King Charles and Queen Camilla

[Frothy]

Elspeth,

Most regrettably I think there will be such legislation. But you could quite easily remove the monarch as the head of the C of E without disestablishing it; the Archbishop of Canterbury would then be the head. There have been a few articles in the British press about it (the possible substitution of the Archbishop for the King).

 

[Iluvbertie]

Avalon,



Unless I am mistaken, the only legislation that would be required would be for the Princess Consort not to be queen.

For her to legally be Queen but to be known as Princess Consort would not require legislation, I think?

Does somebody know differently?

In any case, there is nothing "supposed" about the Duchess of Cornwall's future as Princess Consort. Buckingham Palace has announced it. They are the authority.

After all, have we not posted ad infinitum that Lady Louise is legally, technically, HRH Princess Louise of Wessex - and yet no legislation has been passed, she is simply known as Lady Louise (including on TRF thread headings). It is, I believe, an exact paralell.

There is a difference between the scenarios you mention and Camilla being Princess Consort.

Camilla using the title Duchess of Cornwall is fine as she is using the female form of a title that Charles holds. Charles has been Duke of Cornwall since the early hours of the 6th February, 1952. Camilla is using one of his titles.

Louise is the daughter of an earl and thus is Lady Louise. She may be entitled, as the male line granddaughter of a monarch to be HRH but she is also a Lady as are all the daughters of earls e.g. Lady Diana Spencer.


The title Princess Consort doesn't actually exist at the moment and therefore would require legislation to bring it into being.

That is the problem.

BP has used the word 'intention' with regard to Camilla's title leaving open the possibility of her using some other title.


When the question of her future titles was raised in Parliament in 2005 the reply was the she will be Queen and that legislation will be needed to deny her that title.


Not using a more senior title when given a choice is not the same as using a title that currently doesn't exist and having to have it created for you.

That is the difference between Camilla and Louise's present situations and Camilla's future situation.

 

[branchg]

It's not just the fact the title of Princess Consort doesn't exist. The real issue is Camilla will be Queen and cannot be styled as a Princess of the UK. Legally, Parliament would have to remove her rank to allow Charles to create her a princess of the UK.

Presently, she is a princess of the UK by marriage and has styled herself after one of her husband's peerages. She holds equal rank as the wife of the heir.

This would not be the case with Princess Consort as she would hold a lesser rank than Queen, which is unprecedented and controversial.

 

[Madame Royale]

But would it - the title - not hold an equal precedence to that of a Prince Consort and shall she not remain as is the case with all wives or husbands of the sovereign, 'the' supporting figure which at the end of the day shall be her number one priority anyhow. Whether officially (we are, most of us, aware of the lagality's of her title upon Charles's accession) known as Queen or not, Camilla will be the first lady of the land and 'if' any legislation is passed, then she would take precedence over any other member of the royal family apart from the King, just like a Queen Consort, although bearing the lesser style of Majesty and titled as a Princess of the United Kingdom.

So, in all but the style and title of Majesty and Queen, she will still be the King's consort and shall hold a rank (newly established if so) in accordance to that of the Sovereign's wife.

Please dont misinterpret what I am saying as I perfectly understand what is being said by the participants of this discussion

 

[Frothy]

But when was there ever a royal Earl? Never, right, except as a lesser title?

Can somebody point me to where it states that legislation is needed to create new titles?

Legislation may well be needed to deny the rank of queen, but that is not what we are discussing. We assume she is legally queen but will be known as something else.

I want to see where legislation is required for her to choose to use the style of Princess Consort.

 

[love_cc]

Actually HRH Princess Consort gives me an impression that Charles will have more than one wife at the same time and then he needs different titiles for his wives. Since Camilla is Charles's sole lawful wife now, she should be Queen when Charles inherits the throne. King's wife is Queen and we should keep the precedent. It is unreasonable to pass a legislation to deny Camilla's right to be called Queen Consort and then create her as HRH Princess Consort. Law making should not benefit only one person but a group of people. People should respect second wife's lawful rights.

