Camilla and The Public

[Jacknch]

I'm just trying to find a logical explanation as to why Charles and Camilla don't want her to be Queen and the legality over the marriage comes to mind.

The official reason of Camilla doesn't "want" to be Queen isn't good enough. If she doesn't want to be Queen she shouldn't have married the Prince of Wales

Well it can't be the legality of the marriage because the marriage is legal. Admittedly the mechanism causing the marriage to be legal is not a solidly bound piece of legislation, but that is not unusual when instituting laws. Looking back, it would have been useful for the HRA to have stated that it covers members of the royal family, but the very lack of such wording allows fluidity in its interpretation either positively or negatively, which, again, is often found in British law.
No official reason was ever given concerning the Princess Consort title or indeed the Cornwall title. It was just stated that that would be the case. As such, the media - closely followed by the public - made their own minds up as to what the reason might be and no further word has ever officially been made about it.

I realise it is not quite good enough, but it will have to do I'm afraid!

 

[ladongas]

“It is intended that The Duchess will be known as HRH The Princess Consort when The Prince of Wales accedes to The Throne.”

Whatever the reasons for this statement having been made- it was made and will be remembered- particularly if it is later shown to have been just meaningless words to be ignored. Presumably such a statement was carefully considered before it was made.

 

[MARG]

I think its clear Camilla's rehabilitation isn't complete or her numbers would be higher

Well, if Camilla needs "rehabilitation" for supposed sexual sin, we have to be fair and recognise that so too do Charles, William & Catherine, Harry, Andrew &, Sarah, Beatrice, Eugenie, Anne & Tim, Peter & Autumn, Zara & Mike, Edward & Sophie . . .

The DM article refers to a poll by YouGov, but if i try to find it on that website the most recent one on the topic is one from june where most people who were asked then said that Camilla *could* become queen

Camilla can become 'Queen', say public

bit confused now...

This poll is the result of the use of a selective, online poll, skewed to get a controversial result and thus sell more papers, or gain more online subscribers.

There is NO PROVISION in British law for a wife to be denied 'the rank and title of her Husband'. To alter that would be a major change, for it would have to apply to ALL married women [if applied to Camilla alone it would be discrimnatory, and subject to challenge under 'Human Rights' legislation].

Will the govt [of the day] really want to open that particular can of worms, in the immediate aftermath of the death of a much loved monarch, and at a time of near universal mourning ?

I really don't think so...

No the government would not. But I think there are a whole bunch of whackos who would think nothing of throwing trash at Charles in a funeral cortege.

I am more worried about future wives than Camilla. It could be the end of all Queen consorts.

I really don't think so. No one is questioning Catherine's future titles or George's future wife titles. It's all about Camilla and her future title.

So am I because whilst no one in the BRF would go to the HRC or European Courts, there are definitely others that would. It would set a precedence that could definitely cause a ruckus.

Every wife of a King has been a Queen. Why create a lower title for Camilla? If she going to do the duties of a Queen, be the highest ranked woman in the land, she should be Queen.

It would be different if Camilla married Charles but didn't perform any royal duties and lived as a private citizen.

Also if you are going to argue morality because of the adultery, then neither Charles or Camilla or most of the previous Kings should be on the throne.

But being fair and logical, adultery is 'Sexual Sin' which would disqualify both his brothers, his sister and his heir and spare.

It is a point of peculiar interest to me that people, many of whom have never set foot in a church, mosque, temple or such, and have never studied the tenets of these faiths, can be so bloody minded and unforgiving.

As a dyed-in-the-wool Anglican I believe God forgives, so who am I that I should not. The faith teaches forgiveness and that should be the end of it. That it is not merely proves to me that the spirit of the inquisition, the witch finders and burners, is still a living breathing nightmare.

And, if that doesn't scare you nothing will.

 

[scooter]

“It is intended that The Duchess will be known as HRH The Princess Consort when The Prince of Wales accedes to The Throne.”

Whatever the reasons for this statement having been made- it was made and will be remembered- particularly if it is later shown to have been just meaningless words to be ignored. Presumably such a statement was carefully considered before it was made.

I totally agree.

 

[Iluvbertie]

Talk about skewing the poll results! ;-P

No - KittyAtlanta is simply asking for people who know based on being governed by the laws of the country concerned.

I am assuming that I am being included due to the perception on here that I know a lot about these things (based no doubt on the fact that I have indicated in the past that I have researched at a high university level aspects of the British royal family, have friends of my father's who are constitutional experts, have friends who are involved at high levels within the Anglican Church).

 

[Curryong]

I don't think the statement about Camilla being Princess Consort rather than Queen Consort was made casually. On the contrary. I believe it was made by Charles's advisers/ the 'grey men' at the Palace, simply because of Diana.

There was an unprecedented show of grief by the British public at her death as we all know.

(I am Australian-based but UK born and bred, have relatives there and often go back.)

I wandered about among the crowds in London in the days before the funeral and I have to tell you, as a monarchist, I found a bitterness about the royal family's treatment of Diana in the comments I overheard, and what was said about Charles and Camilla, that was certainly not pretty!

The reaction to Diana's death took the royal family by surprise and the shock reverberated through the Palace advisers. At the time of Charles and Camilla's marriage the Palace, I believe, remained cautious. Camilla would not be Princess of Wales. That title was too closely associated with Diana.

The title 'Princess Consort' was put forward, in my opinion, in the same spirit of caution. There are still many Britons, now getting older but still present in large numbers, who identified with Diana and dislike Charles and Camilla because of it. These tend to be females in their forties and fifties who perhaps married and had children at the same time as Diana, or who felt for her in her troubles.

It depends of course, on exactly when Charles is crowned. If it is in another another ten or so years, then the feeling against Camilla becoming Queen Consort may well be negligible. This is no doubt what Charles and his advisers will hope for.

If the Queen died tomorrow and Charles and Camilla were crowned King and Queen next year I doubt that there would be riots in front of Buckingham Palace because of it. However, there is still a sector of the British public remaining, who don't want Camilla to be crowned Queen because of the circumstances of Charles's first marriage.

 

[Lady Nimue]

Charles opened the door to this. No one would have ever thought to not have a British Queen except for the fact Charles brought it up in the first place.

No one to blame but himself

I've always had the idea that this might have been at Camilla's request. I can't imagine Charles doing this, a possible slight, without Camilla being agreeable.

Camilla seems a very intuitive sort and not particularly wrapped up in titles. I, of course, don't know her but Camilla may have thought this was the best way to take on the role of Charles' wife, even in deference to Diana. Camilla is a mature woman with nothing to prove. This may have been her way of being sensitive to Diana, and even her step-sons' feelings. It suggests that she may carry her role as his wife when he is King in a different way, perhaps, too.

All speculation, of course, but it's always nested in the back of my mind that this is Camilla's doing, not Charles'. No matter which of them initiated this gesture, I think it's a noble thing. Good for them.

 

[Excalibur]

I really don't think so. No one is questioning Catherine's future titles or George's future wife titles. It's all about Camilla and her future title.

But it could definitely set a precedent. Imagine if you will ... twenty years from now, the aged, much-beloved Princess Camilla, Princess Consort, who has gone above and beyond the expectations of even the highest-minded Briton -- and served the UK as well as any sovereign's consort could have dreamed to do. By this time, some of HM's subjects could even be expressing regret that Camilla was never allowed the honor of being known as Queen Consort.

The discussion of the day then becomes that for Catherine to be known as Queen Consort is somehow a slap in the face of Princess Camilla, so the court of public opinion convinces the "grey men" of the day to acquiesce and announce that Catherine will be known as Princess Consort, out of respect of the memory of Princess Camilla, consort to our most beloved King Charles III.

And so it continues ...

 

[Rudolph]

I'm not dismissing anyone's opinion but to say the Human Rights Act settles the matter of Charles marriage isn't accurate.

Nicholas Lyell, Baron Lyell of Markyate was the Attorney-General at the time of Charles's and Diana's divorce and he raised doubts about a civil wedding in 2005.

He is highly educated studying at Christ Church Oxford. Lyell trained with the firm associated with his stepmother's family, Walter Runciman and Co, and was called to the bar at Inner Temple in 1965

He served as both Solicitor General and Attorney General. If he has doubts then I don't think the matter is settled

 

[Dman]

But it could definitely set a precedent. Imagine if you will ... twenty years from now, the aged, much-beloved Princess Camilla, Princess Consort, who has gone above and beyond the expectations of even the highest-minded Briton -- and served the UK as well as any sovereign's consort could have dreamed to do. By this time, some of HM's subjects could even be expressing regret that Camilla was never allowed the honor of being known as Queen Consort.

The discussion of the day then becomes that for Catherine to be known as Queen Consort is somehow a slap in the face of Princess Camilla, so the court of public opinion convinces the "grey men" of the day to acquiesce and announce that Catherine will be known as Princess Consort, out of respect of the memory of Princess Camilla, consort to our most beloved King Charles III.

And so it continues ...

Not going to happen. We can't say for certain what the future will hold but there's no doubt in my mind that Catherine will not only go by the title HRH The Princess of Wales but later she will be publically known as Her Majesty The Queen when William is on the throne.

It's a whole different case for Camilla. I think she'll be very happy with either title though. Camilla's main focus is on the job she's wanted all along. She fully support and loves Charles no matter what.

 

[Jacknch]

I'm not dismissing anyone's opinion but to say the Human Rights Act settles the matter of Charles marriage isn't accurate.

