King Charles and Queen Camilla

[Frothy]

Jo said

Where does it say that the king cannot be a peer? If so, then the queen regnant cannot be a peeress either. Can a queen consort? Is a princess a peeress?

This is exactly it, it does not say any such thing. If she is made an HRH in her own right as opposed to the title deriving from her marriage to Charles, then she can use that title.

She's a Princess and uses the title "Princess Consort" just as Queen Elizabeth used the previously unknown style of "the Queen Mother" to describe her Queenship.

Philip, Albert etc were made own-right Princes of the UK and Camilla can be gazetted that way very simply.

 

[Frothy]

BeatrixFan

Then what's the point in having a monarchy at all?

Well, I agree, I think it was all a horrible mistake and I want to see them reverse it now, announce before the Queen dies.

I very much regret to say I don't think it's going to happen though.

 

[Jo of Palatine]

Branchq, again, if precedent meant anything Camilla would not even be Charles's wife today b/c of the "Royals can't marry civilly' precedents.

When Britain became part of the EU they accepted the EU bill of Human Rights as part of their constitution, IIRC. Thus the Human Rights are now law and they say that there is no difference between Royals and Non-Royals when it comes to civil weddings.

Well, if the king can create anybody a princess of the UK then according to the Human Rights, the same law should be valid for the queen as well.

I guess the only solution is really to contact the proper authorities and ask them outright if the king can create the queen a princess of the UK with her own title and the style HRH and if she can then use this title instead of her title as HM the queen consort.

 

[ysbel]

Well if the British changed the concept of the monarchy, then they could make the wife of the monarch anything they wanted.

However, under generally accepted usage, there are three levels (or estates) in a monarchial system: monarch, peers (aristocracy), commons. In Western society, its normal usage for the wife to take the rank of her husband (ie, King-Queen).

As I said, the British may well be ready to wipe away the whole system. There is a lot that in anachronistic in the system.

 

[Frothy]

Jo,

Actually the European constitution was not adopted, nor do the British have a written one. It's fluid. I should add that there is huge sentiment in the UK against any Euro constitution, we do not accept a supra-national state so I don't think it would affect Charles/Camilla. But the Human Rights Act is at present British law. The Conservatives have promised to repeal it, but not retrospectively so the wedding would not be affected.

One could just as easily say Charles had a right to gazette Camilla with an own-right additional title and for her to use it under the HRA. It really is a cover-all law.

 

[Elspeth]

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.

The sovereign is a special case here, though, because the sovereign can't hold other titles. Therefore, as you say, Camilla would have to have some title created for her in her own right as well as holding the title of Queen. I don't know if a person can be simultaneously HM and HRH, but there's no precedent that I'm aware of (as long as the HRH is a British one).

However, as we saw with the way the Duchess of Windsor was denied an HRH, sometimes these people can ignore the law if they have clever enough lawyers and can remake it to suit themselves, so maybe if they say that HM the Queen Consort can simultaneously be a Princess of the United Kingdom in her own right, they can, as the Bush administration official said about Iraq or whatever it was, create their own reality.

I still don't see any of this constituting proof, though; it's just what their spokesmen happen to be saying at the time, and as we saw from the earlier assurances quoted in the article - "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" - either someone doesn't know what's going on or they're misinforming us. The spokeswoman's comment "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." there's a lot of wiggle room in that parade of "I think"s.

I'm still coming back to the question of what anybody's supposed to gain by this. Even if Camilla doesn't lose her HM, which it looks as though she won't, the fact that she's known by a lesser title that's specially created for her, without precedence in 1,000 years of monarchy, is sending a message that she's somehow unworthy of the title HM Queen Camilla and that this is a morganatic marriage in fact if not in law. I don't understand why they'd want to do that. Either the Queen is the Queen or she isn't, but this is idiotic.

Also, if she does become HRH the Princess Consort, a Princess of the United Kingdom in her own right, that means she'd still be Queen Camilla in Australia, New Zealand, Canada, etc, doesn't it?

 

[Elspeth]

Warren!

Two sentences.... back up by about 500 pages of prior posts, or in this case, a long and dull article from the Times and a longer and duller BBC Panorama programme (which post-dates it, March vs October '05, proving that post-wedding nothing had changed).

And then there is the small matter of the unchanged official position of the BRF on their websites, which f course are .gov websites.

Hey, I have an idea. Shall I write to the Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs and see what he says. I could submit the reply to a an admin, if they guarantee my own name/email address will remain confidential, and we could then post it.

Not that I don't love going round endlessly on this subject smile:

Yes, that'd be good! And send him a link to this thread so he knows the dire situation that prompted you to write.

 

[Elspeth]

That's not true. Constitutional experts discuss exactly this situation in legal journals. It's very probably true that legislation is needed to strip the title and rank of queen from Camilla, once her husband acceeds to the throne.

The constitutional question is: can the queen be a HRH? History shows that all wifes of kings (when they were still alive at the time of the accession) held the title of queen and used it. The case of queen Caroline shows that the king cannot strip his wife of this title and rank.

The question is, as Warren said, can the Queen ALSO be an HRH? I don't think anyone is seriously considering a scenario where legislation is passed to drop the HM.

 

[Elspeth]

If politics were not involved he could have been aka Bozo Benn.

Don't tempt me...

 

[Elspeth]

Here I found an article which gives a bit more information (from AFP, 22.3.2005 - so the info could be outdated).

Jo, if you look at the Times article Frothy linked to, which is dated around the same time, it's saying something different.

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. 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.
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.

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

Apparently this stuff about it being just a convention is not the case, if I'm reading this right.

 

[Henri M.]

HM and HRH

The question is, as Warren said, can the Queen ALSO be an HRH? I don't think anyone is seriously considering a scenario where legislation is passed to drop the HM.

For so far I know, HM and HRH are no titles but just the style (of address), like 'the Right Honourable' for a MP or 'His Grace' to a Duke. I wonder if any legislation is needed for such styles à courteoisie.

By the way, many Sovereigns have secondary titles. In my country she is also Princess of Orange-Nassau (= dynastical title) and Princess of Lippe-Biesterfeld (= father's title) and forty-something more noble titles. If she wants to be icognito, she sometimes use one of these titles (Count(ess) van Buren has been used by the Queen and the Prince of Orange) and then of course their form of address is accordingly My Lord or My Lady.

When the Court insist on a certain title or style, tja... who are we? The websites of the Prince of Wales and of the British Monarchy already use the title and style 'HRH The Princess Consort'.

 

[Elspeth]

As the fount of honour and source of all enoblement, The Sovereign can create any title or rank for a commoner or member of the royal family. What The Sovereign cannot do is strip the rank and title of a Queen Consort and grant her a lower one.

I don't think there's any argument about that. We're not talking about stripping the rank and title of a Queen Consort. We've decided that she can keep her HM, and I hope she's duly grateful.

The question is, can the Sovereign grant an HRH to the Queen Consort, to use in her own right, in addition to her HM which she derives through marriage to the King?

 

[branchg]

HM and HRH are styles denoting ranks of royals. The British system recognizes a Sovereign and female Consort as His/Her Majesty, a precedent that is affirmed constitutionally and legally by the UK and the Crown Commonwealth realms.

The styles of the royal family (those not being The Sovereign and a female Consort) are regulated by letters patent and the fount of honour. So, it's hard to argue there is a precedent for HM The Queen having the ability to hold rank and title as HRH Princess of the UK as well.

But if the necessary consents are obtained, anything is possible. But I doubt it will be accepted by Parliament.

 

[Frothy]

Branch, why doubt that when it has already been accepted?

Can I ask you something? You know that the King/Queen can create any commoner a Prince/ss of the UK in their own right, correct? Just by issuing letters patent.

Can I ask you what would be the objection, or what difficulty you perceive, in the King gazetting his wife with a title she holds in her own right as opposed to deriving from marriage to him? Could she not be a Princess of the UK in her own right whilst Queen Consort in his right.

 

[Jo of Palatine]

I'm still coming back to the question of what anybody's supposed to gain by this. Even if Camilla doesn't lose her HM, which it looks as though she won't, the fact that she's known by a lesser title that's specially created for her, without precedence in 1,000 years of monarchy, is sending a message that she's somehow unworthy of the title HM Queen Camilla and that this is a morganatic marriage in fact if not in law. I don't understand why they'd want to do that. Either the Queen is the Queen or she isn't, but this is idiotic.

Furthermore, the question will be what kind of precedence Charles is creating by this? Does any queen decide she prefers HRH? Will any queen be forced to become HRH? Does the precedence say because Camilla has been a divorcee, she has to be HRH instead of HM? Or is it because of her affair before the marriage? Will that mean that Catherine Middleton will be only HRH as well in case of her marriage to William, as she, too, has an affair with her prince before the marriage?

 

[Frothy]

Elspeth,

That is right, it is not the case that the Queenship is a mere convention. But what the two articles have in common is a statement by the spokeswoman from the Dept. of Constitutional Affairs saying that Camilla can be both Queen and known as Princess Consort.

Helpfully for our purposes in this debate, in the first quote she also says that no change in the law would be required for Camilla to be both.

Jo and Branch,

I eould suggest we must not get hung up on precedent. It does not have the force of law that Branch seems to imply. There was no precedent for Albert to be Prince Consort; Philip was King Consort, and our present Philip just Prince of the UK. The important thing is that Camilla legally remains the Queen. She can be gazetted with additional styles and choose to use them at will.

If precedent had force of law, Wallis would have been an HRH. It simply does not have the force of law.

 

[Frothy]

Elspeth said

Even if Camilla doesn't lose her HM, which it looks as though she won't, the fact that she's known by a lesser title that's specially created for her, without precedence in 1,000 years of monarchy, is sending a message that she's somehow unworthy of the title HM Queen Camilla and that this is a morganatic marriage in fact if not in law

This is the point. And frankly the fact that she is already doing this, not sharing the title of her husband, with a distinction drawn between them - the Prince of Wales and the Duchess of Cornwall - I understand that Branch doesn't think it matters, but I really, really do. It looks awkward and it says to the world at large that Camilla "ranks lower" than Diana.

Diana was Princess of Wales and would have been Queen. Camilla, whilst legally holding the same rights, is currently and will in the future be styled lower. That is a colossal error.

I really pray the Prince of Wales sees the error in all this. OK, there would be a little grumbling from Di fans if they announced they would go back to "queen" but it would last merely a week or so and then be yesterday's fish and chip wrapper.

 

[Caswallan]

Ok so I was a huge Diana fan. I sympathize with Diana fans but the fact is she is gone. She wasn't going to be Queen anyway. As soon as the divorce papers where signed.

I also really think Camilla is doing a really great job and don't understand this debate. She should be Queen consort when the time comes.

Punishing Camilla all time is getting old.

 

[Frothy]

The Sovereign can hold other titles though. The Queen is the Duchess of Edinburgh too. (At least according to Wiki!). Furthermore other Queens of England have held titles in their own right and have used them, cf: Eleanor of Acquitaine, indeed there were plenty of spats with Henry II over who ruled Acquitaine. Of course they were foreign titles. But there is no reason that an own-right title cannot be granted to a Queen Consort.

Somebody needs to come up with something that says a Queen Consort can't be given a UK title in her own right.

Elspeth, about the "intent" and "think". I believe they were there so that there's wiggle room for Charles to issue a statement saying "changed my mind, it's all too difficult, she will use the normal title".

We should note however that the "It is intended...." qualification has been removed from the royal family's website and replaced with the bald "will be".

http://www.royal.gov.uk/output/page5559.asp

After the wedding, Mrs Parker Bowles became known as HRH The Duchess of Cornwall. When The Prince of Wales accedes to the throne, she will be known as HRH The Princess Consort.

 

[branchg]

Branch, why doubt that when it has already been accepted?

Can I ask you something? You know that the King/Queen can create any commoner a Prince/ss of the UK in their own right, correct? Just by issuing letters patent.

Can I ask you what would be the objection, or what difficulty you perceive, in the King gazetting his wife with a title she holds in her own right as opposed to deriving from marriage to him? Could she not be a Princess of the UK in her own right whilst Queen Consort in his right.

Well, Frothy, I don't think it has been "accepted" because the situation has not yet come to pass. Based on initial reactions in Parliament and among constitutional experts when the announcement was made, it certainly doesn't seem possible without legislation being passed.

The Sovereign can create titles and grant honours, however, a Queen Consort shares the rank and precedence of a male Sovereign. Given that Camilla would be HM The Queen, I don't know how The Sovereign can also grant her a lesser rank and title that doesn't exist and implies a morganatic marriage.

The current situation is acceptable because legally Camilla is HRH The Princess Charles and shares all of Charles' peerage titles and rank. So, if she wants to be known as The Duchess of Cornwall, rather than The Princess of Wales, it doesn't really matter because all of her peerages are lower than her rank and title as a Princess of the UK.

