Title for Camilla

[Elspeth]

According to the Duchy site, the Queen is referred to as the Duke of Lancaster when she's there on Duchy business. If Charles wanted to create Camilla Duchess of Lancaster when he becomes king, I assume it would make more sense than creating her Duchess of anything else.

Although I stll think she's going to end up being Queen assuming the present reign goes on for a few more years.

[Lisele]

As a lot of people have said, by the time Charles becomes King, the Princess Consort title for Camilla that they're saying she's going to be given now will probably be Queen since there really won't be anyone to say otherwise. Nothing anyone says here will change that.

[Harry's polo shirt]

I agree Lisele, as soon as Prince Charles is king, he give her the title.

[Warren]

Originally Posted by Harry's polo shirt

I agree Lisele, as soon as Prince Charles is king, he give her the title [of Queen].

The moment Charles become King, Camilla becomes Queen. The title of Queen can only be taken away, or denied, by legislation of the Parliament.
.

[Mapple]

Originally Posted by Elspeth

According to the Duchy site, the Queen is referred to as the Duke of Lancaster when she's there on Duchy business. If Charles wanted to create Camilla Duchess of Lancaster when he becomes king, I assume it would make more sense than creating her Duchess of anything else.

Although I stll think she's going to end up being Queen assuming the present reign goes on for a few more years.

The title of 'Duke of Lancaster' has no legal standing in the United Kingdom, it is nothing more than a locally used style for the British monarch. The Lord Chancellor stated in the Buckhurst Peerage Case (1876) that 'the fountain and source of all dignities cannot hold a dignity from himself. The dignity... terminates, not by virtue of any provisions in its creation but from the absolute incapacity of the sovereign to hold a dignity.'

I concur, it is likely that Camilla will end up as the Queen Consort. But there is an ecclesiastical problem with her being crowned as you pointed out above.

[branchg]

Originally Posted by Elspeth

According to the Duchy site, the Queen is referred to as the Duke of Lancaster when she's there on Duchy business. If Charles wanted to create Camilla Duchess of Lancaster when he becomes king, I assume it would make more sense than creating her Duchess of anything else.

Although I stll think she's going to end up being Queen assuming the present reign goes on for a few more years.

Camilla cannot be anything but Queen Consort when Charles becomes King, unless Parliament (and the Commonwealth Governor-Generals) all agree to pass legislation stating she will be known as "HRH the Princess Consort" without the rights and dignities of Queen. In my opinion, this will only happen if the Queen dies within the next few years and public sentiment remains strongly against Camilla becoming Queen Consort.

Lancaster is a feudal spoil of war merged with the Crown as the historical holder of the Duchy of Lancaster. The Crown is always "Duke of Lancaster" in the duchy by tradition, but the title of King or Queen always take precedence over all other styles and dignities. Camilla could not be "Duchess of Lancaster" because there is no separate dukedom, it is a style associated with the Sovereign alone.

[Elspeth]

So the speculations about whether Wallis Simpson might be called Duchess of Lancaster if she married Edward morganatically were impossible ones?

I wonder what Stanley Baldwin and Alec Hardinge would have thought of the proposal of the title "Princess Consort" for Mrs Simpson back then.

I think we're pretty much all agreed (with a few wistful holdouts) that as long as the Queen lives for another few years and Charles and Camilla both outlive her, we'll be looking at a Queen Consort, not a Princess Consort, to follow, regardless of what the Royal Family website is claiming.

[Mapple]

Originally Posted by Elspeth

So the speculations about whether Wallis Simpson might be called Duchess of Lancaster if she married Edward morganatically were impossible ones?

I wonder what Stanley Baldwin and Alec Hardinge would have thought of the proposal of the title "Princess Consort" for Mrs Simpson back then.

...

In theory it is possible to revive a late 17th Century precedent when William, the son of Princess Anne and Prince George of Denmark, was styled 'Duke of Gloucester' despite the fact that he had not been actually created a duke. But the press would have a field day with such an absurd and awkward arrangement.

[Raia]

i dont know much about the history of titles like many here, but all i have to say on the matter is i hope she doesnt become Queen thats the last thing i want her known as Princess consort would have to do, if she become Queen i dont think it'll go down well with the British people, yes there have been polls in the newpapers saying shes more accepted now but theres also polls that nearly everyone says she will never be accepted as our Queen. if the Queen lives as long as her mother then camilla or charles possibley will not be around who knows what is to happen

[branchg]

Originally Posted by Elspeth

So the speculations about whether Wallis Simpson might be called Duchess of Lancaster if she married Edward morganatically were impossible ones?

I wonder what Stanley Baldwin and Alec Hardinge would have thought of the proposal of the title "Princess Consort" for Mrs Simpson back then.

Given it was supposedly just an idea thrown out by Churchill, who knows if the Cabinet would have done their homework on the title's relevance? Obviously, they were making things up as they went along anyway, given the eventual denial of HRH to the Duchess, which was illegal under British common law since it made the Duke's marriage morganatic!

[Aussie Princess]

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.

William wont automatically become Prince of Wales though will he? why does he inherit all his fathers titles but this one?

[Elspeth]

He doesn't inherit them all automatically. Duke of Cornwall and Duke of Rothesay are titles automatically held by the eldest son of the monarch, along with the other Scottish titles (Earl of Carrick, Baron Renfrew, Lord of the Isles, and Great Steward of Scotland). The title of Prince of Wales, along with Earl of Chester, has to be conferred by the monarch.

[Iain]

Originally Posted by Elspeth

According to the Duchy site, the Queen is referred to as the Duke of Lancaster when she's there on Duchy business. .

