King Charles and Queen Camilla


If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Status
Not open for further replies.
quote

ysbel said:
That's going to be a major problem for William's future bride when Charles becomes King.
Maybe or maybe not.
 
branchg said:
Unless Parliament and the Crown Commonwealth agree to alter the title and style of the succession, it's not going to happen.

Absolutely :) And there remains the real possibility that it shall happen.

Not directed at any one person, but there is emphasis being layed upon the legalities as if it were a re-writing of the 10 commandments. Its really nothing of the sort. The viability of the process could possibly come to surprise many. To think that Commonwealth governments would deny or in any way block an act of parliament when having been advised on the intent is not really justified. As is, I would be certain that those Commonwealth nations who should have any say in the matter are already aware of what is proposed, and have been since the engagement. I'm not saying this is a process which does not require a depth of political provision because it certainly does, but if some feel that Camilla will not be accorded an official lesser position (as is the will thus far) because of the process involved, you must be aware that the Palace of Westminster has decided upon greater, more concerning issues than that of a royal consort's *1 official title (not that they have ever been faced with officially downgrading the sovereign's spouse, but I'm certain its not something which cannot be done).

I say to everyone that its best to keep an open mind, that way no one gets dissapointed ;).lol.

Either way, Princess Consort or Queen Consort..Camilla will be 'the' Consort and a great one at that! :)
 
Last edited:
wbenson said:
On the not being a Princess part, the Duke of Edinburgh is not covered by the letters patent of 1917, but he was created HRH in 1947 and a Prince of the United Kingdom in 1957. I don't see why she couldn't simply be granted those titles in addition to the title of HM the Queen, and then just use the Princess Consort titles. I wouldn't agree with it however, and I would prefer to see her as Queen.

Because you cannot be a Princess of the UK if you are HM The Queen. It's that simple.
 
BeatrixFan said:
Why didnt she just use the Princess of Wales title and have done with it? Its caused so many problems. She should have gone with the Princess of Wales title and they should have been honest and said, yes, she will be Queen. It would save so much hassle.

I agree. But I also understand the point of being styled by her ducal title instead since Diana died as Princess of Wales and was the mother of the future king.

However, once she becomes Queen, that's when the accomodation should end.
 
Why on earth they didn't just go with Duchess of Cornwall, to become Queen Consort when Charles became king, is beyond me. I think this is another piece of bad advice they were given by people who should have known a great deal better.

There are several reasons for her to take the Duchess of Cornwall title, and it probably led to her acceptance by the public more quickly and easily than if she'd called herself Princess of Wales. But this Princess Consort stuff is just ludicrous.
 
Elspeth said:
But this Princess Consort stuff is just ludicrous.

To you and others, perhaps, Elspeth. But there are those who see reason in it ;)

I know those who appose and those who support both here and in England. To be honest, of those I know to care in the UK, a great many support the change. Of course there are those who don't and that is perfectly fine and they too make up a notable quantity. And then there are those who couldn't give a flying pig.lol.
 
Last edited:
ysbel said:
That's going to be a major problem for William's future bride when Charles becomes King.



Yeah, what will happen when the Prince of Wales's wife outranks the King's wife? That'll make placement at royal functions a bit tricky.


wbenson said:
On the not being a Princess part, the Duke of Edinburgh is not covered by the letters patent of 1917, but he was created HRH in 1947 and a Prince of the United Kingdom in 1957. I don't see why she couldn't simply be granted those titles in addition to the title of HM the Queen, and then just use the Princess Consort titles. I wouldn't agree with it however, and I would prefer to see her as Queen.


Prince Philip was already a prince when he married Elizabeth, her father the King gave him a dukedom to re-enhance his HRH status, as he had to relinquish rights to the Greek and Danish thrones to marry her. So he made a [downgraded] Prince a Duke and the Queen made a Duke a Prince (with the "The" befitting the child of a sovereign). All that is an upgrade. And all the titles he received showed that it was an equal marriage, not morgantic.


