The Monarchy under Charles

[Osipi]

I, for one, have always thought that as a married couple, when Charles becomes King, Camilla should be his Queen Consort. Its been the tradition of how things have been done for a very long time and to bring in the couple's private life and times and people's opinion on it just seems to be very wrong to me.

If the precedent is set with Camilla being Princess Consort (or anything other than Queen Consort), it would be something set into motion that would affect not only Camilla but also Kate and all future wives of Kings. To single out Camilla solely because "the public doesn't like her" is discriminatory and to me, persecuting a person for actions made in their private life.

I don't believe this will happen. It would rule out any woman in the future from being Queen Consort and, in that respect, tarnish the monarchy itself.

 

[gerry]

I, for one, have always thought that as a married couple, when Charles becomes King, Camilla should be his Queen Consort. Its been the tradition of how things have been done for a very long time and to bring in the couple's private life and times and people's opinion on it just seems to be very wrong to me.

If the precedent is set with Camilla being Princess Consort (or anything other than Queen Consort), it would be something set into motion that would affect not only Camilla but also Kate and all future wives of Kings. To single out Camilla solely because "the public doesn't like her" is discriminatory and to me, persecuting a person for actions made in their private life.

I don't believe this will happen. It would rule out any woman in the future from being Queen Consort and, in that respect, tarnish the monarchy itself.

I wonder if this reluctance/hesitation regarding the queen consort title might also have to do with the perceived gender inequity of the male version of the Camilla conumdrum so famously objected to by the late Danish Prince Consort Henrik i.e. why can't men be kings when they marry a Queen

 

[Lady Gudgeon]

I think the spouse - whether male or female - should always be a lessor title than the monarch. So, just like Philip is Prince (Consort), so too should Camilla (and Kate and George's wife) be Princess Consort. In a sense, this is more equal - to keep the spouse's styling/title the same whether the monarch is male or female. Maybe a compromise could be to have the spouse created a prince/princess in their own right. So - again, as with Prince Philip - Camilla would become Princess Camilla and Kate would be Princess Catherine.

I also think it has been Charles's plan all along to have her crowned queen, so I don't appreciate what, to me, has been his sneakiness/dishonesty/manipulation about "oh no, she'll be princess consort, not queen" and then the little trial balloon comments like "we'll see" when someone asked him (and her) years ago about whether Camilla will be queen. I feel like if it was his wish and/or intention from the start then he should have been honest and fought for her to get the title he wanted and just taken whatever lumps came along with people being upset about it.

I think, in the end, she'll be styled queen consort. I don't really care all that much, but I don't like Charles's lying about it from the start (since I do think this was his plan all along, as I stated above).


Gerry - the male consort can't be style king because king outranks queen and you can't have the spouse outranking the monarch. Hence my argument that it is more equitable for all spouses (regardless of gender of the monarch) to be prince/princess.

 

[Osipi]

I don't think Camilla's title when Charles is King has anything whatsoever to do with Prince Henrik's espousing he wanted to be king.

None of this title conundrum for Camilla would ever have come about if the War of the Wales wasn't such a public spectacle and the grand soap opera of the 80s and 90s. People took sides and declared camps and some of those people just cannot let that war go decades later.

 

[Rudolph]

The Princess Consort was a fugazy from the start.

The darn thing about is its a problem of Charles own making. Polls show Camilla is liked but shouldn’t be Queen. Well it was CH who gave the public a ‘b’ option.

We’ve never had Princess Consorts. It would be a complete fabrication.

Unbelievably it’s the tabloids that now have the moral authority.

They can say “aha you lied for 13 years”.

For the record she’ll be Queen and deserves it simply by right of marriage.

 

[Pranter]

The fact that the heir to the throne was allowed to marry a divorcee with a living husband ...you can forget about the rest of the objections. Doesn't make much difference about her title. Just like the PoW issue..she IS the PoW she just does't use the title.


LaRae

 

[Somebody]

I think it was a wise decision to have her be known as 'the Duchess of Cornwall' as the title 'Princess of Wales' was very much linked to Diana. However, Diana never was nor would have been if still alive Queen Diana, so I have never grasped why Camilla couldn't be known as queen.

 

[Mbruno]

I was an avid Princess Diana fan but goodness...the woman has been dead for more than 20 years! I have recently started to warm up to Charles and Camilla, especially with their support of Harry and Meghan. It's time that this nonsense ends...Camilla should be called the Princess of Wales and be the future Queen. end of story.

It would be a huge PR mistake if Charles went back on his decade-old "intention"(as it used to be called on his website) and had Camilla crowned queen, when most polls show that is not what the British people want. It would only add to the pressure on Charles to abdicate in favor of William, which is already considerable, especially as he gets older and the Queen continues to reign.

I think the spouse - whether male or female - should always be a lessor title than the monarch. So, just like Philip is Prince (Consort), so too should Camilla (and Kate and George's wife) be Princess Consort. In a sense, this is more equal - to keep the spouse's styling/title the same whether the monarch is male or female. Maybe a compromise could be to have the spouse created a prince/princess in their own right. So - again, as with Prince Philip - Camilla would become Princess Camilla and Kate would be Princess Catherine.

Or you could have it the other way around, i.e. give the husband of the reigning queen the title of king and the style of Majesty, as it used to be the case in Portugal and Spain in the past, and even in the British Isles in the days of Mary I Tudor and Mary, Queen of Scots.

 

[Osipi]

On the other hand, if the public has that much sway over how the monarch's wife should be known as and the monarchy bows under the pressure to placate the public's sensibilities, its the first step in showing the public they really don't need a monarchy anymore.

When the statement was made of the intention, it was also at a time when Camilla had no clue of how she would adapt to royal life. It may have been Camilla, herself, that wanted to leave options open. Camilla has since grown into her role with grace and dignity and may feel comfortable even with being Charles' Queen Consort.

The main point though is that should things change and Camilla become the Princess Consort, the UK will never have a Queen Consort again. Its just not right to single out one person for a different title because of "popular opinion".

 

[Mbruno]

On the other hand, if the public has that much sway over how the monarch's wife should be known as and the monarchy bows under the pressure to placate the public's sensibilities, its the first step in showing the public they really don't need a monarchy anymore.

When the statement was made of the intention, it was also at a time when Camilla had no clue of how she would adapt to royal life. It may have been Camilla, herself, that wanted to leave options open. Camilla has since grown into her role with grace and dignity and may feel comfortable even with being Charles' Queen Consort. .

Nice try, but he kept the "intention" on his website for 13 years, thus long after he got married and Camilla "adapted" to the role. I don't see how he cannot be accused of misleading the public if he backtracks now.

King Edward VIII gave in to public opinion when he was told marrying Wallis was not an option (for the record, at the time, he actually suggested a "princess consort" solution, which was turned down). One could have argued that, if public opinion can force a king to abdicate, so it can also overthrow the monarchy. That has been the case, however, in England since 1649 at least, so there is nothing new really. The monarchy always depends on popular support to survive and that is why Charles should be wise to keep his promises.

 

[Osipi]

The website stated an intention and not a promise. I may intend to have enough money in the bank in 5 years time to take a cruise but that doesn't necessarily state that I will take that cruise. Things can happen and intentions change over time.

As time passed and Camilla grew into her role and has performed it wonderfully and is everything a consort should be with even HM, The Queen naming her to her Privy Council, its become more and more obvious that Camilla will make a wonderful Queen Consort when the time comes.

Camilla, back when that intention was made, could have gone the other way and preferred to stay out of the limelight at Ray Mill for the most part and not embrace the royal life and duties. After 13 years, I think both Charles and Camilla are pretty well situated in knowing that they will serve the country best as a team.

Remember too.... the road to hell is also paved with good intentions.

 

[Rudolph]

All he needs to do now is never, ever bring up the topic again. Let the newspapers write about it. Allow polling companies to do polls but never use the term Princess Consort again.

Since under common law the succession is immediate, Camilla becomes Queen as soon as Charles is King.

Whether they decide to crown her or not doesn’t matter. The crowning doesn’t make a king or queen in this case.

 

[MARG]

The bottom line is that when HM QEII dies Charles immediately becomes King Charles and his wife Queen Camilla. That is the law. And while the media can clutch their pearls to their heart's content, it will take an Act of Parliament to change her title.

