King Charles and Queen Camilla


If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Status
Not open for further replies.
Love CC, I completely agree with you. I hope circumstances change too. And I think Camilla is proving herself as worth her weight in gold and that there would be no objection to this change. All it requires is a little guts. The only thing that worries me is that she is working so well as 'Prince of W/Duchess of C' that they may not want to rock the boat, they may fear that going back to the norm of Queen would damage Camilla's present popularity.

I really do want her to be Queen Camilla and known as Queen Camilla. I can't stand the idea of the King's wife known as the Princess Consort.

enough of this! I have to get to bed. TRF are addictive!:)
 
I highly doubt there will be any momentum from the Government, the Commonwealth, the Church or the public to downgrade Camilla's position as Queen Consort. By the time it comes to pass, both she and Charles will be old and their reign will not last long.

People are looking towards the future and that really rests with William anyway. His reign will be far longer and more influential than his father's will be.
 
Don't worry, Frothy. Camilla will be accepted as a memeber of royal family, the wife of the heir to the throne, a future queen by the majority of British people as times go by. People will understand that divorce is a part of modern society and it occurs to the royals as well.

People will accept a truly happy royal couple rather than a sham royal marriage. Diana will be always regarded as a great POW,but Camilla will be regarded as a good Queen to King Charles and his people. This is my view.This is how the destiny and how the god decides.
 
branchg said:
In a sense, it IS a higher title (at least in the peerage of the UK) because he automatically became The Duke of Cornwall in 1952 as the eldest son and heir of The Sovereign. He also is entitled under law to the income and monies accrued from the Duchy itself as the eldest son and heir..
.

I was thinking the very same thing. What also reminded me was I was watching the Travel Channel's Top 10 Castles of Britain and saw the Caernarfon Castle where Charles was "crowned" The Prince of Wales.
 
Camilla will be Queen. Anything less is a joke.
 
Camilla will be what is decided when that time comes. Whether it be Princess Consort (officially) or Queen Consort, only the future knows :)
 
Judy_PD said:
Personally i'd not like the idea of Camilla being Queen at all. I think it'd ruin some opinions of Diana's memory.

Diana was never going to be Queen after her divorce, (with or without Camilla's marriage to Charles), she may even have remarried, so how can it ruin some opinions of her memory?
 
Just want to add that even experts on constitutional law are not sure what the law requires:

(from:http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/03/24/world/main682952.shtml)

"Stephen Cretney of Oxford University accused Clarence House of deliberately glossing over the fact that Camilla will automatically be queen unless there is new legislation.

"I think there has been, shall we say, a certain lack of candor from the outset," he told the BBC.

John Adamson of Cambridge University, however, supported the royals' view, and said the Lord Chancellor, Lord Falconer, had misread the constitution. "He has muddled again," he told AP. "

The question is already discussed in legal journals... so I guess it's really open what will happen. If legislation is needed, I don't see this happen when the whole commonwealth (and the rest of the world) looks on while Charles mourns his beloved mother. Afterwards it's a fait accompli, IMHO. And that's what Charles wants.
 
Judy_PD said:
Personally i'd not like the idea of Camilla being Queen at all. I think it'd ruin some opinions of Diana's memory.
Next thing, someone will be saying they don't want Camilla to be Queen because the title belongs to Queen Elizabeth and will downgrade her memory once she's gone. :wacko:
 
Jo of Palatine said:
The question is already discussed in legal journals... so I guess it's really open what will happen. If legislation is needed, I don't see this happen when the whole commonwealth (and the rest of the world) looks on while Charles mourns his beloved mother. Afterwards it's a fait accompli, IMHO. And that's what Charles wants.

The precedents in constitutional law and practice are clear, including the 1936 citations. There is no basis for the wife of the King not being Queen Consort without consent from Parliament.

I'm not saying Camilla won't be Princess Consort, she may very well be depending on the political temperature at the time. But there is no basis in the law to deny her the rank and title of Queen.
 
I wonder what Lady Gabriella would wear to the occasion?
Stunning dress, a tiara maybe?
Does anyone have any idea?
 
She'd probably wear a dress and a tiara with evening gloves and any decorations she may have picked up by then.
 
Warren said:
Next thing, someone will be saying they don't want Camilla to be Queen because the title belongs to Queen Elizabeth and will downgrade her memory once she's gone. :wacko:



The only way I can see the Diana faction making a point about not giving Camilla the title Queen because of Diana's having died is if Charles and Diana were married at the time of her death and Charles then turned around and married Camilla. Wife dies, you turn around and marry your mistress giving her all the titles your deceased wife had? Okay, point taken. I can see how that would appear unseemly.

Unfortunately, that's not what happened here. They were divorced, he remarried 7 or so years after she died. No one's memory will be trampled on here.
 