Now, you take the Queen and downgrade her to a morgantic wife of the King? Where's the fairness in that?
 
Sister Morphine said:
Yeah, what will happen when the Prince of Wales's wife outranks the King's wife? That'll make placement at royal functions a bit tricky.

Is this really the case? I must say that I wasn't aware of that so if someone can conforim this (branchg or anyone who know's for definite) that would be muchly appreciated :)

As much as I'm in favour of Camilla being created Princess Consort, I don't like the idea of her being preceded by the next Princess of Wales.
 
I presume Charles could say that she takes precedence over other royal ladies, much as the Queen has said that Princess Alexandra has precedence over the wives of princes higher in the line of succession. But "Princess Consort" isn't a known quantity, and it's basically sending a message that the holder of the title is in some way less worthy.

The whole point of the British royal system, unlike some of the European countries where women marrying into the royal family can be given titles in their own right, is that a woman's position and title is conferred as a result of her marriage and doesn't stand separate from that of her husband. As was said at the time of the abdication, you'd be looking at a law saying something along the lines that "Whereas the wife of the King is the Queen, and whereas the current wife of the King is unfit to be Queen..." which is something they weren't prepared to get into. And rightly so, in my opinion. I mean, who's to judge whether a woman is fit to be Queen? The heir to the throne may not be fit to be King (or Queen), but most of the time that doesn't stop it happening anyway.

If you have a wife who's unfit to be Queen but the Prince of Wales has a wife who's presumably fit to be Queen, then, indeed, who does have precedence? For a woman unfit to be Queen to have precedence over a woman fit to be Queen brings up some awkward questions of its own. Which is part of why I said I think this whole business is ludicrous.
 
Madame Royale said:
Is this really the case? I must say that I wasn't aware of that so if someone can conforim this (branchg or anyone who know's for definite) that would be muchly appreciated :)

As much as I'm in favour of Camilla being created Princess Consort, I don't like the idea of her being preceded by the next Princess of Wales.


Well, much like what Elspeth just said, if William marries Kate....that obviously means they see her fit to be Queen one day. She'd be HRH Princess William of Wales. When Charles becomes King, she'd be HRH Princess William, Princess of Wales. Now, Charles might pass Letters Patent making her a princess of the UK in her own right, which would make her HRH Princess Catherine, Princess of Wales.

If Camilla is Princess Consort, not Queen Consort, that's basically putting her at equal rank of the Princess of Wales...both consorts of a Prince. Difference being Princess Consort says "morgantic marriage", Princess of Wales does not. So, Catherine would outrank Camilla....the King's wife. Not pretty. Hence why this "Princess Consort" business is a load of bunkum.
 
Elspeth said:
I presume Charles could say that she takes precedence over other royal ladies, much as the Queen has said that Princess Alexandra has precedence over the wives of princes higher in the line of succession. But "Princess Consort" isn't a known quantity, and it's basically sending a message that the holder of the title is in some way less worthy.

The whole point of the British royal system, unlike some of the European countries where women marrying into the royal family can be given titles in their own right, is that a woman's position and title is conferred as a result of her marriage and doesn't stand separate from that of her husband. As was said at the time of the abdication, you'd be looking at a law saying something along the lines that "Whereas the wife of the King is the Queen, and whereas the current wife of the King is unfit to be Queen..." which is something they weren't prepared to get into. And rightly so, in my opinion. I mean, who's to judge whether a woman is fit to be Queen? The heir to the throne may not be fit to be King (or Queen), but most of the time that doesn't stop it happening anyway.

If you have a wife who's unfit to be Queen but the Prince of Wales has a wife who's presumably fit to be Queen, then, indeed, who does have precedence? For a woman unfit to be Queen to have precedence over a woman fit to be Queen brings up some awkward questions of its own. Which is part of why I said I think this whole business is ludicrous.