The only real option would be Princess Consort but, since she must hold the feminine of her husband's title, there isn't a prince among them. To be "Princess" Consort she would have to be made a Princess of the realm in her own right.

However, there seems little political taste for what is essentially a spiteful act of retribution for past sins and let's be honest here folks, we don't really know who did what to whom. We just have books and articles penned by people for or against one or the other and worse, embroidered for the extra cash. Does the reputation of the UK rest in the hands of the media or the government?

Most important of all is the United Kingdom itself and its standing in a post-Brexit world? The government has been dispatching members of the BRF all over the globe in what is irreverently called a "Charm Offensive". The government relies on the BRF to be literally the jewel in the crown which is why HM found herself lunching at BP and Prince Charles later dining at CH with the Crown Prince of Saudi Arabia this last week.

With the political and trade situation in a state of flux as it is withdrawing from the EEC, the UK government is not about to take time out to enact a law stripping the title "Queen Consort" from Charles wife whenever he takes the throne. The optics are lousy and quite frankly they have far more important things to occupy their collective minds. It would be the ultimate own goal if they did.

 

[Iluvbertie]

King Edward VIII gave in to public opinion when he was told marrying Wallis was not an option (for the record, at the time, he actually suggested a "princess consort" solution, which was turned down). One could have argued that, if public opinion can force a king to abdicate, so it can also overthrow the monarchy. That has been the case, however, in England since 1649 at least, so there is nothing new really. The monarchy always depends on popular support to survive and that is why Charles should be wise to keep his promises.

It wasn't 'public opinion' that forced out Edward VIII but the government. By the time the public were given a chance to voice their opinion the decision had been made.

The public wanted him to stay, the government wanted him out and they had forced his hand - especially when they told him there was no such thing as a 'morganatic marriage' in the UK but that is now what the public and some posters on here want - a change in the UK and other realms laws to allow for a situation where the wife doesn't take all ranks, styles and titles from their husband (and it will take legislation - as was stated at the time by PM Blair).

The 'intention' may have come to fruition if the Queen had died within a couple of years but now, 13 years later with the Queen looking likely to live another decade or more is seems a bit ridiculous.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

Gerry - the male consort can't be style king because king outranks queen and you can't have the spouse outranking the monarch. Hence my argument that it is more equitable for all spouses (regardless of gender of the monarch) to be prince/princess.

A male consort would not outrank the reigning queen, regardless of his title (unless he was a reigning king as well).

 

[MARG]

Worse, the very notion would be utterly repugnant. The death of HM Queen Elizabeth II is going to resonate around the world. There will be public mourning followed by a time of private mourning. I doubt the average citizen would stomach a move to strip the new Queen of her entitlement and I have no doubt the government would not even contemplate it.

Had such a decision been followed through following the marriage of Prince Charles, the Commonwealth would have been problematic and the international optics would have been equally ugly but I wonder, if it would it have been forced to be decided by a Referendum and would it have won even then?

I can imagine a situation wherein some countries referred to the King and Queen and others the King and Princess. The awkwardness of such an odd situation is exemplified by The Netherlands where the legislation enabling the future King's wife to be known as 'Queen Consort' rather than 'Princess Consort' was passed.

 

[Mbruno]

Worse, the very notion would be utterly repugnant. The death of HM Queen Elizabeth II is going to resonate around the world. There will be public mourning followed by a time of private mourning. I doubt the average citizen would stomach a move to strip the new Queen of her entitlement and I have no doubt the government would not even contemplate it.

Had such a decision been followed through following the marriage of Prince Charles, the Commonwealth would have been problematic and the international optics would have been equally ugly but I wonder, if it would it have been forced to be decided by a Referendum and would it have won even then?

I can imagine a situation wherein some countries referred to the King and Queen and others the King and Princess. The awkwardness of such an odd situation is exemplified by The Netherlands where the legislation enabling the future King's wife to be known as 'Queen Consort' rather than 'Princess Consort' was passed.

No legislation was passed in the Netherlands. Máxima is officially "Princess of the Netherlands" and "Princess of Orange-Nassau", but the Royal Court announced she was going to be referred to as "HM Queen Máxima" by courtesy.