 

[bbb]

Elspeth,

Most regrettably I think there will be such legislation. But you could quite easily remove the monarch as the head of the C of E without disestablishing it; the Archbishop of Canterbury would then be the head. There have been a few articles in the British press about it (the possible substitution of the Archbishop for the King).

i don't know alot of english history but i'm pretty sure more than one archbishop has lost his head (literally) for such thoughts.
politians come and go (how many prime ministers has the queen met) but the institution of the monachy is constant. politics mixing in family business imo is sickening and counter productive. When charles becomes king, camilla will be queen. period-call her whatever you want (princess consort sounds stupid imo) but they need to just accept she is queen. stop trying to get votes while hurting people who don't deserve it.
before i get blasted, in my defense i love the royal family and all this just seems to be raking over ashes that should be allowed to grow cold. )

 

[Frothy]

There is another precedent, too, for somebody 'being known' for a title they do not hold, an invented title: HRH Princess Alice, Duchess of Gloucester. No letters patent were issued, nor was legislation passed, allowing HRH the Dowager Duchess of Gloucester to assume the first-name style of a Princess of the blood royal; the Queen said she would be known as it, could style herself as it, and the thing was done - and Princess Alice was Princess Alice until her death.

This is what I mean when I say that the current orthodoxy that legislation would be required for the queen to be known as Princess Consort and styled as merely Royal Highness is quite foundless. Buck House knows what it is doing when it says she will be known as Princess Consort. Without action from Charles to stop it, she will be.

Nobody should be in any doubt that I admire the Duchess of Cornwall and want to see her a true Queen, which she will not be unless so styled. I want to see her Princess of Wales and Queen of England. I am dismayed by the actions of the Prince of Wales over her title and style and I am looking to him to set it right.

 

[Skydragon]

British law is such that it will have to go through parliament if they want to call Camilla anything but Queen Consort.

If she is called anything but Queen Consort, I believe that there would be outrage from the Kings subjects.

 

[branchg]

But would it - the title - not hold an equal precedence to that of a Prince Consort and shall she not remain as is the case with all wives or husbands of the sovereign, 'the' supporting figure which at the end of the day shall be her number one priority anyhow. Whether officially (we are, most of us, aware of the lagality's of her title upon Charles's accession) known as Queen or not, Camilla will be the first lady of the land and 'if' any legislation is passed, then she would take precedence over any other member of the royal family apart from the King, just like a Queen Consort, although bearing the lesser style of Majesty and titled as a Princess of the United Kingdom.

So, in all but the style and title of Majesty and Queen, she will still be the King's consort and shall hold a rank (newly established if so) in accordance to that of the Sovereign's wife.

Please dont misinterpret what I am saying as I perfectly understand what is being said by the participants of this discussion

It's her husband's rank that matters from a legal point of view. Camilla is the legal wife of Prince Charles and shares his rank. Once he becomes King, she is Queen Consort and first lady of the land. You cannot be a Princess if you are legally Queen without Parliament intervening with an Act.

 

[branchg]

But when was there ever a royal Earl? Never, right, except as a lesser title?

Can somebody point me to where it states that legislation is needed to create new titles?

Legislation may well be needed to deny the rank of queen, but that is not what we are discussing. We assume she is legally queen but will be known as something else.

I want to see where legislation is required for her to choose to use the style of Princess Consort.

Legislation is required because there is no constitutional precedent for the King's wife being anything but Queen Consort. The wife of the King is Queen and cannot hold a lesser rank as a princess of the UK because the marriage would be morganatic. As was clarified in 1936, there is no such thing for The Sovereign unless Parliament agrees to pass an Act allowing it.

For members of the royal family, the will of the Crown determines their style, rank and titles. The Sovereign is fount of honour. Legislation is not required because there is no constitutional law governing the style or title of members of the royal family. It is within the gift of the Sovereign.

