The Monarchy under Charles

[Lumutqueen]

There's usually an evil witch, a Prince Charming, some dwarfs, a drama and some kind of damsel Princess. Your point is fiction.

Over a thousand of years of having Queen consorts and then suddenly have a Princess Consort.

Now you know there's a reason to the Princess Consort title being brought up, so there's no point questioning it with tradition. Unless you count Henry VIII and his actions were dismissed due to his power, this situation has never happened before and Camilla seems to think it's appropriate things may need to change.

 

[cepe]

I can think of one reason for this - apart from Camilla wanting to avoid flack and that's not enough IMO - and that is to try and avoid anyone challenging the legality of the marriage again! Not being crowned Queen Consort might avoid it. IMO anyone who wants to challenge will do it anyway but...........

 

[cinrit]

The difference between using the titles Princess of Wales and Duchess of Cornwall is that Charles is both The Prince of Wales and Duke of Cornwell.

When he becomes King the only title his wife can take is Queen Consort.

I think she should be known as Queen Consort, just as the wives of every other King is Queen Consort. But won't Charles also be the Duke of Lancaster? In that case, is it possible that Camilla could be known as the Duchess of Lancaster?

 

[Ish]

I can think of one reason for this - apart from Camilla wanting to avoid flack and that's not enough IMO - and that is to try and avoid anyone challenging the legality of the marriage again! Not being crowned Queen Consort might avoid it. IMO anyone who wants to challenge will do it anyway but...........

How can the legality of the marriage be challenged? That doesn't make sense to me.

The very real issue of having her established as anything other than Queen Consort is that it creates morganatic marriage within Britain - going against a thousand years of tradition - at a time when royal houses are moving towards ending morganatic marriages.

 

[DukeofMontpelier]

I think she should be known as Queen Consort, just as the wives of every other King is Queen Consort. But won't Charles also be the Duke of Lancaster? In that case, is it possible that Camilla could be known as the Duchess of Lancaster?

My understanding is that the monarch is the only one with the title and it is just the title of Duke of Lancaster. So, The Queen is not the Duchess of Lancaster she is the Duke of Lancaster.

The Duke of Montpelier

 

[DukeofMontpelier]

I as a person who loved Diana feel that Camilla should be Queen Consort. If they want to create a title that is solely the title of the spouse of the Monarch then I am OK with that. For instance if they use the title of the Duke of Windsor. That away the female monarch does not have a king as her Consort which makes it confusing to some. The spouse would be His/Her Majasty; The Prince/Princess, The Duke or Duchess of Windsor. I say let's make it more on that then a referendum on Camilla and the marriage. They are happy and his and her kids are happy. God save them both.

The Duke of Montpelier

 

[scooter]

Because she was in love...

And because the relationship needed to be regularized well before QEII died. Otherwise there would have been an outright rebellion if Charles had inherited and said my hated mistress will be moving into Buck House forthwith.

 

[scooter]

How can the legality of the marriage be challenged? That doesn't make sense to me.

Because any member of the Royal Family is specifically forbidden from having a secular marriage ceremony as Charles an Camilla did, as I am sure most here know.

 

[VictoriaB]

Because any member of the Royal Family is specifically forbidden from having a secular marriage ceremony as Charles an Camilla did, as I am sure most here know.

Could you cite your source please?

 

[Royal_Royal]

And because the relationship needed to be regularized well before QEII died. Otherwise there would have been an outright rebellion if Charles had inherited and said my hated mistress will be moving into Buck House forthwith.

Well, she certainly was his mistress when he was married to Diana. But The Prince of Wales was not married from 1996 to 2005, so I think it's very disrespectful and ill-mannered to refer to her as his mistress during this period of time or during an imaginary period of time - as the scenario you described.

I don't thinks it's difficult to show a bit of respect for a fellow human being. After all, we all committ mistakes during our lives. Only God is perfect.