BeatrixFan said:
She'd probably wear a dress and a tiara with evening gloves and any decorations she may have picked up by then.


Not to mention some tasteful heels and maybe some neutral makeup. Don't want to go overboard during a day-time function.
 
Heels would be a mistake. She'll be standing for a very long time. She wants a nice long frock right down to the floor so that she can wear a pair of house slippers!
 
BeatrixFan said:
Heels would be a mistake. She'll be standing for a very long time. She wants a nice long frock right down to the floor so that she can wear a pair of house slippers!



Nah, I want to see some bunny slippers. Nothing screams "solemnity" and "tradition" like a bunny nose sticking out from the bottom of someone's dress.
 
It is very interesting. She will be queen, that is the one thing we all agree on. The only question is what will she be "known as". Let us say for the sake of the argument there is an extra title of PC created and she uses that, but she legally remains queen. This is the position as I understand it, but for the sake of this post let's accept that as a premise.

What then happens at the coronation? For she is legally, and will always be, Queen of England, nor have I ever seen it suggested that legislation would be passed stripping her of that rank and title. Ergo, it would seem to me that even if she were to be "known as" the then-conferred PC title, she would still need to be crowned and need to go through the whole ceremony.

Which makes the "Princess Consort" bit that much more risible when you think about it. Yet :sad: - the RF, and Clarence House, are not backing off the Princess Consort thing. Why? Why don't they just reverse it? What is the delay on this.
 
But why would they (Clarence House or Buckingham Palace) back away from the statement if it is still their belief and intent that Camilla, Duchess of Cornwall shall upon the succession of her husband and King, be officially styled (by way of parliamentary support and intervention) HRH the Princess Consort?

We are all aware this can be enacted and enacted it may just be.

If Clarence House maintains that is is still their intent, then it is still their intent until otherwise made clear. Though, just because it is their intent does not guarantee it shall come to fruition. It really is just a waiting game for us, the public.

Added: And just because it may be a 'prerogative' of the next Royal era, does not mean it shall receive any great backing of the King's government.
 
Last edited:
Madame Royale said:
If Clarence House maintains that is is still their intent, then it is still their intent until otherwise made clear. Though, just because it is their intent does not guarantee it shall come to fruition. It really is just a waiting game for the public.

For one there is no need to act rashly with this matter. The queen is still alive, she seems to be quite healthy and if her mother is an example to take into account, it could be decades till Charles accedes to the throne - if he accedes at all... (meaning that he is not getting any younger and his grand-fathers were not that old when they died: George VI. was 57 years old and died of lung cancer, while Andrew of Greece was 62 when he died of natural causes.) Mind, I don't hope it is going this way but it's still a possibility...

Times works for Charles and Camilla. It has been said at the time of the wedding that it has been Camilla's wish to remain one step behind her husband. It is certainly not something traditionalists like the queen or the POW wish themselves. But it seemed reasonable when one remembers the polls about the public's opinion prior to the wedding. At that time IMHO the most important step was to introduce Camilla into the RF and to see that she got the HRH-style without creating a public outcry. For that aim giving the public the information about a lower title for Camilla worked perfectly. Camilla is now accepted as HRH. In Scotland she is even accepted as the Duchess of Rothesay.

And the polls show that people come to like Camilla - even the media has decided that she's no longer worth inventing negative things about her. She is presented as warm-hearted, caring, compassionate and the pictures published show that the people she meets enjoy being with her. Now think about the future: who will want to strip this formidable and likeable Royal lady who so obviously makes her husband happy of a title that is hers by law? I'm convinced Clarence House already has found the right experts on constitutional law to come up to the then grieving couple and tell that that it's very difficult to get rid of the constitutional position of a queen. And then the new king and his wife will gracefully give in after polls will have shown that the public wants king Charles (or George) and his wife Camilla (who may even adopt a "Royal name" herself, as queen Mary did IIRC - wasn't she Victoria Mary of Teck?)....

And long live the king and his queen!:lol:
 
Jo of Palatine said:
Times works for Charles and Camilla. It has been said at the time of the wedding that it has been Camilla's wish to remain one step behind her husband. It is certainly not something traditionalists like the queen or the POW wish themselves. But it seemed reasonable when one remembers the polls about the public's opinion prior to the wedding. At that time IMHO the most important step was to introduce Camilla into the RF and to see that she got the HRH-style without creating a public outcry. For that aim giving the public the information about a lower title for Camilla worked perfectly. Camilla is now accepted as HRH. In Scotland she is even accepted as the Duchess of Rothesay.

It is every consorts obligation to remain one step behind their spouse and sovereign though, Jo. Not just Camilla ;)

I totally see what you'e saying, but if the mood has changed within the Wales camp, then it should be aplty made clear so as to diffuse any future misunderstanding that may arise. Its one thing to re think the possibility but to withold that knoweldge, in my mind, is not something I view as particularly helpful.

Also, the public's perception of Camilla has become what I thought it would, greatly tolerant and supportive :) yet most (those who take a keen interest aside) have been lead to believe (and still are) that Camilla is likely to be created Princess Consort which was met with much approval when announced. The best possible time for retraction has now passed in my mind (the best time to do that would have been when the PofW website was re-developed) and so it is now left to when the possibility shall come into play, if it comes into play.

See, it is very likely that the public (those of us who support the Duchess or are better aware, aside) could feel they have been mislead and that is where the problem would arise. If that can be averted then I say take that opportunity and do it asap. If there's one family who knows a thing or two about just how fast public approval can change, then surely its the Windsor's.

I maintain that I wish for the Duchess to be officially created Princess Consort but if she is not then that's the way it is and I will certainly accept it. There is no issue of that.
 
Last edited:
Madame Royale said:
I
See, it is very likely that the public (those of us who support the Duchess or are better aware, aside) could feel they have been mislead and that is where the problem would arise. If that can be averted then I say take that opportunity and do it asap. If there's one family who knows a thing or two about just how fast public approval can change, then surely its the Windsor's.

You're surely right but what can they do? Removing that remark from the webpage would lead to publicity - we're not the only ones checking if that comment is still there or not. But what reason could Camilla give for her change of mind? That she now wants to be queen because she enjoys so much being HRH? There simply is no reason good enough to explain that change that would not lead to a public outcry.

The giovernment at the moment has much more urgent matters at hand than to think about Camilla's future title. There won't be legislation, I bet.
So it's going to be that status quo till the queen dies. That is the only situation when the plans of the time of the wedding can be revised. Once the public sees how Camilla comfort her grieving husband and the grieving grandsons of the then late queen, they all will support her to stay queen. She is then the queen. And I bet you'll see the experts coming out immediately saying that the queen must be crowned as is the custom.

But maybe I'm wrong in interpretating Camilla's real wished. Maybe she really does not want to be known as Princess of Wales. Maybe she does not want to become queen - but what kind of court is this going to be? Without a queen even though the king is legally married? With a young princess of Wales/duchess of Cornwall having precedence over the wife of the king? It's such a mad scheme, IMHO...
 
You're surely right but what can they do? Removing that remark from the webpage would lead to publicity - we're not the only ones checking if that comment is still there or not. But what reason could Camilla give for her change of mind? That she now wants to be queen because she enjoys so much being HRH? There simply is no reason good enough to explain that change that would not lead to a public outcry.

Hardly unworthy of revolutionary revolt I'm sure :lol: but the power of the people is a huge thing, Jo. Again, I guess we would have to sit back and wait to see what happens.

No, its not that Camilla changed her mind (not that we are privy to what HRH thinks), rather the legalities of the situation should be brought to the wider publics knoweldge. Make it clear that at this current time it is the royal couples intent and that any further moves to execute or revoke the change shall be dealt with by the government of the period.

Once the public sees how Camilla comfort her grieving husband and the grieving grandsons of the then late queen

I dont really warm to any idea that the Duchess' popularity shall increase by the way she comforts her family when the Queen eventually passes away. She is part of that family and one would like to think that she, herself, would be in mounring of her late mother in-law and sovereign.
 
Last edited:
Madame Royale said:
I dont really warm to any idea that the Duchess' popularity shall increase by the way she comforts her family when the Queen eventually passes away. She is part of that family and one would like to think that she, herself, would be in mounring of her late mother in-law and sovereign.

That's it: she is part of "that" family who obviously did not react to the public's liking at first when it came to Diana's death. So a different handling could be well attributed to Camilla and the way her influence changed at least her husband. :flowers:
 
Jo of Palatine said:
For one there is no need to act rashly with this matter. The queen is still alive, she seems to be quite healthy and if her mother is an example to take into account, it could be decades till Charles accedes to the throne - if he accedes at all... (meaning that he is not getting any younger and his grand-fathers were not that old when they died: George VI. was 57 years old and died of lung cancer, while Andrew of Greece was 62 when he died of natural causes.) Mind, I don't hope it is going this way but it's still a possibility...

Times works for Charles and Camilla. It has been said at the time of the wedding that it has been Camilla's wish to remain one step behind her husband. It is certainly not something traditionalists like the queen or the POW wish themselves. But it seemed reasonable when one remembers the polls about the public's opinion prior to the wedding. At that time IMHO the most important step was to introduce Camilla into the RF and to see that she got the HRH-style without creating a public outcry. For that aim giving the public the information about a lower title for Camilla worked perfectly. Camilla is now accepted as HRH. In Scotland she is even accepted as the Duchess of Rothesay.