 

[branchg]

There is another precedent, too, for somebody 'being known' for a title they do not hold, an invented title: HRH Princess Alice, Duchess of Gloucester. No letters patent were issued, nor was legislation passed, allowing HRH the Dowager Duchess of Gloucester to assume the first-name style of a Princess of the blood royal; the Queen said she would be known as it, could style herself as it, and the thing was done - and Princess Alice was Princess Alice until her death.

It is not the same thing. Legally, she was Lady Alice Montagu-Scott as the daughter of a Duke, became HRH The Princess Henry, Duchess of Gloucester upon marriage to a son of the sovereign, was HRH The Dowager Duchess of Gloucester as a widow, and was granted the style of Princess Alice, Duchess of Gloucester by consent of The Queen when her son married.

After her husband's death, Alice was still a Royal Highness and Princess. The Queen allowed her to style herself a princess of the UK as if she was the daughter or male-line granddaughter of a sovereign, which is fine because she was the widow of a prince of the UK.

 

[Jo of Palatine]

It is not the same thing. Legally, she was Lady Alice Montagu-Scott as the daughter of a Duke, became HRH The Princess Henry, Duchess of Gloucester upon marriage to a son of the sovereign, was HRH The Dowager Duchess of Gloucester as a widow, and was granted the style of Princess Alice, Duchess of Gloucester by consent of The Queen when her son married.

After her husband's death, Alice was still a Royal Highness and Princess. The Queen allowed her to style herself a princess of the UK as if she was the daughter or male-line granddaughter of a sovereign, which is fine because she was the widow of a prince of the UK.

And that was very much within the traditional lines of styles, as there were two possibilities for the Dowager Duchess, as she was the mother of the next duke: being HRH The Dowager Duchess (quite old-fashioned!) or HRH Alice, Duchess of Gloucester (which sounds as if she was divorced). So allowing her to call herself HRH Princess Alice, Duchess of Gloucester was a way to recognize her "value" within the RF without breaking traditions. The Queen didn't make her into HRH "The" Princess Alice....)

 

[Madame Royale]

It's her husband's rank that matters from a legal point of view. Camilla is the legal wife of Prince Charles and shares his rank. Once he becomes King, she is Queen Consort and first lady of the land. You cannot be a Princess if you are legally Queen without Parliament intervening with an Act.

So pretty much like I stated

Someone mentioned outrage? Dear, I hope not. If there is, surely it will be the traditionalist factions who are as intolerable to change as the IHA of Japan. Traditions are wonderful things, please dont get me wrong, but sometimes they are meant to change or at least, be modified in a way that is believed to be appropriate to the circumstance(s) or indavidual(s) they involve. Or at least thats my take on it.lol.

Whether Queen or Princess Consort, Camilla shall be styled and titled in accordance to what is appropriate for the monarch's wife. And really, the longer it is until that day, the greater likeliness Camilla shall have of remaining HM the Queen.

A question to branchg though...

If an act/legislation does pass, does this mean that the title shall remain after Camilla's death? So say that if Kate (or whoever) marry's William, then she shall also be known as HRH the Princess Consort or shall she indeed be HM the Queen? I would think that the use of Princess Cosnort shall only be for Camilla's purpose and shall be placed in abeyance upon her passing.

Thanks

 

[Sister Morphine]

Nobody should be in any doubt that I admire the Duchess of Cornwall and want to see her a true Queen, which she will not be unless so styled. I want to see her Princess of Wales and Queen of England. I am dismayed by the actions of the Prince of Wales over her title and style and I am looking to him to set it right.

She is opting to use one of Charles's other titles as her own, out of respect to the memory of Diana, who had been the Princess of Wales. She IS the Princess of Wales, by virtue of being married to the Prince of Wales. So it's not like they told her, "You can't be this, use something else." I think that was a personal choice she made.

If that was a personal choice she made, what do you want Charles to do? Force her to adopt the style Princess of Wales?

 

[Frothy]

Branch, as you know, I dispute your assertion that there is a Prince X Duke of Y title (it's just Duke of Y). But let us not have that dispute again on this thread.