 

[Ish]

Well, she certainly was his mistress when he was married to Diana. But The Prince of Wales was not married from 1996 to 2005, so I think it's very disrespectful and ill-mannered to refer to her as his mistress during this period of time or during an imaginary period of time - as the scenario you described.



I don't thinks it's difficult to show a bit of respect for a fellow human being. After all, we all committ mistakes during our lives. Only God is perfect.

While I disagree with the condemnation of Camilla because she was the mistress, technically speaking she was the mistress until she became the wife (or at least the fiancée). A mistress is, in its purest form, simply a long term female partner to whom you're not married. For a period between 1996 and 2005 she was one of those rare royal mistresses who was neither legally married nor with someone who himself was legally married, but she was still a mistress.

 

[sndral]

...
Now you know there's a reason to the Princess Consort title being brought up, so there's no point questioning it with tradition. Unless you count Henry VIII and his actions were dismissed due to his power, this situation has never happened before and Camilla seems to think it's appropriate things may need to change.

Yes, didn't Anne of Cleves opt to become a Princess and H8's 'beloved sister' (thereby retaining her head,) although not a Princess consort. And of course there is precedent for not crowning the King's wife at the King's coronation, to wit Caroline of Brunswick.

 

[Ish]

Could you cite your source please?

So, the Wikipedia page on their marriage has commentary on this.

According to it, the legality of the marriage was called into question because it was a civil service that occurred in England. According to the Marriage Act of 1836, which brought in civil marriage, members of the Royal Family were explicitly excluded from being able to enter into civil marriages; this is believed to have applied to England and Wales but not Scotland. At the time of the marriage, though, legal concerns were dismissed with the government writing a statement saying that the 1836 Act was repealed by a 1949 Act. As such, in 2005 the government declared that a civil marriage between Charles and Camilla - and really any royal couple - was legal. This is further supported by the fact that the CoE blessed the marriage, the monarch gave permission for it (as did her governments), and in the nearly 9 years since them Camilla has taken an unchallenged role as Charles' wife, including using his titles in an officially recognized capacity.

 

[Lady Marlboro]

I was under the impression that the latest Princess Consort idea was more a government sexual equality thing. In other words, because the husband of a Queen only becomes Prince Consort but the wife of a King becomes Queen Consort, the husband of the Queen is discriminated against. In order to correct this the title of Queen Consort would be eliminated. I thought I read somewhere that a member of the government or Parliament was going to propose this since there was also the movement to make the first child of Duke and Duchess of Cambridge the heir no matter if it was male or female. I am trying to remember where I read all this but at the moment my memory fails me.

 

[Osipi]

The difference between using the titles Princess of Wales and Duchess of Cornwall is that Charles is both The Prince of Wales and Duke of Cornwell.

When he becomes King the only title his wife can take is Queen Consort.

To take any other title will take LPs to create her Princess Consort but to create her with a lower title will mean legislation to strip her of the higher one - and that was stated in 2005 by the PM (Blair) when asked about her titles in parliament just before the wedding.

Another aspect to think on is that if they take all these measures and Camilla is Princess Consort, it would also mean that she will be a Princess of the UK in her own right and not taking any title from Charles.

 

[Iluvbertie]

The additional reason for the legality of the wedding is the European Human Rights Act which specifically says that no one should be denied the right to marry.

Anne of Cleves became Princess Consort and 'beloved sister' after the annulment of the marriage.

Caroline of Brunswick was most certainly George IV's Queen Consort - he just refused her permission to enter the Abbey on Coronation Day to be crowned with him but she was still his Queen.

 

[Iluvbertie]

I was under the impression that the latest Princess Consort idea was more a government sexual equality thing. In other words, because the husband of a Queen only becomes Prince Consort but the wife of a King becomes Queen Consort, the husband of the Queen is discriminated against. In order to correct this the title of Queen Consort would be eliminated. I thought I read somewhere that a member of the government or Parliament was going to propose this since there was also the movement to make the first child of Duke and Duchess of Cambridge the heir no matter if it was male or female. I am trying to remember where I read all this but at the moment my memory fails me.

