King Charles and Queen Camilla

[Elspeth]

My brain hurts...

 

[BeatrixFan]

Thankfully I don't have one but if I did, it'd be hurting too.

 

[selrahc4]

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.

She is still Duchess of Edinburgh, I think. In this respect she is not a peer. She is the wife of a peer.

 

[BeatrixFan]

Well, the Duke of Edinburgh isn't strictly speaking a peer. He isn't allowed to sit in the House of Lords.

 

[selrahc4]

Well, the Duke of Edinburgh isn't strictly speaking a peer. He isn't allowed to sit in the House of Lords.

Yes, along with many other peers who no longer have that right. But I know what you meant by "strictly speaking".

 

[sirhon11234]

The argument about whether camilla should be known as princess consort or Queen is tiring. I'am 100% a diana fan but Camilla is Charles's second wife and if he ascends the throne she will be Queen Consort. That title has no affliation towards Diana. Let Camilla be known as Queen Consort.

 

[lucien]

The argument about whether camilla should be known as princess consort or Queen is tiring. I'am 100% a diana fan but Camilla is Charles's second wife and if he ascends the throne she will be Queen Consort. That title has no affliation towards Diana. Let Camilla be known as Queen Consort.

The official website:

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

 

[sirhon11234]

quote

The official website:

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

okay what do I need to look at on the BRF website.

 

[Henri M.]

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.

No, but she still is a Peer's wife, of course.

 

[Sister Morphine]

These last few pages have certainly been interesting reading, if nothing else.


I think the things we can all agree on is that it would take an act of legislation to make Camilla something other than Queen when Charles ascends the throne. I am speaking only of STRIPPING HER TITLE, nothing else. We also know that that the Sovereign can confer titles upon people. What we don't know is whether Camilla will have her title stripped and another one given to her by the King.


I say no. It's not happening. I doubt Parliament will go through with it, irrespective of what was uttered by Clarence House earlier. She will be Queen, he will be King and people will just have to accept that.

 

[branchg]

No, but she still is a Peer's wife, of course.

It is irrelevant because she is The Sovereign and fount of honour, which takes precedence over all other ranks and titles. She is The Queen.

 

[BeatrixFan]

As I've said before, you have to put it into perspective. If we have Gordon Brown in power, he won't bother with legislation. He wouldn't see it as important, him being a raging republican and all and Charles would be wise to keep his head down and not give Mr Brown any chance whatsoever to interfere with the Monarchy. Mr Cameron might be more sympathetic and co-operative, however, we're all forgetting one thing. Legislation goes through the Commons and the Lords. If it got passed in the Commons, the chances are it'd fail totally in the Lords who know that when titles start being interfered with - they're next.

 

[branchg]

I can't see the legislation even making it to the floor of the Commons, never mind the Lords. There is no point in altering the precedents for one woman and creating more problems down the road for future Consorts.

She's already married and holds equal rank with her husband. And that should be the end of it.

 

[BeatrixFan]

Well, it does beg the question, will future Queen Consorts be known as Princess Consorts just because a few politicians don't like them very much? I mean, it just affects too much. If you're going to muck about with titles, why not change the title of King to President and end it all?

 

[branchg]

I agree. There is too much at stake for the monarchy and, after all, at the end of the day, the royal perogative is exercised in practice by the Prime Minister. So why diminsh the power of the monarchy and the perogative?

I just don't see it happening. If they were that worried, The Queen would have told Prince Charles the price of marrying Camilla would be a Bill of Renunciation passed by Parliament in favor of William as heir to the throne.

It's ridiculous to assert Camilla was good enough to hold equal rank as Princess of Wales, but is not good enough to be Queen. What was the point of allowing the marriage to take place?

A morganatic marriage is not the reality.

 

[ysbel]

If it got passed in the Commons, the chances are it'd fail totally in the Lords who know that when titles start being interfered with - they're next.

I'd have more faith in that sentiment BeatrixFan, if the House of Lords was still made up of hereditary peers.

But a Dame Margaret Thatcher or a Lord Edward Heath I don't think will care that much whether Camilla is Queen or Princess Consort.

 

[BeatrixFan]

Are you kidding? Baroness Thatcher is a devoted monarchist. Sir Ted Heath never sat in the Lords and he won't sit now as he's dead. The Lords always side with the monarchy - once the monarchy goes, they go.

 

[Sister Morphine]

If for some reason they manage to strip Camilla of her rightful title, give her a new one and then carry on life as usual......I can't see the monarchy lasting too long after that. A part of me thinks it's just going to outrage people.

 

[sassie]

The argument about whether camilla should be known as princess consort or Queen is tiring. I'am 100% a diana fan but Camilla is Charles's second wife and if he ascends the throne she will be Queen Consort. That title has no affliation towards Diana. Let Camilla be known as Queen Consort.

I agree. She's legally married to Charles. To deny her the title of Queen Consort would be as discriminatory as denying the Duchess of Windsor the "HRH".

 

[BeatrixFan]

Well, you basically defeat the object of a hereditary monarchy and any institution will fall if the basic rules that govern it are taken away on a whim. If the big wigs behind the scenes at Buck House really want to throw away 1000 years of history based on the events of two decades, then maybe they don't care as much as their employers thought they did.

 

[Madame Royale]

If for some reason they manage to strip Camilla of her rightful title, give her a new one and then carry on life as usual......I can't see the monarchy lasting too long after that. A part of me thinks it's just going to outrage people.

I disagree (respectively)

If this institution relies solely upon the style & title of the sovereign's spouse, then you are right, it is in trouble and if that's the case, shouldn't it be already? Tradition is since broken. If the Prince of Wales' wife can hold the lesser title (in comparison to her husband) of Duchess of Cornwall in an official capacity (although rightfully hers to use) then why should the possibility of Camilla not being addressed as Her Majesty make more of a difference? Because its an insult you think? No bigger an "insult" than the current condition and everyone seems perfectly content with that (though I'm sure some here may have an alternative thought in regards).

Camilla is the 10th Princess of Wales and the first to choose not to bear the title as her principal designation.

Whether people wish to view this as a mistake or not is entirely up to the indavidual (and they are well within their rights to think this) but its pertinent to recognise that this decision came from Clarence House and so came from the Wales's themselves.

I do not see why this decision, made by those at the core of its (the monarchy's) structural identity, should outrage the populous. Infact, I don't believe it will.

 

[ysbel]

I disagree (respectively)

If this institution relies solely upon the style & title of the sovereign's spouse, then you are right, it is in trouble and if that's the case, shouldn't it be already? Tradition is since broken. If the Prince of Wales' wife can hold the lesser title (in comparison to her husband) of Duchess of Cornwall in an official capacity (although rightfully hers to use) then why should the possibility of Camilla not being addressed as Her Majesty make more of a difference? Because its an insult you think? No bigger an "insult" than the current condition and everyone seems perfectly content with that (though I'm sure some here may have an alternative thought in regards).

Camilla is the 10th Princess of Wales and the first to choose not to bear the title as her principal designation.

Whether people wish to view this as a mistake or not is entirely up to the indavidual (and they are well within their rights to think this) but its pertinent to recognise that this decision came from Clarence House and so came from the Wales's themselves.

I do not see why this decision, made by those at the core of its (the monarchy's) structural identity, should outrage the populous. Infact, I don't believe it will.

To play Devil's Advocate, what if Charles and Camilla announce after the succession that due to unforeseen legislative difficulties they're just planning to have Camilla crowned Queen as all the other wives of British monarchs have been and that they will put aside the Princess Consort business, would you have an objection?

Or would you accept that decision too because it came from the couple's wishes themselves?

 

[Madame Royale]

To play Devil's Advocate, what if Charles and Camilla announce after the succession that due to unforeseen legislative difficulties they're just planning to have Camilla crowned Queen as all the other wives of British monarchs have been and that they will put aside the Princess Consort business, would you have an objection?

Or would you accept that decision too because it came from the couple's wishes themselves?

I advise you to read back through the thread to find the answer to your question.

 

[ysbel]

Oh I see. Then I assume that this statement of yours

I do not see why this decision, made by those at the core of its (the monarchy's) structural identity, should outrage the populous. Infact, I don't believe it will.

only applies if the people at the core of the monarchy's structure identity make the decision to make Camilla Princess Consort rather than Queen.

I think its quite safe to assume that you would have quite another opinion if the people at the core of the monarchy's structural identity made the decision to make Camilla Queen.

So I think its safe to assume the identity of the people making the decision and their proximity to the structural core of the monarchy really has no influence on your own belief what title Camilla should carry.

So why even bring it up if it has no relevance on your own opinion?

 

[Madame Royale]

Oh I see. Then I assume that this statement of yours



only applies if the people at the core of the monarchy's structure identity make the decision to make Camilla Princess Consort rather than Queen.

I think its quite safe to assume that you would have quite another opinion if the people at the core of the monarchy's structural identity made the decision to make Camilla Queen.

So I think its safe to assume the identity of the people making the decision and their proximity to the structural core of the monarchy really has no influence on your own belief what title Camilla should carry.

So why even bring it up if it has no relevance on your own opinion?

What a perculiar response.lol.

The people at the core of the monarchy are the royals themselves which is what I was referring to just incase you were not.

I support any move made to make Camilla Princess Consort. Yes

If this does not happen I will gladly except Camilla as Queen Consort but we all have a preference, and normally you follow that preference first and foremost. I'm of a diplomatic mind so except a situation for how it is and at this point in time, its intended Camilla will be Princess Consort. I do expect what's intended to be carried out but if it is not (and for reasons that would no doubt be of relevant significance to withhold any further action) then one must except it for how it is.

You do assume alot don't you and why is it critical to bring up a scenario that is not the case? What benefit does this poses? None it would seem.

 

[ysbel]

What a perculiar response.lol.

The people at the core of the monarchy are the royals themselves which is what I was referring to just incase you were not.

I support any move made to make Camilla Princess Consort. Yes

If this does not happen I will gladly except Camilla as Queen Consort but we all have a preference, and normally you follow that preference first and foremost.

I except a situation for how it is and at this point in time, its intended Camilla will be Princess Consort.

You do assume alot don't you and why is it critical to bring up a scenario that is not the case? What benefit does this poses? None it would seem.

Because what Clarence House has stated runs counter to the laws on the books regarding the title of the wife of the monarch and British law states very clearly what is required for that to change, ie., for all the bodies of Parliament where the British monarch is sovereign to hold a vote in Parliament.

Yes, quite annoying for these pesky people to continually bring up that Charles is going to have to do something other than make an announcement from Clarence House to make Camilla a Princess Consort but what have you?

Laws are particularly annoying consistent at times and in this case are consistent regardless of a person's reputation.

 

[Madame Royale]

Because what Clarence House has stated runs counter to the laws on the books regarding the title of the wife of the monarch and British law states very clearly what is required for that to change, ie., for all the bodies of Parliament where the British monarch is sovereign to hold a vote in Parliament.

And I have never questioned this or the process involved, but I have mainatined that it is possible and where there's a will there's a way and what has been proposed is something which can be obtained.

Yes, quite annoying for these pesky people to continually bring up that Charles is going to have to do something other than make an announcement from Clarence House to make Camilla a Princess Consort but what have you?

But what have I? Sorry I don't follow you here. Do you mean that more shall be done than simply having Charles pronounce his wife as Princess Consort, or that that is all that's needed?

Laws are particularly annoying consistent at times and in this case are consistent regardless of a person's reputation be obtained.

Again, I'm not quite sure what you mean.

 

[Sister Morphine]

Parliament would have to strip Camilla of her rightful title of Queen before the new King can give her ANY title; Princess Consort, Bozo The Clown, Queen of the Ooompa-Loompa People....whatever. Before any of that can happen, Parliament MUST strip her of her title.


They will not do that. As was stated before, the House of Commons might agree to it, but the Lords will not. You see it happen in the American Congress all the time....one house agreeing to something, the other stopping it.


They knew that when Charles became King, she'd be Queen and if they didn't want that to happen, why let them get married in the first place? You'll let them marry, but you won't let her have all that comes with being married to him? Poor form.

 

[Madame Royale]

They will not do that. As was stated before, the House of Commons might agree to it, but the Lords will not. You see it happen in the American Congress all the time....one house agreeing to something, the other stopping it.

Well, that actually happens in all forms of government (Absolute monarchy and Comunist rule aside).

And you cannot categorically state that it will not happen (well you technically can of course .lol.)

For me, things are never one sided. To say it will not happen is a naïve outlook.

I understand most clearly what's possible and what is not and I am well aware that Camilla may very well be crowned HM the Queen Consort and if that is the case then I will rest with the good (?) judgement shown by those at the time. I just don't recognise (how could I? How could anyone), at this point in time, that the insistence on what has been disclosed is of a fruitless conception. And why? Because it is not. It is a feasible alternative.

 

[Elspeth]

I don't think we're talking about having the HM title removed. We're all pretty much agreed that it would take legislation, and I think we're all pretty much agreed that it won't happen.

The question is whether, and how, the HRH Princess Consort handle might be given to her in addition to the HM the Queen handle, so she can be known by the former style while also holding the latter.

However, as I asked earlier in the thread, would that mean she wouldn't take part in the coronation ceremony - she'd still be Queen even if she wasn't referred to as such, and this isn't a morganatic marriage (or so we're being assured). What would it mean in practical terms for what she does after Charles becomes king? Because if there was any hint at all that this lower grade of title was being used as an excuse for her to not undertake the tasks and duties that a Queen Consort would be expected to shoulder, there'd be a lot of bad feeling from the taxpayers. The papers are already trying to label her as a lazy parasite, and I'm sure they'll be looking for any excuse to stir things up after the accession. If she does get crowned and takes on the full range of ceremonial and other duties, it does make me wonder why they'd bother to go through this Princess Consort stuff at all. There are some fairly sensible reasons for her to be called the Duchess of Cornwall rather than the Princess of Wales, but it does strike me that they've managed to turn a short-term advantage into a long-term disadvantage with this Princess Consort stuff.