent of Mrs. John Smith, then ends up being forced to be Miss Jane Doe again because the state no longer recognizes her marriage. Stripping Camilla of the title Queen is that kind of mentality. Sure she might get another title and might still legally be Charles' wife, but not allowing her to use the title of Queen is essentially saying to her that we see her as nothing more than the mistress, even after all this time.

Even if she's simply made a Princess in her own right and uses it over the title Queen while still holding that title she's still being diminished, pushed into that position of mistress again and again. In a way, we're doing it now by not accepting her as Princess of Wales, although I understand the logic there - Diana was the Princess of Wales and out of respect to her memory, to her sons, and to her fans Camilla doesn't use it. Diana was never Queen, and long before Camilla and Charles got married Diana ceased to be the next Queen. This wasn't Camilla's fault, no matter how much people chose to blame her. We need to accept that and move on.

That said, I actually think the whole issue of Camilla's titles says something strong about how much Camilla loves and cares for Charles. Even when faced with the idea that she would never be accepted, that she would always be treated as less than regardless of her own successes, and even knowing that she may very well always be put into the mistress position she chose to stay with and marry Charles. She could have made a new life for herself and break free of it, but she decided Charles was worth it. That's a great love.

At the same time, my opinion of Charles is less. I don't hold a grudge against him for his failed marriage or his affair - there were 2 in that marriage and Diana is as accountable as he is. But when he decided that he had to have Camilla he also chose to relegate her to the position of mistress. He chose to make her less than, and to give us this power to never accept her.

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

I think the situation will be that when Charles is King, Camilla is Queen, like Camilla is The Princess of Wales now. But... she "will be known as" The Princess Consort, very much alike she "is know as" The Duchess of Cornwall" now.

In both cases no any legislation is required. Simply another style is used notwithstanding the fact that she will be the rightful Queen as she is the rightful Princess of Wales. It is the same mechanism as with the children of Prince Edward: both the Viscount Severn as well his sister are HRH Prince James of Wessex as well HRH Princess Louise of Wessex but "are known as" Lord James and Lady Louise notwithstanding their rightful title, style and dignity as a Prince(ss) of the United Kingdom.

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

[....] He chose to make her less than, and to give us this power to never accept her.

The Prince of Wales has little say in the matters of titulature. His titulature comes as it is and always has been for an eldest son of a Sovereign, Camilla has not been stripped of or been denied anything. When she is suddenly addressed as Her Royal Highness The Princess of Wales, nothing is needed, no decision, no paperwork, nothing. It can happen today. It is entirely possible that Prince Charles loves it when his darling Camilla holds his style, dignity and title(s) but others have a say in this matter too, maybe even Camilla herself.... In retropect it was a smart move, to get the nasty thorn out of the flesh. I hope that Camilla will just be Queen, like I hope that James and Louise will just be Prince and Princess but sometimes things just turn out a little different in practice. Maybe Camilla loves her title The Duchess of Cornwall because it gives her an own identity, not just "the wife of...".

I would not mind Camilla being styled HRH The Duchess of Lancaster as an alternative to HRH The Princess Consort. The Duchy of Lancaster is to the Sovereign what the Duchy of Cornwall is to the Heir.

 

[Osipi]

I think the situation will be that when Charles is King, Camilla is Queen, like Camilla is The Princess of Wales now. But... she "will be known as" The Princess Consort, very much alike she "is know as" The Duchess of Cornwall" now.

In both cases no any legislation is required. Simply another style is used notwithstanding the fact that she will be the rightful Queen as she is the rightful Princess of Wales. It is the same mechanism as with the children of Prince Edward: both the Viscount Severn as well his sister are HRH Prince James of Wessex as well HRH Princess Louise of Wessex but "are known as" Lord James and Lady Louise notwithstanding their rightful title, style and dignity as a Prince(ss) of the United Kingdom.