Thanks for your response.

And just to note, I wasn't questioning why you thought it was rediculous. If that's what you feel then that's perfectly fine.

As long as Camilla (although possibly holding a lesser title) still remains in court precedence accorded to the sovereigns spouse, then all is fine by me. But if not, then perhaps I shall dedicate some time to re-think my favoured alternative.
 
These facts cannot be ignored:-

It was not the public who asked that Camilla be known as "Princess Consort" when Charles ascends the throne.

This was a public statement from Clarence House itself. Presumably, this means that it was made at the behest of Charles, Prince of Wales and his wife Camilla, Duchess of Cornwall.

As far as I'm concerned - they said that, so, when the time comes, I shall expect that to be abided by. Otherwise - do they think people are silly or have short memories?

If Camilla is known as anything else, they are the ones whose personal integrity will be questioned - no one elses. They will, in fact, have lied.
 
Last edited:
People don't have short memories - we just know the facts which we didn't know when the plan was originally announced. Originally, they said Charles and Camilla could marry at St George's and then found out that it wasn't possible. Originally they said Camilla would be known as Princess Consort and then found out that it wasn't possible without an act of parliament. Personally, I believe it was nothing more than a hopeful attempt to keep the Di loons away from the wedding but what it's actually done is to cause confusion. Charles and Camilla haven't lied - their press people have. They've simply made a mistake because they didn't look into the full constitutional possibilities of what they were suggesting. This is why we need a properly written constitution - to sort things like these out.
 
People do not have short memories. As a matter of fact, Camilla is Prince Charles's legal wife now. Realistic people should accept the truth that Camilla will be Queen Consort when Charles succeeds after his mother. It is a general rule and I think people with general ideas about the history of British kings and Queens shall have knowledge on that.
Clarence House made their mistake in the later part of the statement and that's it. As Robert Lacey said, he noticed the wording of "intend" and he thought that part is interesting because it implied that Charles will be the King rather than the Princess Consort matter. He is a historian and he knows that Camilla will be Queen.
 
Realistic people should accept the truth that Camilla will be Queen Consort when Charles succeeds after his mother.

I dont see anyone being unrealistic. Im certain everyone who has read these threads understands perfectly what is and what is not. As for the rest, it should be made perfectly clear that the intent of those who claimed it, has since been revoked if that is the case.

Clarence House made their mistake in the later part of the statement and that's it.

Who says its a mistake? By saying this you seem to insist it is not possible and well, it certainly is.

He is a historian and he knows that Camilla will be Queen.

I'm not a historian and I know Camilla shall legally become Queen upon the succession of her husband. You don't have to be a historian to undertsand the dynamics of this very interesting situation.
 
Avalon said:
You've just ruined all my hopes of passing as Royalty in Britain! :ROFLMAO:

On the other hand there is nothing to stop you NOT using a title you are entitled to, in everyday life.
 
BeatrixFan said:
I believe it was nothing more than a hopeful attempt to keep the Di loons away from the wedding.

If that were the case its pretty pathetic, Sam. A very naïve execution of 'problem solving'.
 
Well, what was the Duchess of Cornwall thing for? It was the same thing - to stop obssessives storming Clarence House with flaming torches. It's a typical PR thing - please everyone but later you realise the problem with your populist solution. In this case, they said she'd been known as Princess Consort which got the populist bit out of the way but then they realised the legal issues which is the flaw in the plan. So, either they were very green and honestly didn't know she couldn't be known as PC without an act of parliament OR they did know and hoped that nobody would mention it publicly until after Charles's accession.
 
So all in all, another hole proof plan huh?.lol.

to stop obssessives storming Clarence House with flaming torches

I've always thought it was done out of Camilla's good judgement and understanding. How interesting it is that many view the same circumstance, yet so different are their observations.
 
Oh yes, it was Camilla's good judgement and understanding. But IMO it was the understanding that the followers of the Diana cult would never let her rest if she used her Princess of Wales title.
 
But IMO it was the understanding that the followers of the Diana cult would never let her rest if she used her Princess of Wales title.

The woman is obviously classy enough to accept and accommodate a situation which presented a questionable outcome. Respect!

'The Diana cult'...lol.
 
Oh darling, you haven't met some of the people I've met!
 
BeatrixFan said:
Indeed. And then she'd be known as HRH The Princess of Wales.

I know this was a reply to a deviant post I deleted but, as Charles' surname is (basically) Windsor, surely when he becomes King, he is no longer The Prince of Wales and therefore W & H also revert to Windsor, as there is no longer a PoW. ;)
 
Thank God you're joking or I'd seriously explode.
 
BeatrixFan said:
Oh darling, you haven't met some of the people I've met!

By people, you of course mean 'the type of'.

Oh sweetie, you pressume of course.lol. Though I don't judge people based on someone they admire or think fondly of.

...or I'd seriously explode

Oh please no. The garbage collector doesn't come until Friday and my dustbin's nearly at its peak.lol.
 
No, I was talking about a certain group of people who I won't name but are serious loons. They accosted me last year and demanded I sign a petition for a statue in the grounds of Kensington Palace. Each one of them had Di T-shirts on and were badges etc. There's admiration and then there's, "Call the doctors we've got a nut job".
 
BeatrixFan said:
No, I was talking about a certain group of people who I won't name but are serious loons. They accosted me last year and demanded I sign a petition for a statue in the grounds of Kensington Palace. Each one of them had Di T-shirts on and were badges etc. There's admiration and then there's, "Call the doctors we've got a nut job".

Oh..point taken.

So did you sign and collect a badge for yourself then?.lol. No, no need to answer that.

Lets get back on track, oui?
 
BeatrixFan, Elspeth and others,

the quote that Sister Morphine is quoting from is the exact same article I have been quoting from and yes it offers proof:

I shall now quote the lot of it.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,19769-1535536,00.html


Camilla Parker Bowles will automatically become Queen when the Prince of Wales succeeds to the throne unless there is a change in the law, the Government confirmed tonight.

NI_MPU('middle');The Department for Constitutional Affairs admitted legislation would be needed no matter what Camilla wished to call herself when Charles becomes King, to prevent this happening. [Frothy - ie to prevent her becoming Queen, not to make her PC in addition]
It is believed to be the first time that the Government has acknowledged this stance on the record.

Clarence House has previously insisted that the Government agreed with its view, taken from legal advice, that it was only a convention for the wife of the King to be known as Queen. The Prince's aides did admit, when the royal engagement was announced, that legislation might be needed to tidy the issue up later on.
Mrs Parker Bowles will be known as the Duchess of Cornwall after her marriage at Windsor on April 8 and intends to take the title Princess Consort when the Prince accedes the throne.


A Department for Constitutional Affairs spokeswoman confirmed that legislation would be needed for Camilla not to become Queen automatically on Charles's succession.
"I think traditionally that's probably the case because in all similar circumstances in the past in past royal marriages that is what has happened," said the spokeswoman.
"But I think she is not going to be referred to as Queen, she will be referred to as the Princess Consort." Asked about the position of other countries where the Prince of Wales would become head of state on his succession, the spokeswoman replied: "I think you are right in thinking it would require legislation for her not to be Queen."


Tony Blair's official spokesman said: "The position at the moment is limited to what the title would be on her marriage. In terms of any future events, let's wait until future events arise."