I remember reading this as well but it was pooed-pooed at the time - the intention was to make the wife of the spouse always only a Prince/Princess Consort - from Philip onwards thus giving him that formal title along with Camilla, Kate and George's spouse (although at the time we didn't know George was on the way or what he would be once here).

 

[sndral]

So, the Wikipedia page on their marriage has commentary on this.

According to it, the legality of the marriage was called into question because it was a civil service that occurred in Wales. According to the Marriage Act of 1836, which brought in civil marriage, members of the Royal Family were explicitly excluded from being able to enter into civil marriages; this is believed to have applied to England and Wales but not Scotland. At the time of the marriage, though, legal concerns were dismissed with the government writing a statement saying that the 1836 Act was repealed by a 1949 Act. As such, in 2005 the government declared that a civil marriage between Charles and Camilla - and really any royal couple - was legal. This is further supported by the fact that the CoE blessed the marriage, the monarch gave permission for it (as did her governments), and in the nearly 9 years since them Camilla has taken an unchallenged role as Charles' wife, including using his titles in an officially recognized capacity.

Wales? - Prince Charles And Camilla's Wedding - YouTube

 

[Ish]

Wales? - Prince Charles And Camilla's Wedding - YouTube

Typo, I thought England but wrote Wales. Going to fix that now.

 

[Ish]

Another aspect to think on is that if they take all these measures and Camilla is Princess Consort, it would also mean that she will be a Princess of the UK in her own right and not taking any title from Charles.

The DoE is a Prince of the UK in his own right, and I believe Prince Albert as well.

 

[Ish]

I was under the impression that the latest Princess Consort idea was more a government sexual equality thing. In other words, because the husband of a Queen only becomes Prince Consort but the wife of a King becomes Queen Consort, the husband of the Queen is discriminated against. In order to correct this the title of Queen Consort would be eliminated. I thought I read somewhere that a member of the government or Parliament was going to propose this since there was also the movement to make the first child of Duke and Duchess of Cambridge the heir no matter if it was male or female. I am trying to remember where I read all this but at the moment my memory fails me.

This is two separate issues.

In 2005, the Princess Consort idea was brought up as a one-of just for Camilla. It would require legislature to enforce and very likely would create morganatic marriage in the UK, if not all the realms (which is a big deal, as not even Edward VIII was able to achieve that).

More recently, there was a move to make all future consorts "Prince" or "Princess," with the argument that men are being discriminated against by not getting to be "King." While I won't disagree with that, to me the argument is a bit... Immature. Kind of like "why can they have a Black History month when we can't have a White History month?"

The argument doesn't consider why men don't take their wives titles in the British system, which is largely done so as to protect the women's rights in the first place (or at least, was traditionally for that reason). Men who got their wives titles, from the nobles up to the King consorts, tended to take over the role associated with the title; in the case of the Kings, they were effectively co-rules. This is a big reason why Elizabeth I never married, and why Prince Albert was created Prince Consort. Elizabeth didn't want to lose her power to her husband, and Victoria's government didn't want to be seen as giving power to a foreign man.

In creating a permanent Prince/ss Consort title, they're not really addressing sexism. Instead they're creating morganatic marriages and ending 1,000 years of tradition just because men are whiney about one of the few instances when they aren't able to be as prominent as their female counterparts.

 

[Iluvbertie]

To be fair to the men concerned - Albert and Philip - they aren't the ones 'whining' but other men are, on their behalf.

 

[Ish]

Oh, of course not. The whining men I referenced wasn't meant to be Philip, Albert, Tim, or any other man who's married into the BRF. Rather I meant the guy who wanted to introduced the legislature - who incidentally, wouldn't have been personally affected by a change in the title of the monarch's consort.

 

[VictoriaB]

So, the Wikipedia page on their marriage has commentary on this.