There is a difference here. When Camilla married Charles, she took on all of the feminine aspects of his titles. By using the title The Duchess of Cornwall, she takes that from his title of Duke of Cornwall. When Charles becomes King, he will no longer be a Prince of anything. The title (and style) of Princess Consort will be unique to only Camilla.

 

[tommy100]

I think the situation will be that when Charles is King, Camilla is Queen, like Camilla is The Princess of Wales now. But... she "will be known as" The Princess Consort, very much alike she "is know as" The Duchess of Cornwall" now.

In both cases no any legislation is required. Simply another style is used notwithstanding the fact that she will be the rightful Queen as she is the rightful Princess of Wales. It is the same mechanism as with the children of Prince Edward: both the Viscount Severn as well his sister are HRH Prince James of Wessex as well HRH Princess Louise of Wessex but "are known as" Lord James and Lady Louise notwithstanding their rightful title, style and dignity as a Prince(ss) of the United Kingdom.

I agree 100%, I can't see Charles wanting parliament to pass all the legislation etc to strip Camilla of being Queen. I think it will be as now, she will hold the title Queen as she is married to the King but will choose to use a different title, IMO much may depend on the media and public of the time, if they freely call her Queen then she will be known as such, if a 'fuss' is created over her title in the first days of the new reign then the Princess Consort title will be used.

 

[tommy100]

There is a difference here. When Camilla married Charles, she took on all of the feminine aspects of his titles. By using the title The Duchess of Cornwall, she takes that from his title of Duke of Cornwall. When Charles becomes King, he will no longer be a Prince of anything. The title (and style) of Princess Consort will be unique to only Camilla.

And thats the ironic thing, Camilla will probably end up holding a higher title in her own right than Queen Elizabeth the Queen Mother, than Diana would have and than Catherine may so as to appease those who think she doesn't deserve the title Queen.

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

Catherine isn't in the same position as Camilla. Camilla's past is totally different from Catherine's past. So, no, none of this applies to Catherine.

Formally Catherine will be in the same position as Camilla as wife to the future Duke of Cornwall and Rothesay, eventually Prince of Wales and as wife to the future King. Note that nothing, really nothing, has been set into change since the engagement of the Prince with Camilla one decade ago. It really depends on the very day that Charles becomes King to know what will happen.

 

[Iluvbertie]

What is being missed is that Camilla can use the title Duchess of Cornwall because she is married to the Duke of Cornwall. Louise and James can use Lady and Lord because those are also the titles of the children of earls (as for whether they are actually HRH Prince/Princess is another debate entirely and one that we have had on this board many times with no consensus being reached) but...

when Charles becomes King he won't have the title of Prince so Camilla will cease to be eligible to use any of his titles such as Prince, Duke, Earl, Lord etc and will only have the one from her marriage - that of Queen.

It is at that point that the parliament of the UK, and maybe some other realms* will have to strip her of the highest title in the land for a woman - that of Queen (whether Consort or Regnant) so that a new title can be created for her.

That would be a great start to the reign - here Charles - the first thing you have to do, before you have been king for a day even, will be to strip your wife of the legal status of being your wife as she won't be allowed to take all your titles (could even raise the very issue of the legality of the marriage by denying her the right to all her husband's titles - just as the legitimacy of Andrew's impending birth was raised if he was only to have the surname Windsor which is why the Mountbatten-Windsor name came about). It would have to be hurriedly passed - and yes PM Blair or one of his spokesmen said as much in 2005 - that legislation would be required to strip Camilla of the title of Queen Consort for her to be Princess Consort.

It isn't as simple as saying 'she will be known as' because she will have a higher title and would have to have a new title created for her.

As she would only be a Princess she wouldn't be crowned as only Kings and Queens get crowned. She would simply sit in the Abbey as a spectator - possibly in one of the galleries rather than beside her husband as she won't be being crowned.
*Australia won't have to do so as the only member of the royal family with any legal titles in Australia is the monarch - the others are allowed to use, and are acknowledged by, their British titles but those titles aren't Australian titles.

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

There is a difference here. When Camilla married Charles, she took on all of the feminine aspects of his titles. By using the title The Duchess of Cornwall, she takes that from his title of Duke of Cornwall. When Charles becomes King, he will no longer be a Prince of anything. The title (and style) of Princess Consort will be unique to only Camilla.

The precedents are of course Prince Albert and Prince Philip.
Albert was made Prince-Consort and Philip was granted the style and titular dignity of a Prince of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland in his very own right (Letters Patent 1957). After her accession the young Queen Elizabeth II already announced that her spouse was to have "place, pre-eminence and precedence" next to her "on all occasions and in all meetings". I can see the new King doing very the same, when Camilla would become The Princess-Consort or follow his mother's example and create his darling Camilla a Princess of the United Kingdom in her own right with a dukedom: HRH The Princess Camilla, The Duchess of Lancaster.

 

[Iluvbertie]

The fact is that as a Queen Consort he wouldn't need to do anything of this - they are automatic to the wife of the King but giving her a lesser title raises the very issue of the legitimacy of her situation.

The actual terminology around the 'pre-eminence' statement went further and included 'except when provided by law' as there are times when Charles as the heir apparent does actually take precedence over his father e.g. in the House of Lords when the Duke of Cornwall takes precedence over the Duke of Edinburgh.

Victoria and Elizabeth, in issuing those statements, were simply stating the situation that is automatic for a Queen Consort but not for a lesser title holder such as a Princess - afterall that position is saying that the marriage isn't an equal marriage.

 

[Dman]

Is this true?

"As most people know, at the time of their wedding in 2005, it was announced that upon the Prince of Wales’s accession to the throne, Camilla would take on the title of HRH The Princess Consort instead of the traditional title of HM The Queen.

Primarily taken to quell the hostility to the couple, it was a message that went widely unchallenged by the then ambivalent press and public, with many asserting it to be the right move.

Almost ten years on and whilst public opinion has now turned in favour of her becoming Queen, Clarence House’s position persists: Camilla will become Princess Consort.

Quite unnoticed in the press (and by me in my research until recently), the legality of the matter was quietly settled in a series of reports and statements from Parliament, as well as by Clarence House in statements that have been lost in the mists of time.

Based on this finding, I’m now able to confirm what I’ve suspected for a long time, that the title of Queen Consort is not actually established by law per se.

Instead, its usage is established through custom and precedent and, according to officials, there will therefore be no need for a change in law or introduction of a new law to give Camilla the status of Princess Consort instead of Queen; rather in the same way as she is currently known as Duchess of Cornwall whilst technically being Princess of Wales, she will be known as Princess Consort instead."

Will Camilla actually be Princess Consort?-
Will Camilla actually be Princess Consort?

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

[.....] rather in the same way as she is currently known as Duchess of Cornwall whilst technically being Princess of Wales, she will be known as Princess Consort instead."

That is the most generally expected situation, when the Palace sticks to the idea of a Princess Consort. Meaning that she IS the Princess of Wales and later she IS the Queen but is "known as" with another title.

In the Netherlands they have turned the things the other way. In an attempt to make the titles of the Royal House gender neutral, since the succession is gender neutral as well, the title of the consort, whether male or female, is Prince (Princess) of the Netherlands. The lawmaker found it "not desirable" that a male consort has the title "King" but then the consequence is that a female consort can not have the title "Queen".

Now the Dutch have found a loophole. Máxima is, by law, HRH Princess Máxima of the Netherlands, as consort to the King. By "social custom" howver she can be adressed as "Majesty" and with the title "Queen Máxima"... Her official titulature is not HM Queen Máxima of the Netherlands but: HM Queen Máxima, Princess of the Netherlands....

With other words, titles are like a bucket of slimy eels. They can wriggle it all way up and down to find a working solution. Queen Máxima is named by a title she does not have by law. Camilla is not named by a title she has by law....