King Charles and Queen Camilla

[Sister Morphine]

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.

Yes she's divorced. Yes he's divorced. However they are married now. Legally, lawfully married. Why shouldn't she be able to take full advantage of that and share in his titles equally when he is crowned King? She's sharing his titles equally now, isn't she? To do anything other than what is right, which is allow her to use and be styled as Queen, is an insult to her as his legal, lawful wife. If Parliament allows this to happen, then it happens and not much can be done about it. However, that doesn't mean I'm going to think that it's the right thing to do.

Calling her anything other than Queen says that she is not worthy enough to be the Queen. Who determines "worthiness"? Parliament? The RF? Will William's future wife have to go through some battery of tests to determine if she's fit to use the title when the time comes? Where does this end?


If they didn't think she was worthy enough to be given the title of Queen, then she and Charles should not have gotten married. By marrying him, she was legally and lawfully entitled to use it and be styled as such and if they, whoever "they" are didn't think that was appropriate....for whatever reason.....the two should not have gotten married. But they did get married. As his wife, she shares in his titles. She's currently using one of the titles at her disposal. When Charles is crowned, what happens to her then? If she's not going to be Queen Consort, where does she go? In a back room away from everyone else?

 

[Madame Royale]

I'm not incredibly familiar, but will Camilla be the first formerly divorced spouse of a succeeding (consequently reigning) King?

 

[Sister Morphine]

I'm not incredibly familiar, but will Camilla be the first formerly divorced spouse of a reigning King?

I don't know. Maybe if you go back far enough, you might find one. I can't think of anyone recent, however.





Edit: Holy banana boats, does my typing stink tonight.

 

[Madame Royale]

I don't know. Maybe if you go back far enough, you mind find one. I can't think of anyone recent, however.

Hmm, neither can I...

I wait upon Jo, Frothy or Branch to provide the answer.lol.

 

[Warren]

I don't mean to spoil the party, but where in law or precedent does it state that a divorcee can't take the position of Queen Consort?

 

[Madame Royale]

I don't mean to spoil the party, but where in law or precedent does it state that a divorcee can't take the position of Queen Consort?

Spoil all you like, Warren.

I didn't say there was precedent and obviously there is none given Camilla shall legally be Queen Consort. It does not change that Camilla shall be the first (?) formerly divorced consort and so a new precedent (aka Princess Consort) is to be ratified in reflection of this.

Is it possible that this is a primary influence? Of course. Is it possible that its not? Also likely.

This is merely a concept being thrown about.

 

[Iluvbertie]

She has already been mentioned in this thread - Eleanor of Acquaitaine (sp).

She was divorced from the King of France (for not giving him a son!!!) and then married Henry II of England (and gave him four sons!!!). Louis also went on to father sons!

Someone is bound to get picky and say that Louis and Eleanor's marriage was annulled but she certainly still had a living ex-husband, with two daughters from said marriage, when she married Henry and he succeeded to the throne of England.

 

[Madame Royale]

Thanks Chrissy

 

[ysbel]

She has already been mentioned in this thread - Eleanor of Acquaitaine (sp).

She was divorced from the King of France (for not giving him a son!!!) and then married Henry II of England (and gave him four sons!!!). Louis also went on to father sons!

Someone is bound to get picky and say that Louis and Eleanor's marriage was annulled but she certainly still had a living ex-husband, with two daughters from said marriage, when she married Henry and he succeeded to the throne of England.

Well I was going to be the one who got picky, chrissy. But its only fair to point out that marriages and annulments of royal marriages in the medieval ages were politicially not religiously motivated. Eleanor and Louis' marriage was annulled based on grounds of being too closely related but the pope who married them knew about their close relations and married them anyway. It made it pretty convenient for Louis and Eleanor to get an annulment when the marriage went sour and she had no male heirs.

Another thing I want to point out is that Eleanor had a awful reputation when she married Henry. There were rumours that she had had sexual relations with her uncle Raymond of Aquitaine while she went on the Holy Crusades with Louis and then there were other rumours that she had had sexual relations with Henry's father, Geoffrey of Aquitaine, which certainly made marriage to Henry a little unusual. These accusations bordered on incest.

Given this was the Middle Ages, its hard to tell how much of the gossip about her was true and how much was politically motivated by people against her marriage to Henry, but its still interesting how bad her reputation was and how little effect the same reputation had on her ability to get an annulment and ability to remarry to Henry II and become his consort.

Once they married, they really had no opposition.

 

[Jo of Palatine]

Yes she's divorced. Yes he's divorced. However they are married now. Legally, lawfully married. Why shouldn't she be able to take full advantage of that and share in his titles equally when he is crowned King? She's sharing his titles equally now, isn't she? To do anything other than what is right, which is allow her to use and be styled as Queen, is an insult to her as his legal, lawful wife. If Parliament allows this to happen, then it happens and not much can be done about it. However, that doesn't mean I'm going to think that it's the right thing to do.

I completely agree with you. If really religion and the fact that Camilla is divorced and thus could not marry in church is the reason behind her public degradation and not the fear of an public outcry, I believe it's time to rethink that position. We don't even know if Charles really is still in "communion" with the CoE, as decreed by the Act of Settlement:
" That whosoever shall hereafter come to the possession of this Crown, shall join in communion with the Church of England, as by law established".

Okay, he goes to church and is a member but there are rumours that he secretly has converted to Greek orthodox faith some time ago.

But that aside: if it's the religious background which prevents Camilla from taking her position as she is entitled to by, then this should be changed. IMHO.

 

[branchg]

It was the The Church of England's change in position over hundreds of years with regard to divorce that put the Crown in a moral bind. Considering the irony that Henry VIII broke with Rome in order to divorce Catherine of Aragon and remarry, it is rather strange the Anglican Church later took on the same position as the Roman Church on divorce.

In law and precedent, there is nothing stopping The King from being divorced, marrying a divorcee or a Queen Consort being divorced. It is one aspect of a possible change to the monarchy to deestablish the Church from the Crown.

 

[Frothy]

It's absolutely right that there was no "Your Majesty" that early. Eleanor's form of address would probably have been quite elastic. The point though is that she used her own-right title of Duchess of Acquitaine many times, for she continued to administer the Duchy of Acquitaine, which was rich and powerful. It's an historical fact that it was a sore point in the marriage, for Henry, as her husband, claimed rights over Acquitaine and Eleanor fiercely resisted.

So it is quite wrong to say that Queens Consort cannot hold other own-right titles. There's precedent, and nothing in law to stop it. As Selrah has shown us, the present Queen does hold the title Duchess of Edinburgh, too. It was incorrect to say that the Sovereign cannot hold any other titles. The Sovereign can't hold peerage titles. The Consort is of course not the Sovereign, and Elizabeth of York was an own-right Princess and Queen Consort.

Furthermore the style and rank of Prince/ss of the UK is not in itself a peerage title, as shown earlier.

So it's perfectly fine for the Queen to be a Princess in her own right and use that title and not her married title.

But the real question is not can it be done, but WHY do it? And here's where I totally agree with everything Sister Morphine has said. There is no reason for Camilla to be "penalised" when her partner in the affair, Charles, will be wholly unaffected. As I said a few pages back, perhaps they'd like to sew a great red velvet "A" on her coronation robes?

"Princess Consort" is a ludicrous mess. But there's no reason for it not to happen. Just like Queen Eleanor, Duchess of Acquitaine, Camilla can use the title she holds in her own right should she choose. None of that changes the fact that it's an inane choice to have to make.

So there is absolutely nothing in law at all to stop

 

[Jo of Palatine]

It's absolutely right that there was no "Your Majesty" that early. Eleanor's form of address would probably have been quite elastic. The point though is that she used her own-right title of Duchess of Acquitaine many times, for she continued to administer the Duchy of Acquitaine, which was rich and powerful. It's an historical fact that it was a sore point in the marriage, for Henry, as her husband, claimed rights over Acquitaine and Eleanor fiercely resisted.

So it is quite wrong to say that Queens Consort cannot hold other own-right titles. There's precedent, and nothing in law to stop it.

But Eleanor of Aquitaine was the female souverain of Acquitaine. And it's a fact that in the act of Settlement parliament took care that if it happened that the British souverain or his spouse (they always talk of "kings and queens", as at this time both king and queen were regnants together: William of Orange and Mary Stuart) should be souverain of another state, then: "That in case the Crown and imperial dignity of this Realm shall hereafter come to any person, not being a native of this Kingdom of England, this nation be not obliged to engage in any war for the defence of any dominions or territories which do not belong to the Crown of England, without the consent of Parliament;" Okay, they thought of Hanover, but still... In a commentary it said that the "imperial dignity" encompasses the souverain and his queen. That's why the Queen Consort of the UK has her own sceptres (since Charles II.'s queen Catherine of Braganza) which are the symbols of her "imperial dignity".

BTW - the Act of Settlement even says that each king and queen should have a coronation:

"and that every King and Queen of this Realm, who shall come to and succeed in the imperial Crown of this Kingdom, by virtue of this act, shall have the coronation oath administered to him, her or them, at their respective coronations, according to the act of Parliament made in the first year of the reign of His Majesty," - it's Him, Her or Them! I just found that there is an own coronation ceremony for the queen if a king is unwed on ascending the throne and marries after his coronation...

@ Frothy: am amused about your Hawthorne-citation: the scarlet letter...

 

[Frothy]

Yes, but that is to muddy the basic fact in question: can a Monarch or Consort be known as anything other than King and Queen? Can they hold any other titles?

And the answer to that is "Yes, they can." Eleanor used her title of Duchess of Aquitaine, of which, btw, she was not strictly "sovereign". For she was a feudal vassal in that capacity of her ex-husband Louis II of France. Both she and both her husbands claimed the title "Dux" as ruler of Aquitaine.

Meanwhle we see that our present Queen still holds her title as the wife of a peer, she is still the Duchess of Edinburgh.

So if we are looking at principle, it's been argued here that it's impossible for the Queen Consort to hold another title simultaneously, yet we see that she can, just as the Government has said she can, and even our Queen Regnant presently does.

Again, I totally disapprove of Princess Consort, but there's plenty of precedent for own-right titles to go alongside the married one of Queen.

Perhaps Charles could follow the Netherland example and (ask his mother to) create her Princess Camilla in her own right before the Queen actually dies?

 

[ysbel]

It's absolutely right that there was no "Your Majesty" that early. Eleanor's form of address would probably have been quite elastic. The point though is that she used her own-right title of Duchess of Acquitaine many times, for she continued to administer the Duchy of Acquitaine, which was rich and powerful. It's an historical fact that it was a sore point in the marriage, for Henry, as her husband, claimed rights over Acquitaine and Eleanor fiercely resisted.

But whether she had the right to claim those possessions is not that clear. In the Middle Ages, women didn't own property or titles in their own right. Their father's possessions were offered up in dowry to their husbands and the women themselves didn't see much of anything. Eleanor's dying father gave her in marriage to Louis of France along with the Duchy of Aquitaine. At least while she was French Queen, she herself didn't possess the Aquitaine, the Crown of France did.

By the time she married Henry, her father was dead so Louis lost Aquitaine but did Eleanor herself retain the Aquitaine or did Henry take possession? I know what Eleanor claimed but that wasn't generally accepted practice in the Middle Ages. In fact the generally accepted practice could best be explained with the term that was used for the possessions that a woman kept ownership of when she married. Her own possessions were called paraphrenalia. Now the word means items of inconsequential nature and that tells you a great deal about the amount and worth of a woman's property that she kept possession of during marriage.

Its also of interest to note, that in the battle between Henry and Eleanor, Eleanor is generally considered to have lost.

 

[ysbel]

Perhaps Charles could follow the Netherland example and (ask his mother to) create her Princess Camilla in her own right before the Queen actually dies?

I think this is a more plausible precedent for making Camilla a Princess rather than a Queen. I think the royal families are re-thinking the institution-all of them-and they're certainly looking at how each other does things.

If the Royal Family wants to change a precedent and it gets approved by the government, they can pretty much make Camilla's title what they want. If the sticking point is that it has to go through the Parliaments of all the Commonwealth countries, its easy enough to retract the monarch as Head of State in the Commonwealth countries.

At least in Australia, that does seem to be the trend taking place and I wouldn't be surprised if Canada followed suit one day and elected their own head of state.

 

[Jo of Palatine]

Perhaps Charles could follow the Netherland example and (ask his mother to) create her Princess Camilla in her own right before the Queen actually dies?

I can see the foam forming on all die-hard Di-fans' lips when they read about "princess Camilla" or "princess Cams"... If the whole business of the "Duchess of Cornwall"-usage was to prevent comparisons to Diana as Princess of Wales then both a "The Princess Camilla of the Uk or "Camilla, The princess Consort" would wake all sleeping dogs... Stupid move, IMHO.

 

[Jo of Palatine]

Its also of interest to note, that in the battle between Henry and Eleanor, Eleanor is generally considered to have lost.

And when Richard Lionheart was captured by Leopold of Austria, his brother John Lackland took over Acquitaine, so Eleonor couldn't get the money to pay for her older son's ransom from there, but had to raise it in the much poorer England, where she acted as regent.

 

[Frothy]

Actually, that again is inot strictly true... The Duchy of Aquitaine did not merge with the French crown, and Louis and Eleanor both styled themselves "Dux". Eleanor certainly battled with her husbands over her lands, but in 1189 she went back to Aquitaine and ruled it in her own right, setting up Assizes and doing various other things (post Queenship of England). As Duchess, she held the province with the King of France as her feudal overlord.

And what matters for the purposes of this thread was that she held and used her birthright title as "Dux" during the period she was Queen of England.

 

[Frothy]

Jo, well, if you ask me, "Duchess of Cornwall" is stupid and anything other than Queen is stupid. Alas, doesn't mean it won't be done.

Ysbel, remember that no change in the law is needed, according to the Government, for Camilla to be known as PC whilst Queen, so I think the question of asking the Commonwealth doesn't arise as far as UK useage goes. It would surely be up to each Commonwealth country as to what they wanted to style her. I would be very surprised if Charles stays King of Australia for very long, but that's another thread.

If she is gazetted as Princess Consort in her own right just as Albert was made Prince Consort, I can't see any problem other than your basic "Why bother, this is inane". But Camilla being known by a lower title than Charles's is also inane IMO.

 

[Frothy]

Ysbel, on Eleanor

http://homepages.internet.lu/pitpeporte/eleanor.htm

A point not very clear is the kind of power Eleanor really sustained. The traditional views say that although both her husbands wore the title of 'Duke of Aquitaine', their policy in Aquitaine could not have been established without Eleanor's support and that they needed her consent for every decision. During some long periods, especially between 1167 and 1174, and again between 1189 and her death, she was probably the only and direct ruler of the Duchy.

If you google "Eleanor" Henry and "Duchess of Aquitaine" you will get loads on her. An interesting diversion, an interesting woman!

 

[ysbel]

Actually, that again is inot strictly true... The Duchy of Aquitaine did not merge with the French crown, and Louis and Eleanor both styled themselves "Dux". Eleanor certainly battled with her husbands over her lands, but in 1189 she went back to Aquitaine and ruled it in her own right, setting up Assizes and doing various other things (post Queenship of England). As Duchess, she held the province with the King of France as her feudal overlord.

And what matters for the purposes of this thread was that she held and used her birthright title as "Dux" during the period she was Queen of England.

No I didn't say it merged with the French crown; I said that the French crown held ownership of it because women generally didn't possess their own property. It was perfectly possible for one lord to own two separate fiefdoms and keep them separate. I believe Henry II did that with England and Normandy. However, the Aquitaine was Eleanor's dowry when she married the King of France and women in the Middle Ages didn't hold possession of their dowry-their husbands did.

But there is too much difference between life and monarchy in the Middle Ages and now to believe realistically that the BRF is going to use Eleanor of Aquitaine as precedent for giving Camilla a title of Princess in her own right when they have a much more recent precedent of other monarchies giving wives the title of Princess in their own right.

 

[Sister Morphine]

Jo, well, if you ask me, "Duchess of Cornwall" is stupid and anything other than Queen is stupid. Alas, doesn't mean it won't be done.

Ysbel, remember that no change in the law is needed, according to the Government, for Camilla to be known as PC whilst Queen, so I think the question of asking the Commonwealth doesn't arise as far as UK useage goes. It would surely be up to each Commonwealth country as to what they wanted to style her. I would be very surprised if Charles stays King of Australia for very long, but that's another thread.

If she is gazetted as Princess Consort in her own right just as Albert was made Prince Consort, I can't see any problem other than your basic "Why bother, this is inane". But Camilla being known by a lower title than Charles's is also inane IMO.

I see a difference in "Duchess of Cornwall" and "Princess Consort", but maybe that's just me. She got the title Duchess of Cornwall when she married Charles, so it's one of several titles at her disposal to use right now. Should she have styled herself Princess of Wales from the start? You could make that argument, but I also think it was gracious of her to use another style ON HER OWN ACCORD, because of its association with Diana. That showed some class on her part, seeing as how she didn't need to do it and she wouldn't have been asked to do it.

But that's as far as her graciousness should go. Princess Consort is NOT a title she would get when Charles becomes King, so her use of it is different than what she's doing right now. I'm glad we're all in agreement that the concept of her being anything but Queen is inane, I just wished the Government/RF felt the same way.

 

[Jo of Palatine]

Jo, well, if you ask me, "Duchess of Cornwall" is stupid and anything other than Queen is stupid. Alas, doesn't mean it won't be done.

Ysbel, remember that no change in the law is needed, according to the Government, for Camilla to be known as PC whilst Queen, so I think the question of asking the Commonwealth doesn't arise as far as UK useage goes. It would surely be up to each Commonwealth country as to what they wanted to style her. I would be very surprised if Charles stays King of Australia for very long, but that's another thread.

If she is gazetted as Princess Consort in her own right just as Albert was made Prince Consort, I can't see any problem other than your basic "Why bother, this is inane". But Camilla being known by a lower title than Charles's is also inane IMO.

But we only talk about rights and privileges here. But aren't there duties as well? Like swearing that oth at her coronation? A duty to the people of Britain that a queen has to do? Doesn't she appear as someone to shirk her duty as queen?

 

[ysbel]

Ysbel, on Eleanor

http://homepages.internet.lu/pitpeporte/eleanor.htm



If you google "Eleanor" Henry and "Duchess of Aquitaine" you will get loads on her. An interesting diversion, an interesting woman!

Yes I'm familiar with these assertions, they were brought forth in the book Eleanor and the Four Kings by Amy Kelly. But several other medieval scholars contradicted her. The only power that Eleanor was unquestionably shown to have wielded (mainly holding judgment in certain court cases) during Henry's reign was done in Henry's name. Her ultimate loss of power was being imprisoned by Henry for twelve years; she wielded influence over her sons at that time and caused Henry quite a lot of grief but she didn't hold absolute power over anything at that time.

I did my college paper on Eleanor and Henry and you're making me dig out my books again!

 

[Sister Morphine]

Make Camilla a princess in her own right, right now. That way she'll be HRH Princess Camilla, The Duchess of Cornwall. This way, if for some ridiculous reason the RF wants to go ahead with this Princess Consort nonsense, you're AT LEAST making some action relatively close to what Victoria did with Albert.

 

[Frothy]

Ysbel, firstly, there were plenty of women in the Middle Ages who held titles in their own right; Jadwiga, Queen of Poland, Margaret, fair Maid of Norway, several others. Secondly, Eleanor's lands were claimed by her husbands but that does not mean they ruled there. There were periods where she ruled solely over Aquitaine. The article linked to above gives the general view that Eleanor's wishes were necessary for rule in Aquitaine, the same is said in Wikipedia, etc.

Aquitaine, as was the norm, defied the authority of Henry as Eleanor's husband

Eleanor ruled alone, by herself, in Aquitaine in 1189 and Henry was not present. He was off somewhere else.

Eleanor is merely one example; there are plenty of others. A Queen consort or Regnant, like our present Queen and Duchess of Edinburgh, can hold other titles. Without getting too much into history that is the point. Eleanor did, others did too.

 

[ysbel]

Ysbel, remember that no change in the law is needed, according to the Government, for Camilla to be known as PC whilst Queen.

I'm not forgetting it but purposefully ignoring it because they've already tried it with the Duchess of Cornwall business and while they got away with it here because Diana was Princess of Wales and nobody wanted someone else regardless of whether it was Camilla or not to take a title so closely related to Diana, I don't think they will get away with pulling the same trick a second time with the Queen/Princess Consort business.

Everybody knows and understands why Camilla prefers to be called Duchess of Cornwall but if they come out at the accession and state that she prefers to be called Princess Consort, some MP is going to say she can't without Parliament's permission and use the announcement as rationale for opening up a debate on the state of the monarchy.

Its simply too good an opportunity for a career politician to pass up. However, I think Charles is open to changes in the monarchy anyway and if Camilla really wants to be known as Princess Consort, the most logical solution if Charles and the government want to make other changes is to come out proactively in his first year and make the changes, adding on Camilla's title as just one of many changes.

I think where you and I differ is where we see the monarchy putting its emphasis. You seem concerned with Camilla's title in isolation to other changes; I'm simply saying that there is enough indication for other changes in the monarchy both from Charles' own deeply held views and the
trends towards downscaling monarchies in general, and just from the fact that the Queen has reigned over 50 years and at the end of such a long reign, its natural to take stock, revaluate and make some changes.

For Buckingham Palace and Parliament to treat a change in Camilla's title in isolation from other changes would be a waste of effort and counter-productive.

 

[Frothy]

Everybody knows and understands why Camilla prefers to be called Duchess of Cornwall but if they come out at the accession and state that she prefers to be called Princess Consort, some MP is going to say she can't without Parliament's permission and use the announcement as rationale for opening up a debate on the state of the monarchy.

Its simply too good an opportunity for a career politician to pass up. However, I think Charles is open to changes in the monarchy anyway and if Camilla really wants to be known as Princess Consort, the most logical solution if Charles and the government want to make other changes is to come out proactively in his first year and make the changes, adding on Camilla's title as just one of many changes.

I think where you and I differ is where we see the monarchy putting its emphasis. You seem concerned with Camilla's title in isolation to other changes; I'm simply saying that there is enough indication for other changes in the monarchy both from Charles' own deeply held views and the
trends towards downscaling monarchies in general, and just from the fact that the Queen has reigned over 50 years and at the end of such a long reign, its natural to take stock, revaluate and make some changes.

No, I agree with much of what you say, although I regret that I think you are right. My main concern in the thread was to get away from a posting orthodoxy that was developing that Camilla would be styled as Queen and that's it and that's all, which flew in the face of all the official statements on record from the Government and the BRF, and which I think represents a dangerous complacency amomgst those who, like myself, very much admire Camilla.

I was even thinking of starting a new thread called "Coming Reform in the British Royal Family" maybe you could and we could cover all the changes there.

I am certain that Charles wants change and that the public wants change. As far as a career minded politician challenging the government that is certainly a possibility, but as yet I have yet to hear a single expert claim that there's problem with her using a lesser title as long as she is legally Queen still.

But I think towards the end of the present reign you will see all sorts of changes, some, to me, like cognatic primogeniture, most welcome, some not so welcome.

I will lay imaginary internet cash that you will see

a) a limiting of the title HRH and Prince to far more direct heirs
b) cognatic primogeniture
c) a trimming of the civil list
d) disestablishment of the Church of England and also the King as its Head
e) established provisions for divorces, in advance

It certainly would not be a big deal for the King to style his wife Princess Consort, with the echoes of Albert, with all that going on. The point is, we can sometimes lose sight of this in this thread, that "she will be Princess Consort" is now the default position and expectation of the British public, since the Government, Royal Family, and couple themselves have said it, and since she already is styled differently than Charles. Now I know the difference between D of C and a new-created title, but in the non-royal-anorak wider world out there, the perception is simply of "different" and also, definitely, of "less", than Diana's position when married.

 

[Sister Morphine]

You have to keep in mind that the reason Albert was styled Prince Consort was because he couldn't have the title King, as Kings traditionally outrank Queens. Victoria wanted him to have the title, but there's no way it would have happened. As sovereign by birthright, she could be outranked by no one, including her own husband.

So you shouldn't use that as a reason to give Camilla the title Princess Consort, as there's nothing stopping her from being styled equal to her spouse. There was something stopping Albert from being styled equal to his spouse, though.