According to it, the legality of the marriage was called into question because it was a civil service that occurred in England. According to the Marriage Act of 1836, which brought in civil marriage, members of the Royal Family were explicitly excluded from being able to enter into civil marriages; this is believed to have applied to England and Wales but not Scotland. At the time of the marriage, though, legal concerns were dismissed with the government writing a statement saying that the 1836 Act was repealed by a 1949 Act. As such, in 2005 the government declared that a civil marriage between Charles and Camilla - and really any royal couple - was legal. This is further supported by the fact that the CoE blessed the marriage, the monarch gave permission for it (as did her governments), and in the nearly 9 years since them Camilla has taken an unchallenged role as Charles' wife, including using his titles in an officially recognized capacity.

Thank you for your reply Ish.

 

[cinrit]

My understanding is that the monarch is the only one with the title and it is just the title of Duke of Lancaster. So, The Queen is not the Duchess of Lancaster she is the Duke of Lancaster.

The Duke of Montpelier

Thanks, Duke of Montpelier. Yes, I understand that. But Charles will be Duke of Lancaster as well as King. A Duchess is the wife of a Duke. Makes sense to me, but I guess only to me.

Anne of Cleves became Princess Consort and 'beloved sister' after the annulment of the marriage.

She was indeed called Beloved Sister of the King, but how could she be Princess Consort? This can't be a precedent, can it ... who was she consort to?

 

[US Royal Watcher]

She was indeed called Beloved Sister of the King, but how could she be Princess Consort? This can't be a precedent, can it ... who was she consort to?

Anne of Cleves was not styled as "Princess Consort. I can't find a source that she was made an English princess in her own right as part of the settlement, but I know I have read that. She must have had some title because Henry granted her precedence over all the women in England except Henry's wife and daughters. She also received 4000 pounds a year, which was a lot of money in those days.

I think that if Charles becomes King in the next 2 years or so, Camilla will be known as Princess Camilla rather than Queen Camilla. My understanding is the easiest way to accomplish that is to issue a letter of patent making her a princess in her own right. Charles said that she wouldn't be known as Queen and I take him at his word.

However, things could change depending on the public mood. From the polls I can see, people don't want a Queen Camilla, although that probably is not just because of Diana, but because people may feel it is disloyal to have another person with the title "Queen" so soon after the loss of the current, much loved Queen.

The longer Camilla continues to make public appearances with warmth and good cheer, the more people will respond in kind. Even Diana was beginning to move on shortly before her death. There will always be a few people who insist on judging people based on things that happened 20 years ago, but it is sort of like Republicans. They are a minority, but they are very passionate.

 

[wyevale]

I think the whole 'Princess Consort' nonsense is just that -nonsense !

To deny a woman her LEGAL TITLE because of a long dead ex-wife {and the sycophants who refuse to 'move on'} ,would make a travesty of Charles's love for his wife who [through her discretion, loyalty and public duty] has more than earned the title Queen.

If Charles capitulates to those who [after his lifetime of service] would deny him the right to have the woman he has chosen, by his side as an EQUAL, then he will lose all respect from those who recognise his right to make Camilla his partner.

I believe he has more self-respect than to do so. I certainly hope so !

 

[AdmirerUS]

I'll call the King's wife whatever she asks to be called, when the time comes. And then I will slip and call her Camilla - just like I slip and call Catherine, Kate.

But really, if she wants to be called Princess Consort, then I think it only respectful to honor her request. We will see when it all plays out.

 

[Sunnystar]

What if the comments attributed to royal officials about Camilla not wanting the title of HM The Queen are true/accurate/correct?

I don't, for one second, doubt that Charles absolutely wants Camilla to be crowned next to him as the next queen but maybe she really isn't keen on that title. Perhaps she would prefer, if she has to be known as anything, to be Princess Consort. Shouldn't her feelings be respected?

 

[wyevale]

Perhaps she would prefer, if she has to be known as anything, to be Princess Consort. Shouldn't her feelings be respected?

Frankly NO !

Because the institution into which she married has called the Kings wife 'Queen'.... for over a THOUSAND years...

And no-one [not ever the king himself] should have the right to alter that tradition [let alone for the reason of 'feelings'].