Nicholas Lyell, Baron Lyell of Markyate was the Attorney-General at the time of Charles's and Diana's divorce and he raised doubts about a civil wedding in 2005.

He is highly educated studying at Christ Church Oxford. Lyell trained with the firm associated with his stepmother's family, Walter Runciman and Co, and was called to the bar at Inner Temple in 1965

He served as both Solicitor General and Attorney General. If he has doubts then I don't think the matter is settled

I certainly would not wish to dismiss what you are saying and could only add that as things stand today, the Human Rights Act has been legally interpreted to cover members of the royal family and as such, enables Charles and Camilla's marriage to be legal (and apart from anything else they have a marriage certificate to prove it!). Accordingly, the royal marriage is as legal as anyone else's.

Nonetheless, the situation today as described above does not prevent someone challenging the interpretation of the Human Rights Act and only if they were successful could the royal marriage be deemed to be illegal.
It won't be Baron Lyell because he is now dead and I am sure someone would have tried to challenge it by now after all these years.

 

[Queen Camilla]

I hope someone does conduct a poll and it is overwhelmingly positive for Queen Camilla.

The poll conducted in June 2014 was positive. It was posted by Lee-Z.

53% for Queen Consort and 32% for Princess Consort.

Lee-Z, I also could not find anything on Yougov to support the Daily Mail article. The Daily Mail article did not have a link to the poll.

The poll timing seem strange as the question was asked in June of 2014 & January of 2014.

 

[Rudolph]

I certainly would not wish to dismiss what you are saying and could only add that as things stand today, the Human Rights Act has been legally interpreted to cover members of the royal family and as such, enables Charles and Camilla's marriage to be legal (and apart from anything else they have a marriage certificate to prove it!). Accordingly, the royal marriage is as legal as anyone else's.

Nonetheless, the situation today as described above does not prevent someone challenging the interpretation of the Human Rights Act and only if they were successful could the royal marriage be deemed to be illegal.
It won't be Baron Lyell because he is now dead and I am sure someone would have tried to challenge it by now after all these years.

I'm not actually disputing whether their marriage is legal because that's above my pay grade but what interests me is the issue of Princess Consort. From a legal point of view the only reason Camilla can't be Queen is if her marriage isn't valid for whatever reason.

I think its fair to say that Charles has received conflicting legal and constitutional advice from ministers over the years. Yes Lord Falconer says it legal but others say it isn't.

We will never know what was said behind closed doors because the records have been sealed until after Charles's death. Then Justice Secretary Jack Straw blocked a Freedom of Information request to make public the advice given to the then Lord Chancellor Lord Falconer before he gave the wedding the go-ahead.

So we don't know what Lord Falconer based his opinion on nor do we know what negative views were offered.

Maybe Charles isn't 100 percent confident that if challenged his marriage would stand because it strikes me as bizarre that if this was purely an exercise in PR it would have ended years ago. Why keep up this line of Princess Consort unless there is some other fly in the ointment.

 

[muriel]

I'm not actually disputing whether their marriage is legal because that's above my pay grade but what interests me is the issue of Princess Consort. From a legal point of view the only reason Camilla can't be Queen is if her marriage isn't valid for whatever reason.

I think its fair to say that Charles has received conflicting legal and constitutional advice from ministers over the years. Yes Lord Falconer says it legal but others say it isn't.

We will never know what was said behind closed doors because the records have been sealed until after Charles's death. Then Justice Secretary Jack Straw blocked a Freedom of Information request to make public the advice given to the then Lord Chancellor Lord Falconer before he gave the wedding the go-ahead.

So we don't know what Lord Falconer based his opinion on nor do we know what negative views were offered.

Maybe Charles isn't 100 percent confident that if challenged his marriage would stand because it strikes me as bizarre that if this was purely an exercise in PR it would have ended years ago. Why keep up this line of Princess Consort unless there is some other fly in the ointment.

There have been 3 Prime Ministers, two of which were from opposite ends of the political spectrum. If any of them thought the legality of the marriage of the PoW was an issue, I am sure the issue would have been brought up. I just do not think your contention about the legality of the marriage of C&C is valid at all.

 

[Elenath]

I don’t think the point of princess consort isn’t that Camilla isn’t queen. Because she will be. As far as I know they choose the title princess consort because of Diana and people’s perception of Charles’ second marriage. The fact that Camilla wants to use the title princess consort doesn’t make her less of a queen. She merely chooses to use a different title. As far as I’m concerned (not that I have any say in the matter) she can choose whatever title she wants.

 

[Rudolph]

So Charles wants his wife to be the only consort in British history not to be Queen. To me that doesn't pass the smell test. If its not the marriage then its something else big but the contention that somehow Camilla doesn't care about titles or doesn't want to be Queen is rubbish imo .