Legislation is required because there is no constitutional precedent for the King's wife being anything but Queen Consort. The wife of the King is Queen and cannot hold a lesser rank as a princess of the UK because the marriage would be morganatic. As was clarified in 1936, there is no such thing for The Sovereign unless Parliament agrees to pass an Act allowing it.

Again, there is no question that Camilla would not legally be Queen Consort. The question is not the title but the style. She could legally be queen and yet styled as a Princess.

You also gloss over the title of Princess Alice. Whether she was a princess by marriage is immaterial. To grant her use of her own first name and 'princess' is to make her a Princess of the UK, own right - except no such law was passed and not even letters patent were granted.

Simply, the Queen decided to grant the title/style.

Legislation is not required for Camilla to use the style and lesser title of HRH the Princess Consort. Legislation is only required to deny her the rank of queen. She may choose to use her lesser style and a title granted her by the King.

Legislation will not be required for this. Buckingham Palace knows what it is about.

 

[Jo of Palatine]

Legislation is not required for Camilla to use the style and lesser title of HRH the Princess Consort. Legislation is only required to deny her the rank of queen. She may choose to use her lesser style and a title granted her by the King.

Legislation will not be required for this. Buckingham Palace knows what it is about.

In a way I guess you're right. But think of the image the new king Charles would present to his subjects if he allowed for his wife to be less then queen.

I mean, it was okay that the heir to the throne on marrying his former mistress (whilst having been the center of more than one scandal) decided to not flaunt his new wife as the new "Princess of Wales" but as the "Duchess of Cornwall". It was better than nothing and in fact a big triumph for Charles and Camilla to have succeeded so far.

But for a king Charles (or George) to be married to a mere Princess Consort - now that sounds too much like a lady's companion in former times - more than a servant, of course, genteel, yes, but not really an accepted "lady" of society. But if the king cannot make the woman he loves and legally married (!)into a his "lady wife" then who can? It would be an outrageous show of helpnessness and submission to the media, a syncope of self-belittlement, something not to be taken into account for even one moment. Even if the dead Diana has proven to be larger than life: she can't take a place that was never hers but want just an option for her. And her fans (which includes me!) can't ask for auch an old mechanism like the British monarchy to bow forever their values for the sake of public relations. IMHO, of course.

As for The Prince of Wales: a lot of people honour him and his wife Camilla because these two had the decency to let the late Diana, princess of Wales be "Charles' princess" forever. The same people won't thank and honour king Charles if the king (!) humbles himself (and both Diana and Camilla) on making Camilla "king Charles' princess" when she is in fact HM the Queen (Consort). IMHO.

 

[branchg]

If an act/legislation does pass, does this mean that the title shall remain after Camilla's death? So say that if Kate (or whoever) marry's William, then she shall also be known as HRH the Princess Consort or shall she indeed be HM the Queen? I would think that the use of Princess Cosnort shall only be for Camilla's purpose and shall be placed in abeyance upon her passing.

It's a very good question because the minute Parliament passes an Act formally stripping the Queen Consort of her rank and title, a constitutional precedent has been created legalizing morganatic status for the wife of the King.

I doubt very much this will ever come to pass. The Prime Minister would have to receive the consent of 16 Crown Commonwealth nations in addition to support from both sides of the bench in Parliament to pass this type of legislation.

In my opinion, the whole thing would be ridiculous and a fatal blow to the monarchy.

 

[branchg]

You also gloss over the title of Princess Alice. Whether she was a princess by marriage is immaterial. To grant her use of her own first name and 'princess' is to make her a Princess of the UK, own right - except no such law was passed and not even letters patent were granted.

Simply, the Queen decided to grant the title/style.

Legislation is not required for Camilla to use the style and lesser title of HRH the Princess Consort. Legislation is only required to deny her the rank of queen. She may choose to use her lesser style and a title granted her by the King.

Legislation will not be required for this. Buckingham Palace knows what it is about.

A woman who marries a son or grandson of the sovereign becomes a princess of the UK by right of her marriage. Her style is taken after her husband's name, if she was not born a princess herself, and she is titled by any peerages he may hold. Her precedence flows from her rank as Her Royal Highness, not a duchess or countess as the wife of a peer ("HRH The Duchess of Gloucester"). She is both a princess of the UK and a duchess.

When Princess Marina married The Duke of Kent, she was styled HRH Princess Marina, Duchess of Kent because she was born a princess of Greece and Denmark. When Alice married The Duke of Gloucester, she was styled HRH The Duchess of Gloucester. When Marie-Christine married Prince Michael of Kent, she was styled HRH Princess Michael of Kent. All three women are princesses of the UK through marriage and their precedence is higher than a peeress in her own right or by marriage.

In the case of Lady Diana Spencer, she was HRH The Princess of Wales (in addition to all of her secondary peerages as the wife of the heir to the throne) and Diana, Princess of Wales after divorce. Although technically no longer a princess of the UK or HRH, The Queen granted Diana precedence equal to what she enjoyed while married on state and national occasions. In addition, she retained her royal lozenge with a stylized D over a coronet, which is only granted to the children of the sovereign, and was addressed as Princess Diana by the Palace.

When Charles married Camilla, she automatically became HRH The Princess of Wales just like Diana was. Out of respect to Diana's position as the mother of the future king, Camilla chose to be styled as HRH The Duchess of Cornwall and Rothesay. She holds equal rank to her husband.

Once Charles ascends the throne, Camilla automatically becomes HM The Queen. She is Queen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, not a princess of the UK. Legally, she cannot style herself HRH The Princess Consort because she is not a princess and The King has to make her one. How do you make a Queen Consort a princess?

The only way is to ask Parliament to pass legislation stripping her of her rank and title so The Sovereign can issue letters patent creating her a princess of the UK in her own right with precedence ahead of all the princesses of the blood in line of succession to the throne.

There is a very big difference here in styling yourself by one of your existing titles without affecting your rank as a princess of the UK and assuming a lesser rank as the King's consort when you are already Queen.

Hope this helped!

 

[Madame Royale]

It's a very good question because the minute Parliament passes an Act formally stripping the Queen Consort of her rank and title, a constitutional precedent has been created legalizing morganatic status for the wife of the King.

I doubt very much this will ever come to pass. The Prime Minister would have to receive the consent of 16 Crown Commonwealth nations in addition to support from both sides of the bench in Parliament to pass this type of legislation.

In my opinion, the whole thing would be ridiculous and a fatal blow to the monarchy.

Thanks for you reply branchg

Although we respectfully disagree on the matter, the likeliness of such a legislation is probably very small.

It will be interesting to see how it pans out.

 

[sirhon11234]

Well I think its apporiate that the Duchess of Cornwall should be known as H.R.H The Princess Consort if Charles ascends the throne. I don't think she should become a Queen Consort. I don't mean to offend anyone but thats my opinion.

 

[Ennyllorac]

Well I think its apporiate that the Duchess of Cornwall should be known as H.R.H The Princess Consort if Charles ascends the throne. I don't think she should become a Queen Consort. I don't mean to offend anyone but thats my opinion.

Out of curiosity, why shouldn't she be Queen Consort? Isn't that the title of the wife of the King?

 

[Sister Morphine]

Well I think its apporiate that the Duchess of Cornwall should be known as H.R.H The Princess Consort if Charles ascends the throne. I don't think she should become a Queen Consort. I don't mean to offend anyone but thats my opinion.

If Diana was still alive would you still think this way? Or is it only because she's deceased? I'm no fan of the part she played in the breakup of their marriage, but she's Charles's lawful wife and entitled to being styled as Queen when he ascends the throne.

As I stated in one of these other threads, I know several people, British and non-British that feel the way you do, but barring some extreme act of Parliament, it's not going to happen.