On the question of whether Mrs Parker Bowles would automatically become Queen in the absence of legislation, the spokesman added: "I'm not disputing what you have said." [Frothy - but legislation, again, needed only to strip her of being Queen, not for PC to be added]


A Clarence House spokesman said tonight: "With any legal situation there are always different views.
"If the Government said legislation would be needed it wouldn't be a problem. It can easily be done in the Civil List Act. "This is something which is a long way in the future, we hope."
Earlier t
he Government confirmed that the marriage will not be "morganatic", which means that the couple's decision not to call her Queen Camilla will have no legal standing. [Frothy - this bit scares me - does this mean Charles is in fact prepared to have legislation on the books taking even the legal status of Queen from Camilla? Sounds like it :( ]


continues

Christopher Leslie, Constitutional Affairs Minister, confirmed the status of the marriage in a written Commons reply to Labour backbencher Andrew Mackinlay.
The Thurrock MP asked whether "the proposed marriage of HRH the Prince of Wales to Camilla Parker Bowles is morganatic". Mr Leslie replied: "No."
NI_MPU('middle');Mr Mackinlay said: "This is absolutely unequivocal, that she automatically becomes Queen when he becomes King."
Mrs Parker Bowles will be known as the Duchess of Cornwall after her marriage and Princess Consort when the Prince of Wales succeeds to the throne.
Mr Mackinlay said that legislation would be needed in 17 parliaments around the world, where the British monarch is head of state, for the change to be made.
"I’m perfectly happy for the Prince of Wales to marry whoever he likes, but altering the constitution is Parliament’s business and this does require an alteration to the constitution," he said. "It shouldn’t be done for one man and one man alone.
Asked about the position of other countries where the Prince of Wales would become head of state on his succession, the spokeswoman replied: "I think you are right in thinking it would require legislation for her not to be Queen."


So there we are. The Department of Constitutional Affairs admits, as was also said in the Panorama programme posted by BeatrixFan, as we have all agreed ad nauseam on this thread, that for Camilla to be anything other than Queen legislation will be required.

But as another poster points out a page or so back, legislation is not needed to create titles. As BeatrixFan so crossly said "End of." Legislation is never needed to create a title. Nothing but letters patent are needed to create a title.

Therefore as long as it is commonly accepted - and all authorities accept it - that Camilla is legally Queen, the King may also create her a Princess in her own right and she can then use that lesser title. She is Queen in his right due to her marriage.

Queens may and do bear other titles in their own right, usually inherited ones they brought to the marriage, eg Eleanor of Acquitaine, Archduchess of Acquitaine.

In fact the Panorama bolsters my case on this. It shows MPs debating and constitutional experts agreeing only that legislation is needed to take away the title of Queen. Not to make her Princess Consort. Jonathan Dimbleby says that she will definitely be Queen but still be known as Princess Consort - which is exactly what the Palace and Clarence House says on their websites today, and what is commonly understood to be the case on the UK.

So there you have it. Exactly as I have always said, legislation is needed to remove the rank of Queen. No legislation is needed to create her Princess Consort in addition.

In the UK, we don't use legislation to create titles.

BranchQ, I would be interested in the source or proof for your post that the Queen may not hold an additional and lesser title in her own right?
 
love_cc said:
People do not have short memories. As a matter of fact, Camilla is Prince Charles's legal wife now. Realistic people should accept the truth that Camilla will be Queen Consort when Charles succeeds after his mother. It is a general rule and I think people with general ideas about the history of British kings and Queens shall have knowledge on that.
Clarence House made their mistake in the later part of the statement and that's it. As Robert Lacey said, he noticed the wording of "intend" and he thought that part is interesting because it implied that Charles will be the King rather than the Princess Consort matter. He is a historian and he knows that Camilla will be Queen.

You have clearly missed my point. I am not disputing that Camilla is Charles' legal wife nor that she will become Queen Consort when he succeeds his mother.

My comment was about the statement released by him and his wife announcing Camilla's future title when Charles becomes king. That title was "Princess Consort".

If this title is not to be used, then the prince and his wife should clarify this as soon as possible, as they should if any other erroneous statement has been made.

I do not accept that Charles' office issues press releases of this nature without him approving them first.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom