Title for Camilla - Page 11

Alexandria · #**201** 02-20-2005, 12:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by wymanda

We now know that Camilla will be known as Duchess of Cornwall so perhaps the Administrators will be kind enough to close this thread?

Perhaps we can leave it open to discuss additional, future titles for Camilla, such as whether she will be called Queen or not or if she will remain Princess Consort. The title issue is much deeper than merely the Duchess of Cornwall.

I am still hearing debates about legislature taking place to prevent Camilla from being called Queen when Charles ascends to the throne and what the (emotional) implications of Camilla (unofficially) still being the Princess of Wales even if she is not addressed as such publicly.

A lot to discuss still on this matter of a title for Camilla, I think.

gaggleofcrazypeople · #**202** 02-20-2005, 10:11 PM

She won't be called Queen. The current Queen has said so. Besides, I don't think the people would let her become Queen.

james · #**203** 02-22-2005, 08:12 PM

The fact is that when Camilla marries Charles she will automatically become Princess of Wales and when he becomes King she will automatically become Queen. The greatest legal minds in Britain have stated that it would would take take an act of Parliament to change both situations. Diana, for example, automatically assumed all of Prince Charles' titles upon marraige including Princess of Wales and Duchess of Cornwall. Naturally she was known as the former as this was the most senior title but Camilla wanting to be known as the latter has no bearing on the fact that she will still be Princess of Wales upon her marraige.

Genevieve · #**204** 02-22-2005, 08:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gaggleofcrazypeople

She won't be called Queen. The current Queen has said so. Besides, I don't think the people would let her become Queen.

The current Queen is a diplomat to the core. She is caught between a rock and a hard place: On the one hand her son's happiness and on the other hand the opinon of the people. The Queen has conceded and allowed for her son to marry his former mistress - she can't seem as to be giving in completely to him by letting him marry Camilla and letting Camilla become Queen.

But the fact is, if Charles and Diana were married right now and Charles became King tomorrow, Diana would automatically become Queen by virtue that she is married to the heir to the throne. Likewise for Camilla. Upon her vows on April 8 she will be married to the heir to the throne and unless there is a move by the government to change hundredsd of years of legislature, Camilla will be queen when Charles becomes king whether people like her or not. Just as William's wife will become queen when he succeeds his father.

Legislature is legislature; you can't pick and choose when and whom you want to apply the law to just because you don't like someone or prefer someone else for the role.

Gutsy · #**205** 02-22-2005, 09:28 PM

The point that has been made is right. It is a matter of law that Camilla will become in fact the Princess of Wales the same way she will become "HRH the Duchess of Cornwall": by virtue of her marriage to the Prince of Wales and Duke of Cornwall. She may choose to be called only HRH Duchess of Cornwall for obvious reasons ( Diana-oloatry

) but it would take an Act of Parliament and/or a public act of the Royal Prerogative to prevent her becoming P'cess of Wales. "A fortiori" the title of "Queen" upon the accession of her husband. This business of "Princess Consort" is my opinion a device..there is no such title; it would have to be created and ratified before Charles' acession. That does not seem in the offing. I do not blame them in that regard; the couple are waiting to see how the public will react to the new Duchess of Cornwall before facing the very real serious questions of depriving her of the title of "Queen."

gaggleofcrazypeople · #**206** 02-22-2005, 10:14 PM

So they are just making up a tilte?

Warren · #**207** 02-23-2005, 02:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gaggleofcrazypeople

So they are just making up a tilte?

No. They are not making anything up. They are just choosing to use a subsidiary title.

Which is why the initial announcement said that Camilla would be KNOWN as HRH the Duchess of Cornwall.

tiaraprin · #**208** 02-23-2005, 02:53 AM

How about NO TITLE?? Gee, I know I am living in my fantasy world on this one!

Warren · #**209** 02-23-2005, 03:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tiaraprin

How about NO TITLE?? Gee, I know I am living in my fantasy world on this one!

'Fraid so.

Elspeth · #**210** 02-23-2005, 05:28 AM

Quote:

How about NO TITLE?? Gee, I know I am living in my fantasy world on this one!

Not possible. Remember our conversation on the other thread? They wouldn't dare suddenly discover that morganatic marriage is possible legally after all.

If Charles becomes king, Camilla should become queen, but there's a bit of a problem as far as the coronation is concerned. Since this is going to be a civil wedding rather than a church wedding and since Andrew Parker Bowles is still alive, as far as the church is concerned she's still Mrs Parker Bowles with a husband living. I don't see how the Archbishop could possibly crown her under those circumstances. It's possible that the Princess Consort title is a way round a situation where a conservative Archbishop refuses to crown her queen.

I suspect that if Andrew Parker Bowles predeceases Charles and Camilla there'll be a quiet (at least I hope it'd be quiet) church wedding, and then we may see Queen Camilla. While the ex-husband is still alive, I don't see how it's possible if the church is to retain a shred of integrity.

MoonlightRhapsody · #**211** 02-23-2005, 12:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Elspeth

I don't see how it's possible if the church is to retain a shred of integrity.

Well, they're way past that now since they lost that last shred when actually plan to bless this union which caused so much heartache for their ex-spouses.

Unfortuately, I conceed that she will have a title should Charles ever get his behind on the throne, but I think she should stick to the title of Duchess of Cornwall. The title of "Princess Consort" gives too much importance to something she has done very little to deserve.

Elspeth · #**212** 02-23-2005, 02:36 PM

When Charles is king, William will automatically become Duke of Cornwall, so Camilla can't use the title Duchess of Cornwall. The title Duchess of Lancaster would be available for her, though.

susan alicia · #**213** 02-23-2005, 03:13 PM

I dislike the mentioning of mr. parker bowles dying before charels and camilla very much, I think it follows that some people in the UK might hope him doing so and that is terrible and

elspeth you put it a bit strong " I don't see how it's possible if the church is to retain a shred of integrity"
surely there are more important things upon which integrity depends.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Elspeth

I suspect that if Andrew Parker Bowles predeceases Charles and Camilla there'll be a quiet (at least I hope it'd be quiet) church wedding, and then we may see Queen Camilla. While the ex-husband is still alive, I don't see how it's possible if the church is to retain a shred of integrity.

Elspeth · #**214** 02-23-2005, 03:57 PM

Given that we're talking about the Supreme Governor of the church here (as Charles will be if the CofE is still the established church when he becomes king, I think we're dealing with the integrity at the very core of the church. I think if they go ahead and crown Camilla queen after a civil marriage and if Andrew Parker Bowles is still alive, people will be very justified in asking about the basis on which the church expects ordinary people to behave in accordance with its teachings when it's prepared to turn such a very blind eye to the antics of its SUpreme Governor.

If Andrew Parker Bowles is no longer alive and if Charles and Camilla have a church service of marriage at that point, the barrier to her becoming queen is no longer there. I know it sounds hard to talk about things in terms of the death of another person, but that's realistically what the situation is. Since we're dealing with people in the 50s and 60s here, I don't think it's unrealistic to consider the possibility that one or more of them might not live for another 30 years. I certainly wasn't intending to suggest that anyone try to get Andrew Parker Bowles out of the way. In fact, I think that if he does predecease Charles and Camilla, however natural his death was, there'd be all sorts of speculation about how he'd been murdered, just like with Diana.

susan alicia · #**215** 02-23-2005, 04:05 PM

I know you were not suggesting that someone would actively want him out of the way, I just find the subject embarressing and there are not many things I find embarressing to talk about.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Elspeth

Given that we're talking about the Supreme Governor of the church here (as Charles will be if the CofE is still the established church when he becomes king, I think we're dealing with the integrity at the very core of the church. I think if they go ahead and crown Camilla queen after a civil marriage and if Andrew Parker Bowles is still alive, people will be very justified in asking about the basis on which the church expects ordinary people to behave in accordance with its teachings when it's prepared to turn such a very blind eye to the antics of its SUpreme Governor.

If Andrew Parker Bowles is no longer alive and if Charles and Camilla have a church service of marriage at that point, the barrier to her becoming queen is no longer there. I know it sounds hard to talk about things in terms of the death of another person, but that's realistically what the situation is. Since we're dealing with people in the 50s and 60s here, I don't think it's unrealistic to consider the possibility that one or more of them might not live for another 30 years. I certainly wasn't intending to suggest that anyone try to get Andrew Parker Bowles out of the way. In fact, I think that if he does predecease Charles and Camilla, however natural his death was, there'd be all sorts of speculation about how he'd been murdered, just like with Diana.

gaggleofcrazypeople · #**216** 02-23-2005, 08:23 PM

Creepy thoughts. Lets get off this topic.

tiaraprin · #**217** 02-24-2005, 11:11 AM

I agree, this is beyond creepy!! The man has moved on with his life and is remarried. Leave him in peace.

Mapple · #**218** 09-03-2005, 05:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Elspeth

When Charles is king, William will automatically become Duke of Cornwall, so Camilla can't use the title Duchess of Cornwall. The title Duchess of Lancaster would be available for her, though.

In the latter case Charles will have to create Camilla a duchess in her own right.

Elspeth · #**219** 09-03-2005, 06:25 PM

He wouldn't have to if she used the Duchess of Lancaster title in the same way she's using the Duchess of Cornwall title now.

Mapple · #**220** 09-03-2005, 06:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Elspeth

He wouldn't have to if she used the Duchess of Lancaster title in the same way she's using the Duchess of Cornwall title now.

Charles is the Duke of Cornwall now, but he won't be the Duke of Lancaster upon his accession. This peerage title merged in the Crown long ago, and the British monarch cannot be a peer.