That would not be the case with HRH The Princess Consort.

 

[branchg]

The Sovereign can hold other titles though. The Queen is the Duchess of Edinburgh too. (At least according to Wiki!)

No, she is not. All titles and ranks of her birth status and related peerages merged with the Crown.

The only other style The Queen carries is Duke of Lancaster while in the Duchy on official business. And even that is merely a convention of courtesy since she cannot be anything but The Sovereign.

 

[Elspeth]

And then you have the question of what this does after the accession. If she's actually Queen, regardless of what she's calling herself, then does she get crowned? Does she sign documents Camilla R? Does she accompany Charles to the State Opening of Parliament and sit on the consort's throne? What does she wear on her head while doing so? Enquiring minds would REALLY like to know.

 

[sassie]

Does she sign documents Camilla R?

I thought only the Sovereign could sign with the "R"? I don't think that applies to consorts...does it?

 

[milla Ca]

When i read the discussion in this thread about a possible Queen Camilla, i remember the time before the wedding of Charles and Camilla. There was a similar discussion about her title as a wife of the Prince and also about her role.
And now she uses the title and it seems as if she is the Duchess for a long time, how was her name before... ? And she has her role, when she´s with the Prince and when she is alone at an engagement. It seems that she has done it all for a long time, what did she does before.... ?
Maybe it will be the same when Charles will be King and Camilla will be Queen (And i have no doubt, that it will happen). I think there are many good plans for that time, and maybe it will be much easier as many people believe now.
I don´t think that the Duchess and the Prince have sleepless nights because of these questions.

 

[Elspeth]

I thought only the Sovereign could sign with the "R"? I don't think that applies to consorts...does it?

If you look at photos of the marriage certificates of Prince Charles and Princess Anne, I think you'll see two "Elizabeth R" signatures, one from the Queen and one from the Queen Mother.

 

[branchg]

And now she uses the title and it seems as if she is the Duchess for a long time, how was her name before... ? And she has her role, when she´s with the Prince and when she is alone at an engagement. It seems that she has done it all for a long time, what did she does before....

Camilla carries the style of a duchess (as does The Duchess of Kent and Duchess of Gloucester), but they are princesses of the UK with the rank of HRH by virtue of their marriages, which is superior to their ranks in the peerage.

As stated earlier by others, the question once Charles becomes King is can HM The Queen be styled as a Princess of the UK with the rank of Royal Highness without legislation to remove her existing rank and title?

I think the answer is no, UNLESS, Parliament made the decision to pass legislation NOW changing the title and style of the monarchy (i.e. the wife of the King is not automatically entitled to share his rank). Then, it could be done without a problem when the time comes.

 

[wbenson]

The Queen's title of "Duchess of Edinburgh" didn't merge with the crown, as it is a title that she holds because she is married to the Duke of Edinburgh, who is not the sovereign. In a purely and completely hypothetical situation, were Her Majesty (god forbid) to abdicate, she would instantaneiously become "HRH the Princess Elizabeth, Duchess of Edinburgh", with no need for any grant of the title from the new Sovereign. This is not a reversion to a previous style, it is the use of an inferior style already held. This would stand in contrast to Edward VIII, who did not hold the title of "Prince of Wales" after abdication, because that title merged with the crown in January 1936, as he held it in his own right.

 

[sassie]

If you look at photos of the marriage certificates of Prince Charles and Princess Anne, I think you'll see two "Elizabeth R" signatures, one from the Queen and one from the Queen Mother.

Okay...thanks!

 

[branchg]

The Queen's title of "Duchess of Edinburgh" didn't merge with the crown, as it is a title that she holds because she is married to the Duke of Edinburgh, who is not the sovereign.

Yes, you are correct Edinburgh did not merge with the Crown. However, it is no longer a style, title or rank held by Elizabeth as she is The Sovereign and cannot be a peer.

 

[Jo of Palatine]

Yes, you are correct Edinburgh did not merge with the Crown. However, it is no longer a style, title or rank held by Elizabeth as she is The Sovereign and cannot be a peer.

Was Mary Tudor ever the queen of Spain as wife of king Philip? And what about princess Anne? I remeber there was a discussion when she became "HRH The princess Anne, Mrs. Mark Phillips" she could not be that as she should have been "HRH The princess Anne, Lady Anne Phillips" as daughter of a duke...