The situation is analogous in the UK and Clarence House actually clarified it several times when the "intention" was still posted on the PoW's website. The only royal titles and styles that are regulated by an act of Parliament (and, therefore, cannot be changed unilaterally by the King or the reigning Queen) are the monarch's him/herself. In all other cases, it is a royal prerogative of the Sovereign alone to determine how the members of the Royal House are styled, and his/her will in that respect overrides any other legal instrument other than an act of Parliament, including the common law . That is why a simple public announcement by the Queen that Edward's children would not be HRHs was sufficient to style them as children of an earl instead, the 1917 LPs notwithstanding.

If, upon ascending the throne, King Charles III (or George VII) announced that his wife would be known as HRH The Princess Consort (a title he could give her by Letters Patent for example), that is how everybody in every country would refer to her, in the same way a simple announcement by the Dutch Royal Court was enough for Máxima to be called "queen". I don't see why some countries, as you claim, would use "the King and the Queen" whereas others would refer to "the King and the Princess Consort". That assumption doesn't make any sense really.

Fine, Charles can go ahead with "Queen Camilla" if he wants to, but he will do so at his own risk. To me, it is unwise and, again, it will only add up to the pressure on him to step down.

 

[Gawin]

That's exactly what the article linked below states. Only the Sovereign's title is regulated by Parliament. All other royal titles and styles - including the Sovereign's consort - are subject to the Sovereign's Royal Prerogative.

Will Camilla actually be Princess Consort? – Royal Central

I agree with Rudolph. This is a problem of Charles's own making.

 

[Iluvbertie]

No legislation was passed in the Netherlands. Máxima is officially "Princess of the Netherlands" and "Princess of Orange-Nassau", but the Royal Court announced she was going to be referred to as "HM Queen Máxima" by courtesy.

The situation is analogous in the UK and Clarence House actually clarified it several times when the "intention" was still posted on the PoW's website. The only royal titles and styles that are regulated by an act of Parliament (and, therefore, cannot be changed unilaterally by the King or the reigning Queen) are the monarch's him/herself. In all other cases, it is a royal prerogative of the Sovereign alone to determine how the members of the Royal House are styled, and his/her will in that respect overrides any other legal instrument other than an act of Parliament, including the common law . That is why a simple public announcement by the Queen that Edward's children would not be HRHs was sufficient to style them as children of an earl instead, the 1917 LPs notwithstanding.

If, upon ascending the throne, King Charles III (or George VII) announced that his wife would be known as HRH The Princess Consort (a title he could give her by Letters Patent for example), that is how everybody in every country would refer to her, in the same way a simple announcement by the Dutch Royal Court was enough for Máxima to be called "queen". I don't see why some countries, as you claim, would use "the King and the Queen" whereas others would refer to "the King and the Princess Consort". That assumption doesn't make any sense really.

Fine, Charles can go ahead with "Queen Camilla" if he wants to, but he will do so at his own risk. To me, it is unwise and, again, it will only add up to the pressure on him to step down.

Tony Blair said in 2005 that it would take legislation for Camilla to be denied the 'common law' right in the UK of the title of Queen.

Common law is as much a law as is legislated law and in common law the wife always takes the styles and titles of her husband. This common law doesn't apply in other countries outside of those once settled by Britain and it has taken legislation in those countries to remove elements of it (if not already removed in the UK).

Other countries laws and practices don't apply in the UK - anymore than UK laws and practices apply in them.

 

[Gawin]

Tony Blair said in 2005 that it would take legislation for Camilla to be denied the 'common law' right in the UK of the title of Queen.

It's my understanding that Tony Blair's government said she would automatically become Queen - regardless of the title she preferred to use - unless legislation was passed. Clarence House responded by stating no legislation would be required.

So it seems the issue isn't really about "denying" her a common law right. It's whether or not she can choose to be styled something other than Queen - such as Princess Consort - without special legislation, just as she now chooses to be styled Duchess of Cornwall even though she's legally entitled to be called Princess of Wales.

Royal titles and styles are the prerogative of the Sovereign - not common law - which is why Wallis Simpson became the Duchess of Windsor and not HRH the Duchess of Windsor when she married HRH the Duke of Windsor. George VI refused to give her the HRH and his wish trumped common law.

One constitutional expert agrees with Clarence House: "Upon the death of the Queen, Charles automatically becomes King – that is it. His wife will become Queen Consort, formally established by precedent. But if she wishes to be known by another title, that’s a matter of royal prerogative, so the monarch could determine that another style will be employed.”

Queen Camilla: A likely future according to a constitutional expert – Royal Central

I personally believe Camilla should be styled Queen but apparently the final decision will be Charles's.

 

[hel]

Personally, I just wish that the newspapers would make it more clear that she will *be* Queen, but that it's a question of whether she will/won't/should/shouldn't be *styled* Queen.

 

[Rudolph]

But we know it’s the ghost of Diana past that started alll of this. What does Camilla have against being called Queen?

She’d still be the King’s wife. Why are they so darn set on her being called Princess Consort if not for Diana.

And to illustrate just how much Diana is still ‘with’ us, a poll was conducted in Britain for international women’s day and Diana was voted the fourth most admired women in Britain. One behind the Queen at third.

Now that’s it’s off the website its probably over and done with. Charles needs to say no more. If God forbid ERII died through the night we’d have TM King Charles III and Queen Camilla in the morning.

But if Charles continues down this road someone will have a word. No PM of the U.K. is going to play this charade and toss out hundreds of years of history to satisfy Charles eccentricities

 

[wbenson]

I think this issue has been badly bungled by Clarence House. Nobody ever really believed that the "intention" regarding her future title was held in good faith, so ever since there's been a constant drip of insinuations that she will be queen. Had they just dealt with this properly in 2005 by saying that yes, she'll be queen when her husband is king, the marriage may have been slightly more unpopular at the time, but whatever extra furor there would have been in 2005 would have died down long ago and it would now be a fait accompli. But because they went down this road, we're all talking about it once again, with no hope of any definitive resolution before the time comes.

And I think the polling is a little misleading. It's not good but I think Camilla's future title is largely irrelevant to the public's opinion of her. You see something similar when people are asked about conspiracy theories relating to politicians they oppose. Members of Party X will be asked if Politician Y is actually a lizard-person from space, and 80% of them will say yes, and people will wring their hands about how terrible it is that people believe this untrue thing, but most of them don't believe it; they're just choosing the option that casts someone they dislike in the worst light possible. So when people express a preference for "princess consort", I think there's a large cohort who are trying to say that she shouldn't be any kind of consort and choosing the most derogatory option possible in the poll. (Again, I don't think that makes the numbers better for her, just not especially relevant to this particular question.)

 

[Madame Verseau]

Common law, tradition or not Charles got himself into this pickle when the public statement was made that Camilla would be Princess Consort when he ascends to the throne. It would be seen that Charles misled the public for thirteen years, or worse, misled the queen to get the consent to marry (a consent that took eight years to come). There are stories out that Charles would need William and Harry's public support for Camilla to be addressed as Her Majesty. It's that bad.

 

[andrew]

.

If he didn't say anything regarding Camilla's title back in 2005 the media had have caused a storm with headlines like "Queen Camilla will reign after the Queen passes" or smth like that. So I guess Charles chose the lesser trouble by stating that the intention is for Princess Consort.
I find it odd that in Britain everything should be decided by the tabloid media.
If Diana would be still alive I could understand a move like using the Princess Consort title-maybe. But Diana died 21 years ago she was never Queen of Britain so just forget about the Princess Consort title and follow the law that gives the king's wife the title of queen! Or change the law and say that the wife of the king will be known as Mrs King or Kingess or Princess Consort or whatever....

 

[Mbruno]

If he didn't say anything regarding Camilla's title back in 2005 the media had have caused a storm with headlines like "Queen Camilla will reign after the Queen passes" or smth like that. So I guess Charles chose the lesser trouble by stating that the intention is for Princess Consort.

It is not that simple. As Madame Verseau said, it was implicit at the time that calling Camilla the Duchess of Cornwall and the Princess Consort was a necessary condition for her wedding to Charles to be acceptable. By agreeing to those conditions back then and backtracking now, Charles will inevitably be accused of being deceitful, which is not good for a future king.

BTW, according to the Express article, Clarence House is saying that the question about Camilla's future title was removed from the FAQ list on the PoW's website simply because that question "is not frequently asked" anymore, which seems like further deception and only makes things worse. No explanation was given AFAIK to justify why the reference to the Princess Consort title was also deleted from Camilla's biography page.

. There are stories out that Charles would need William and Harry's public support for Camilla to be addressed as Her Majesty. It's that bad.

I saw those stories too on the internet yesterday, but, honestly, what would William and Harry do ? Make a public statement that they don't agree with Camilla being called queen ? Realistically, they would not publicly challenge their father's will. In the end, Camilla's title is not a matter to be decided by an act of Parliament, or a referendum, or the courts. The decision lies solely with Charles as king, unless of course his prime minister and government officially advise him against it. I could see a PM like Tony Blair doing just that, but others like David Cameron, or now Theresa May, are far more deferential to the monarch.

 

[Juliette2]

My opinion has always been neutral toward Camilla but I have begun to appreciate her more and more lately. While I recognize some of the issues involved, I really feel that she should become Queen once Prince Charles ascends the throne. My only sadness is that I've always cherished the idea of a "Queen Mother" and in this case that certainly won't happen...it could be awkward after Charles' passing (assuming he passes before his wife).
In any case, I think she has done a wonderful job. I like the causes she has embraced and her family, too has behaved with remarkable dignity in a very difficult situation. I hope Prince Harry and Prince William will come to regard her as the wonderful companion she is to their father. Sometimes, I feel that there's still a lot of tension. Partly understandable.

 

[Missjersey]

My opinion has always been neutral toward Camilla but I have begun to appreciate her more and more lately. While I recognize some of the issues involved, I really feel that she should become Queen once Prince Charles ascends the throne. My only sadness is that I've always cherished the idea of a "Queen Mother" and in this case that certainly won't happen...it could be awkward after Charles' passing (assuming he passes before his wife).
In any case, I think she has done a wonderful job. I like the causes she has embraced and her family, too has behaved with remarkable dignity in a very difficult situation. I hope Prince Harry and Prince William will come to regard her as the wonderful companion she is to their father. Sometimes I very much feel that there's a lot of tension. Partly understandable.

Yes, Juliette2, I also want to see Camilla as Queen. For me she is his North Star. I too always feel there is an underlying tension with Prince William and Prince Harry that they can’t let go (that’s JMO, no matter how many pictures I see of them all together).

 

[Osipi]

The thing is with me is that I think, just as in their everyday royal lives, there's a distinction between their public and private lives. In their public roles, Charles is the heir to the throne and Camilla is his wife. What happened, is happening or what will happen in their private lives, to me, has no bearing on whether or not Camilla will be Queen.

Juliette brought up the title of "Queen Mother". Even if Diana had lived and had a happy marriage with Charles and was alive at the time William became King, I do not expect that she would ever be called The Queen Mother but rather remain as HM, Queen Diana. The only reason that there was a Queen Mother is because both women were Queens and both had the same first name. Queen Mary was never "Queen Mother" when her son, George VI ascended the throne.

 

[Juliette2]

The thing is with me is that I think, just as in their everyday royal lives, there's a distinction between their public and private lives. In their public roles, Charles is the heir to the throne and Camilla is his wife. What happened, is happening or what will happen in their private lives, to me, has no bearing on whether or not Camilla will be Queen.

Juliette brought up the title of "Queen Mother". Even if Diana had lived and had a happy marriage with Charles and was alive at the time William became King, I do not expect that she would ever be called The Queen Mother but rather remain as HM, Queen Diana. The only reason that there was a Queen Mother is because both women were Queens and both had the same first name. Queen Mary was never "Queen Mother" when her son, George VI ascended the throne.

Yes, Osipi, I completely agree with you in making the distinction between public and private life.

You also rightly reminded me of where the "Queen Mother" "title" came from. I honestly forgot about that! That makes me feel better!

Prince Charles and Camilla seem a genuinely happy couple and as Missjersey said she has a great effect on him. They really do support each other. I guess they were always meant to be. I'm sorry for the children and the spouses involved. Divorces are never desirable nor easy.