Just a thought.... If the Queen is the Duke of Lancaster does that mean Prince Philip is the Duchess?

[Elspeth]

hehe

I wonder why we've never seen him in his tiara.

[tiaraprin]

Originally Posted by Warren

The moment Charles become King, Camilla becomes Queen. The title of Queen can only be taken away, or denied, by legislation of the Parliament.
.

Please let Her Majesty outlive her son!!!! That woman becoming Queen disgusts me!!

[Alicky]

That's kind of morbid. I wish them both long happy healthy lives.

[Genevieve]

Originally Posted by tiaraprin

Please let Her Majesty outlive her son!!!! That woman becoming Queen disgusts me!!

What has she done that disgusts you exactly? I'm not really sure?

She had an affair with a married man while she herself was married. But so did Diana. Would you have been against Diana becoming Queen for this reason too?

It always amazes me how some actions are reasons for certain people to be beheaded while the exact same actions by other people are swept under the carpet or a littany of excuses are made for them.

Consider that within Charles and Diana's marriage both had affairs. Charles can at least say that he only had one affair whereas Diana had several affairs, with married and single men. Yet those who bow at Diana's altar excuse her affairs: Charles cheated first, he never loved her, she was a young and naive woman who was pushed into the marriage with Charles, she had a bad childhood, and on and on. Charles on the other hand is less than the scum of the earth apparently for his single though multi-year affair with Camilla. Did anyone ever stop to think that Charles was pushed into the marriage with Diana? Here was a young, pure girl whom the royal family thought they could control and manipulate and bear the future heirs to the throne and Charles' feelings about her or any other woman be damned. What about Charles' bad childhood? Two parents who were hardly around and unemotional or unsupportive in their emotions when they were, a father who insisted that he be sent off to boarding school.

Then consider that both Charles and Diana talked to the press. Charles admitted publicly to his affair with Camilla while married to Diana. Gasp! He told the truth yet he's still a jerk and the man who ruined Diana's life. Yet somehow Diana's admission of her own affairs didn't make her a jerk or any less disregarded. If Charles ruined Camilla and Andrew Parker-Bowles' marriage Diana also ruined Julia and Will Carling's marriage. How come no Diana fans discuss that?

The worst thing for me is that Diana used her children, at least William, in her public feud against Charles and Camilla. She cried in a bathroom over Charles' lack of love for her and her young son was shoving kleenex underneath the door and telling his mommy to stop crying. Whatever you think of a child's father as your husband, you never involve children. You never tell your children what a horrible person their father is. If Charles was as horrible as Diana made him out to be, William would've learned in his own time. Diana certainly shouldn't have told him that.

[tiaraprin]

Originally Posted by Genevieve

What has she done that disgusts you exactly? I'm not really sure?

She had an affair with a married man while she herself was married. But so did Diana. Would you have been against Diana becoming Queen for this reason too? ...

Diana was an innocent young bride at the age of 20 who was used by Charles to satisfy dynastic aims. Camilla and the rest of his group thought Diana was a quiet mouse that they could control and continue their shennanigans. Well, Diana was the mouse that roared and put her foot down. GOOD FOR HER!! While having affairs was not a moral thing to do, I could understand it being married to a man who used her and never loved her.

Also, there is no conclusive proof of an affair with Will Carling. After all these slanderous tell all books, not one of them states she had an affair with him.

[Genevieve]

Originally Posted by tiaraprin

Diana was an innocent young bride at the age of 20 who was used by Charles to satisfy dynastic aims. Camilla and the rest of his group thought Diana was a quiet mouse that they could control and continue their shennanigans. Well, Diana was the mouse that roared and put her foot down. GOOD FOR HER!! While having affairs was not a moral thing to do, I could understand it being married to a man who used her and never loved her.

This is exactly the kind of 'swept under the carpet' comments I mean about avid Diana fans. She was a human being. She was not perfect. She made mistakes and was flawed and for some people to deny that she made mistakes at all is really a disservice.

Couldn't one say that it was justified that Charles had an affair being married to a mousy naive young girl?

What about it being "GOOD FOR CHARLES!!" that he found happiness in someone else since it is obvious that his wife could not make him happy and was actually the cause of so many of his frustrations?

Originally Posted by tiaraprin

Also, there is no conclusive proof of an affair with Will Carling. After all these slanderous tell all books, not one of them states she had an affair with him.

How much proof is necessary really? If you can take James Hewitt's words that he and Diana had an affair then you can certainly by the same shaky words by Julia Carling that her marriage ended because Diana slept with her husband. Even if you take away the Will Carling affair, Diana still cheated on Charles while they were married with Will Carling. She was no angel nor was she the matyr some are making her out to be eight years on after her death.

You can at least give credit to Charles and Camilla for owning up to their mistakes. They're adult enough to do that. Even in her mid-thirties when she died Diana was no more mature then the Shy Di the world met in 1980. She was still passing the blame onto others (Charles, Camilla, the royal family, the media) for her own downfall and making excuses for herself. Eight years after her death, her fans are still excusing her actions.

I'll take someone who is honest about her mistakes like Camilla then someone who played the blame game and never took responsibility for her actions like Diana any day.
.

[tiaraprin]

I don't like Camilla and Charles and never will. Their actions were the catalyst for the breakdown of the monarchy in the 1990's. They are not saints and standing and saying one measly prayer at their blessing service does not make them upstanding moral citizens who have confessed their sins. Camilla has never said she was sorry for what she did. Perhaps if she hadn't done what she had, Diana wouldn't have done what she did. Camilla sinned first.