 

[kimebear]

I have to say that I am not a fan of either of Prince Charles' wives. I do feel a measure of sympathy for a young Diana not having the fairytale marriage that all young girls hope for. But - when the time comes for Charles to ascend the throne, wouldn't he, as King, have to request that Parliament passes a law to strip Camilla of the title of HM the Queen Consort so that she could be given the lesser title of Princess Consort? If he goes to that kind of trouble, it would obviously be the decision of Charles and Camilla as I don't think anyone is pressuring them into it. Camilla's acceptance grows daily. Perhaps a decision for her to be known as Princess Consort instead of Queen Consort should be respected because it would be their personal choice. Just IMHO. I would have no problem with Camilla being either Queen or Princess Consort when the time comes. She may legally be HM The Queen Consort, but shouldn't she have the right to choose?

 

[branchg]

It just wouldn't be appropriate for the Government, The Queen and The Archbishop of Canterbury to all give their blessing to Charles marrying Camilla and then denying her rightful rank as Queen when he is King. What's the point of allowing them to marry in the first place?

If she was good enough to become the wife of the heir, then she's good enough to be Queen.

 

[sirhon11234]

If Diana was still alive would you still think this way?

Yes I would . But I don't think Camilla is a bad person. I believe that the Queen Consort title should be given to someone who is in touch with the people and also has a connection with the people. If Camilla devolps a more better relationship with the people of England and does more charity work then I wouldn't object to Camilla becoming the Queen Consort.

 

[Sister Morphine]

Yes I would . But I don't think Camilla is a bad person. I believe that the Queen Consort title should be given to someone who is in touch with the people and also has a connection with the people. If Camilla devolps a more better relationship with the people of England and does more charity work then I wouldn't object to Camilla becoming the Queen Consort.

Queen Consort = wife the King Regnant.


The title has nothing to do with and no bearing on the person's abilities to connect with people or be in touch with people. The title is not contigent upon winning Miss Congeniality. Whether she's Miss Mary Sunshine or a cantankerous old woman, when Charles is King, she will be Queen Consort.

 

[Madame Royale]

If Camilla is known as 'the Queen' (and if this is the case then I will surely accept it), I just believe that the intended title of 'Princess Consort' was really an ill thought out or ill advised alternative that many new would never come to pass and that to me, does not say much for the advisory council of Buckingham Palace or more specifically, Clarence House.

Perhaps it was used as a way of measuring public response to the possibility of Camilla becoming Queen Consort (hence the word 'intended').

 

[soCal girl]

Yes I would . But I don't think Camilla is a bad person. I believe that the Queen Consort title should be given to someone who is in touch with the people and also has a connection with the people. If Camilla devolps a more better relationship with the people of England and does more charity work then I wouldn't object to Camilla becoming the Queen Consort.

I believe Camilla has developed a relationship with the people in her own way. Nobody can ask for more.

It is Camilla's right to be Queen Consort and if Parliament/Clarence House/whoever take time and energy to give her the title Princess Consort then that is a sad use of time.

 

[love_cc]

If Camilla is known as 'the Queen' (and if this is the case then I will surely accept it), I just believe that the intended title of 'Princess Consort' was really an ill thought out or ill advised alternative that many new would never come to pass and that to me, does not say much for the advisory council of Buckingham Palace or more specifically, Clarence House.

Perhaps it was used as a way of measuring public response to the possibility of Camilla becoming Queen Consort (hence the word 'intended').

I think during the news of engagement, the clarence house wanted to soften some attitude towards Charles and Camilla's marriage. Then they announced that Camilla will not be called Princess of Wales or Queen. However later the news turned out that Camilla is legally Princess of Wales or Queen in the future which sounds like hiding some facts or misleading some facts. Camilla will be Queen Consort when Charles becomes King Even Camilla really not wanting to be called Queen, she will learn to accept the fact that marrying a heir to the throne will become Queen. Basically Camilla will never do anything to block Charles's rights to inherit the throne and she will compromise finally because that is the way the tradition set.