And the polls show that people come to like Camilla - even the media has decided that she's no longer worth inventing negative things about her. She is presented as warm-hearted, caring, compassionate and the pictures published show that the people she meets enjoy being with her. Now think about the future: who will want to strip this formidable and likeable Royal lady who so obviously makes her husband happy of a title that is hers by law? I'm convinced Clarence House already has found the right experts on constitutional law to come up to the then grieving couple and tell that that it's very difficult to get rid of the constitutional position of a queen. And then the new king and his wife will gracefully give in after polls will have shown that the public wants king Charles (or George) and his wife Camilla
And long live the king and his queen!:lol:

I agree with you, Jo!
I couldn´t go online for some time, so i just read the new discussion about an old subject...it doesn´t seems to me that the opinion of the two main groups has changed now....
But your post is a very good summary about what i´m thinking too, thank you! :flowers: ( and your English is much better than mine...:rolleyes: )
 
I assume that at some point shortly after Charles accedes, there'll be some sort of announcement to the effect that the legal Pooh Bahs have looked into the legalities of the Princess Consort stuff and found that it's really quite complicated and difficult and requires consent from several other countries etc etc. And that given the increasing popularity of Camilla and the support she's shown to the King and the rest of the family, they're going to leave things as they are and have her stay as Queen Consort.

As Jo said, it doesn't seem to be practical to remove the "it is intended.." stuff from the royal website without attracting a deal of attention, so why do it? It's not as though Camilla is widely unpopular or anything, so the notion of Queen Camilla isn't really going to be the threshold to a republic.
 
I don't think that would wash at all, Elspeth. After all it would be impossible to credit that they only discovered there were difficulties after the accession. Such an announcement would need to come in advance, perhaps when Her Majesty becomes very old or starts to withdraw from public life like Princess Alice did.
 
Right, let's go back a little. A few weeks after their engagement was announced, there was a Panorama episode which focused on the marriage. It was Panorama that got in touch with the Lord Chancellor etc and discovered that the Princess Consort title could only be given if created by an Act of Parliament. Why? Right;

Camilla is HRH The Princess of Wales but has chosen to use the Duchess of Cornwall. Now, she can do that because she IS the Duchess of Cornwall. When she becomes Queen however, she will not have as a lesser title, The Princess Consort and so the title will have to be created by an act of parliament. This would make Camilla Princess Consort in Britain but it would take every other commonwealth country to agree to it to let her be known as Princess Consort in their countries. When the Queen dies, Charles immediately becomes King Charles III - before the proclamation, before the coronation - he becomes King immediately and Camilla becomes Queen Consort immediately. Therefore, you'd need an act of parliament before the present Queen dies because afterwards would simply be too late. She'd be Queen for 9-12 months and the bill would probably never make it through the Lords. The Palace know the Princess Consort title is an impossibility. Gyles Brandreth said that they were furious at the BBC for revealing that Camilla would be Queen and not Princess Consort as they had planned to keep that under wraps until Charles became King. It hasn't worked and it's been a huge blunder.

So now let us be under no illusion. Charles will be King. Camilla will be Queen. And long may they reign over us.
 
I agree that that Camilla will de jure be Queen, as the rightful wedded spouse of The King. Like now, she is de jure Princess of Wales, being the rightful wedded spouse of The Prince of Wales.

But de facto, she is only always and everywhere, officially and unofficially, 'known as' The Duchess of Cornwall. The fact that both on the official site of the monarchy as on the site of The Prince of Wales, still can be read: "It is intended that The Duchess of Cornwall will use the title HRH The Princess Consort when The Prince of Wales accedes to The Throne."

Yes, 'intended', but still it are no murmurings during an interview, it is written black on white on official websites and outspoken in official statements. That makes me doubt about the future de facto situation.

This makes me think about the Netherlands, where the intention is that the spouse of the Sovereign will officially be styled HRH The Prince (Princess) of the Netherlands, no matter the gender of the spouse. Will Charles, who wants to adapt monarchy to the Third Millennium, streamline the styles too, in an attempt to make it more in line with today's egalitarian views?

Such a step would however set a precedent for the wife of William and his successors...
 
It's the Charles II problem. You don't let parliament change the monarchy when it suits you because inevitably, they'll change it when it doesn't.
 
BeatrixFan,

again, I recall no such Panorama programme, and that has been contradicted by the spokeswoman for the Dept of Constitutional Affairs. I think you're getting confused - the Act would be required to strip Camilla of her title as Queen, not to create her Princess Consort. No Acts are needed to create titles, just letters patent.

What was "revealed" at the time was the fact that without legislation Camilla would be Queen. All posters are agreed upon this point, I think.

so the title [Princess Consort] will have to be created by an act of parliament.

Have you any proof of this to contradict the statement of the Dept of Constitutional Affairs which instead stated legislation was needed to strip Camilla of the title of Queen?

For sure, Charles will be King and Camilla will be Queen. But it is what Camilla will be known as that concerns us all.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom