King Charles and Queen Camilla

[Elspeth]

Which makes no sense. If she's the wife of the King, she is Queen and not a princess of the UK. Does she hold equal rank to the King or doesn't she? A princess with the rank of HRH (not born as such) is the wife of a prince of the UK. She's not Queen.

Calling HRH Princess Louise Lady Louise doesn't make sense. Claiming that Edward VIII lost his HRH on abdication doesn't make sense. We're talking about people who, to coin a phrase from the Bush Administration, can apparently create their own reality if they really want to. And sense isn't necessarily the driving force.

 

[Sister Morphine]

Queen = legal and equal consort to the King

Princess Consort = legal and unequal consort to the King


So she's going to be equal to him and unequal to him at the same time? Because that's basically what she'd be doing if for some reason everyone decided to go along with this charade.

If you give her the title Princess Consort while she's still legally Queen, you are saying that she is both unworthy and worthy of using the title Queen. That statement makes no sense whatsoever. Either she's the Queen or she's not. Either you're saying she can lawfully share in and use her husband's titles or you're saying she can't. How can she use two terms at the same time that are basically contradictory to one another in meaning?

 

[Frothy]

I'd agree with every word of that if you changed "cannot" to "should not". Right now the Dept of Constitutional Affairs says she can.

I completely agree it's all an utter dog's breakfast.

However, it has been announced and still not refuted. The longer it drags on, the harder it will be to change it. Hopefully Clarence House will act soon.

 

[Sister Morphine]

How can she be equal to him and unequal to him at the same time? That's a matter of "cannot" not "should not".

 

[BeatrixFan]

And surely all this goes against the equality the Government are so keen to achieve in British society? Gay couples can marry and be considered equal after marriage but Charles and Camilla apparantly can't.

 

[Frothy]

Not really Sister M as the Dept of Constitutional Affairs, who clearly are the authority, say "can".

She is equal to him as Queen Consort but the Princess Consort title would be an own-right title, inferior, but she'd use that one. Prince Albert although styled as "Consort" held that title in his own right also. Princess Maxima of the Netherlands was made a Princess of the Netherlands in her own right before she got married. So there's no inequality if the PC title is own-right. There's only inequality if she is not Queen and all agree she will be Queen.

 

[branchg]

Rank and title do not stop them from being commoners. Only the Sovereign and Peers are not commoners.

So HRH The Duchess of Cornwall should curtsy to HG The Duchess of Grafton? Give me a break!

 

[Sister Morphine]

Not really Sister M as the Dept of Constitutional Affairs, who clearly are the authority, say "can".

She is equal to him as Queen Consort but the Princess Consort title would be an own-right title, inferior, but she'd use that one. Prince Albert although styled as "Consort" held that title in his own right also. Princess Maxima of the Netherlands was made a Princess of the Netherlands in her own right before she got married. So there's no inequality if the PC title is own-right. There's only inequality if she is not Queen and all agree she will be Queen.

I just don't buy it.

 

[branchg]

So is she Her Majesty The Queen or Her Royal Highness The Princess Consort? Is she Princess Consort of Canada too? Does she sit on a throne with an Imperial Crown on her head or a tiara? What is she?

 

[branchg]

Not really Sister M as the Dept of Constitutional Affairs, who clearly are the authority, say "can".

They are not the authority. They are a cabinet-level department that reports to Parliament. And Parliament has the right to alter the style, title and precedent of the succession, not The Prime Minister or The King.

It's hard when laws get in the way, but that's what constitutional monarchy is all about. You can't just make it up.

 

[Frothy]

If you have a better authority, Branchg, something to back you up in any way, please cite it.

If you've got a member of Parliament, a constitutional expert...anything...anybody.... please cite it.

So far, you are saying that you know better than the Government and the Royal Family. But despite repeated requests you've yet to bring forth one shred of evidence to back up your statements. You're right that the Queen doesn't hold the title Duchess of Edinburgh and wikipedia plus the royal family's website are wrong.

And as to holding and using lesser titles whilst Queen...again.... Eleanor of Acquitaine?


As to "curtsy to the Duchess of Grafton" WBenson implied no such thing. As I said, you can outrank a peer and have precedence of a peer without actually being a peer.

 

[Frothy]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commoner

In British law, a commoner is someone who is neither the Sovereign nor a peer. Therefore, any member of the Royal Family who is not a peer, such as HRH Prince William of Wales or HRH The Princess Royal, is a commoner, as is any member of a peer's family, including someone who holds only a courtesy title, such as the Earl of Arundel and Surrey (eldest son of the Duke of Norfolk) or Lady Victoria Hervey (a daughter of the 6th Marquess of Bristol).

 

[ysbel]

Can we turn the temperature down a bit? The thread is looking less and less like discussion of a topic and more and more like verbal warfare between protagonists.

I've done some debating myself and a good debate can be fun but debating just for the sake of beating an opponent is better off in a debating forum where the rules of engagement are enforced and the topic doesn't matter as much.

ysbel
British forums moderator

 

[Sister Morphine]

And as to holding and using lesser titles whilst Queen...again.... Eleanor of Acquitaine?

We will never know with 100% certainty what Eleanor of Acquitaine was called on a daily basis both in the English court and in the French. We know that because she was Queen during the 12th century. I find it hard to believe when she was Queen, they referred to her as Duchess or "your royal highness" or anything other than "Your Majesty". Monarchs were considered absolute in those days, to refer to them as anything less would have been treasonous.

You can't equate then and now because the country of England is about 29374389743 times different. The laws are different, their whole way of governing themselves is differernt. What worked in the 1100s and what will work now are not the same thing. You're dealing with a drastically different situation. The United States of 1776 would never work in 2007. The same as the England during her time would not work now.

 

[Iluvbertie]

We will never know with 100% certainty what Eleanor of Acquitaine was called on a daily basis both in the English court and in the French. We know that because she was Queen during the 12th century. I find it hard to believe when she was Queen, they referred to her as Duchess or "your royal highness" or anything other than "Your Majesty". Monarchs were considered absolute in those days, to refer to them as anything less would have been treasonous.

You can't equate then and now because the country of England is about 29374389743 times different. The laws are different, their whole way of governing themselves is differernt. What worked in the 1100s and what will work now are not the same thing. You're dealing with a drastically different situation. The United States of 1776 would never work in 2007. The same as the England during her time would not work now.

All the research I have ever done with regard to the English Middle Ages and the Tudors indicates that Henry VIII was the first to use the title "His Majesty".

Earlier monarchs were called Your Grace.

The following link is from Wikipedia but I have read it in many other works during both my BA and MA in Medieval and Early Modern History studies.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Majesty

 

[ysbel]

This gets into the naming of the King's consort which in English history I found to be spotty.

I have a book at home called the Plantagenet Chronicles which is quite fascinating for it reprints a lot of the contemporary chronicles from the time of Henry II and Eleanor of Aquitaine.

Invariably the chroniclers referred to Eleanor as Dame Eleanor. Nowhere was she referred to as Queen. This is by no means an exhaustive example but I found it intriguing.

Chrissy, I remember reading that while Henry VIII first claimed right to the Majesty title, it wasn't until the reign of Charles II that Majesty became the common address for a monarch.

 

[Madame Royale]

,,, I remember reading that while Henry VIII first claimed right to the Majesty title, it wasn't until the reign of Charles II that Majesty became the common address for a monarch.

That I wasn't aware of. Thanks ysbel and all those who continue to provide the historical context of our discussions. Its fascinating to read

 

[Sister Morphine]

I was incorrect about the usage of the term "Your Majesty", and I'm sorry for that. However, one of my points I feel is still valid. The England during the time of Eleanor of Acquitaine, however she was referred to and the England of Charles and Camilla's time are absolutely, vastly, completely different. As I have now read, Kings/Queens in her time weren't even referred to as "Your Majesty", a term that is utterly commonplace now. So her being referred to as something other than what a Queen today would be referred to is completely understandable. But that was then and this is now. The now is what needs to be dealt with. Thumbing through a history book to find an example from almost a millenia ago isn't going to work.

 

[Elspeth]

I don't think you'll get much argument from most of the posters here that the current situation is in desperate need of being dealt with. We'll just have to hope that the Pooh Bahs at Clarence House are reading along.

 

[Sister Morphine]

I don't think you'll get much argument from most of the posters here that the current situation is in desperate need of being dealt with. We'll just have to hope that the Pooh Bahs at Clarence House are reading along.

I think if they were reading along to all 51 pages of this thread, they wouldn't know where to start.



What Clarence House should have done is BEFORE they got married, made it absolutely 100% clear what her title from the get-go would be. That, and they should have done some reading. We are all in agreement that to strip her of her title of Queen requires legislation. We are also in agreement that calling her anything but Queen is ridiculous. They should have thought about all this ahead of time.

 

[Iluvbertie]

I think if they were reading along to all 51 pages of this thread, they wouldn't know where to start.



What Clarence House should have done is BEFORE they got married, made it absolutely 100% clear what her title from the get-go would be. That, and they should have done some reading. We are all in agreement that to strip her of her title of Queen requires legislation. We are also in agreement that calling her anything but Queen is ridiculous. They should have thought about all this ahead of time.

I actually think they did do some thinking.

They wanted to appease the Dianafanatics from the off so used stated the title as an 'intention' which allows them to change their minds if public opinion is different when the time comes.

As they may have another 10 - 20 years before the scenario occurs they have plenty of time to remove the intention to be known as the Princess Consort and have her simply be Queen Camilla. If something untoward happened this year and Charles was called to be King I suspect that Princess Consort may be used but if it is another 10 years I expect Camilla to be Queen with no problems.

This strategy I think has been very well thought out by CH, BP and the government of the day.

 

[Sister Morphine]

I have to disagree. I think this whole thing reeks of scrambing around, trying to cover their butts to keep a certain group of people from having a conniption fit at the coronation. They either should have said straight off the bat with zero vacillation what her title would be or they should have kept their mouths shut.

 

[Madame Royale]

And I in turn disagree (to some extent) with you sister morphine.

If the 'finatics' were going to have any great 'fit', I'm sure the wedding would have been the place to do it and not the coronation ceremony xx years from now.

Though I'm definitely positive the events of the past have influenced the intended decision, perhaps some are focussing too much on a lady now in eternal rest and those who still idolise (even if a little unhealthy) her?

From my experience, Iv'e noticed a great many who continue to celebrate Diana's memory and her life to be really quite flippant about Camilla and Charles. They seem to be of no real interest to them actually (what they do, where they go, who they meet, what titles they have).

They are (many of them, not all) happy to go about their business and their interest in Diana without evening harbouring much thought of Camilla, let alone giving a damn about what title she next receives (As has been mentioned Diana was, after the divorce, never going to be crowned Queen Consort so there is no familiarisation between Diana and this title).

I dont think they need be worried so much about the Diana fans (they are happily playing in their corner with memories and scrapbooks), more like the Camilla followers who would (or could ?) be up in arms and 'demanding' answers if the intentded alternative comes to fruition

Petition..petition..petition.lol.

 

[sirhon11234]

quote

And I in turn disagree (to some extent) with you sister morphine...

Well said Madame Royal. I couldn't give a rat's behind what title Camilla will hold if Charles ascends the throne. The majority of the public dubed Diana the Queen of Hearts. And to me that is a more higher title than Queen Consort of G.B.

 

[Elspeth]

Diana dubbed herself Queen of Hearts, which is a somewhat different matter. Speaking as a British citizen, I don't think self-styled queens of people's emotions are at all higher than the Queen Consort of the United Kingdom.

 

[Sister Morphine]

Well said Madame Royal. I couldn't give a rat's ass what title Camilla will hold if Charles ascends the throne. The majority of the public dubed Diana the Queen of Hearts. And to me that is a more higher title than Queen Consort of G.B.

It's not. Elspeth said it best. She could have been called the Queen of All Blonde People and it would make no difference in anyway whatsoever to what Camilla is called. "Queen of Hearts" is some mushy, sappy romance novel-esque title that belongs in Alice in Wonderland.


No matter what people called her, Camilla should be and in my opinion, will be called and styled as Queen Consort. There is no sensible reason for anything different.

 

[Madame Royale]

Queen of Hearts" is some mushy, sappy romance novel-esque title that belongs in Alice in Wonderland.

To some it did mean something and obviously held true (for whoever felt it) whether self proclaimed or not. You a right to think what you like, but I'll have you remember that there are those who did respond to that statement with agreeance (I wasn't one of them personally), so its best not to get carried away in your damning response when you are very much dealing with a topic which means something to no doubt many, sirhon included (its not unlike your feeling about this whole Princess Consort situation).

You don't have to agree with it, but tact goes a long way.

 

[Sister Morphine]

To some it did mean something and obviously held true (for whoever felt it) whether self proclaimed or not. You a right to think what you like, but I'll have you remember that there are those who did respond to that statement with agreeance (I wasn't one of them personally), so its best not to get carried away in your damning response when you are very much dealing with a topic which means something to no doubt many, sirhon included (its not unlike your feeling about this whole Princess Consort situation).

You don't have to agree with it, but tact goes a long way.

My dislike of the term "Queen of Hearts" has nothing to do with my feelings for Diana the human being. I happen to think she was a great person, who was not faultless, but made the world a better place in her own way. It's a shame she's not here to see how great her boys have grown up.

My problem is when people think she was more than she was, and somehow Camilla must be punished for that now. Even if Diana had not died, her and Charles divorced. She wasn't going to be Queen. To punish Charles's current wife for things that happened in the past is what bothers me and it's why I feel so strongly about it. You can like Diana all you want, heck....you can saint her if you feel like it. That doesn't mean she should be elevated to a position more than what she would have been comfortable with in life. Do you think if she was still alive she'd be going along with this? I don't think she would. What leg would she have to stand on? "Oh, don't make her Queen because she fooled around with my ex-husband while we were still married." Diana would be too busy continuing on with what she was doing before she died, maybe even re-married, to give a rat's patootie (I won't use the terminology other people chose to) about Camilla's title after Charles is crowned.

 

[Sister Morphine]

Besides, this thread is about Charles and Camilla.....not Diana. Diana is not and should not be a part of any of this.

 

[Madame Royale]

To punish Charles's current wife for things that happened in the past

Again, it isn't the 'Diana fans' punishing Camilla, its those who expell the theory that they are.

This "punishment" was initaited by the two you claim are being "punished". How does that figure?

whatever reasoning behind their decision, it was their's to make and if it was influenced by past goings on then so be it..but why must it all be a reflection of the Diana 'saga'? Why cannot it not be in reflection of the fact that Camilla was once a married woman and has two adult children out of the royal union?

Yes she is his wife but she is also a divorcee. Charles too but nothing can (or would) be done about his hereditary designation.