 

[KittyAtlanta]

Case law should be enough to provide that the marriage between Charles and Camilla is legal - many of our laws here are based upon case law. Provided that the Government's view that their marriage is legal has been properly instituted in one of the mechanisms enabling it to be legal then I cannot see that there is a problem.

If the marriage is not legal, then why was it held in and performed by representatives of the government? It is legal or it wouldn't have happened in England.

Thanks for your post.

 

[Curryong]

A new YouGov poll just out has only 16% of Britons wanting a Queen Camilla. 46% say she should be Princess Consort.

 

[Rudolph]

What I don't like is the seemingly cavalier attitude towards Camilla being Queen. When William decides to spend Christmas with the Middletons people pull their hair out as if the future of the monarchy depends on him being at Sandringham and yet here we have C&C thumbing their noses at hundreds of years of tradition and common law because of some PR stunt. I just don't get it

 

[KittyAtlanta]

William has nothing to do with this thread. You think their wedding was a PR stunt??? I can't stop laughing.

 

[Rudolph]

Camilla taking the title of Princess Consort is a PR stunt.

 

[KittyAtlanta]

I can't figure out whose side you are on. Which would be your preference, Queen Consort C. or Princess Consort C.

 

[Lady Nimue]

Camilla taking the title of Princess Consort is a PR stunt.

In a sense, but I don't think it's without serious concerns. Camilla may just not want all the sturm-und-drang from the Diana-Fans. There may also be some sensitivity to family members - like Diana's sons. Pure speculation, of course. I cannot know, nor can anyone, but I trust that the decision was not taken lightly. That it has to do with Diana seems obvious, but maybe there are other reasons we will never know.

 

[Rudolph]

@Kitty Atlanta: Queen of course. I think its ridiculous for anyone including Charles to suggest otherwise. He should just take his lumps and state unequivocally Camilla will known as Queen Consort

 

[KittyAtlanta]

I agree most heartily.

 

[Skippyboo]

Camilla And The Public

The Diana issue with the Princess of Wales versus using Duchess of Cornwall made sense at the time.

The whole Princess Consort title seems unnecessary to make at the time of the marriage. Why comment?
No one knows when Charles will become King so to make statement then seems silly. The atmosphere at the time of the wedding and now is completely different and in 5 yrs it will be more different.

Legally as soon as Charles is King, Camilla is Queen. Charles would have to issue a LP to create Camilla as Princess Consort but she is still Queen even if she uses the Princess Consort title or goes by Mrs Mountbatten Windsor.

The question is what does Charles and Camilla actually want? I don't see the government at the time of the Queen's death forcing the issue. If Camilla actually wants not to be know as Queen, is she not going to get crowned at the coronation?


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community

 

[Jacknch]

Skippyboo asks a very pertinent question - won't Camilla be crowned as Queen Consort at the coronation? Well, ever since the Princess Consort announcement was made, i have always felt that she would not therefore be crowned during the coronation ceremony. Whatever the legal status is - and I agree for all intents and purposes she will be queen - it seems rather messy to crown her Queen Consort but be known as Princess Consort.

For the record, I would rather she were to be known as queen when the time comes, it makes no sense to call her princess consort. I never minded Duchess of Cornwall in deference to Charles' first wife, that was a nice gesture.

The bottom line is that I do not think one should tinker with things that don't need tinkering - whatever the polls may or may not say, the general public hate tinkering!

 

[Mbruno]

The Diana issue with the Princess of Wales versus using Duchess of Cornwall made sense at the time.


Legally as soon as Charles is King, Camilla is Queen. Charles would have to issue a LP to create Camilla as Princess Consort but she is still Queen even if she uses the Princess Consort title or goes by Mrs Mountbatten Windsor,

There are no statutes regulating the title of the monarch's consort AFAIK. We cannot assume then that Camilla will be automatically queen consort when Charles becomes king.

Furthermore, her future title does matter in practice. If she is titled "queen", she will be referred to as "Her Majesty" and princes/princesses of foreign royal houses who are H.R.H's will have to bow/curtsy to her. If she remains "princess consort" only, she will be just an H.R.H. and, most likely, won't get any bow/curtsy from continental crown princes/princesses, with the possible exception of Mette-Marit, who seems to curtsy to everybody (even president Obama and CP Mary of Denmark !).

 

[Rudolph]

The title Queen Consort is enshrined in Common Law. When a woman marries man she takes his rank and status. So to have HRH The Princess Consort goes against hundreds of years of Common Law and implies an unequal marriage and common law works on precedent. It has always been the wife of a British King shall be Queen.

In the absence of an Act of Parliament we apply Common Law and that law says she is a Queen.

That's how it been explained to me

 

[wyevale]

This is absolutely the case Rudolph,

Without specific LP there is no other title for the wife of a king to hold in the UK..other than Queen.