Title for Camilla

[brandon]

That's incorrect. The title of a Queen Consort can only be changed by Act of Parliament. So that's some 1300 people who have something to do with it (although 700 never actually come to vote in the Lords)

Who said anything about changing it? Therefore, there's nothing incorrect there. The monarch is the fount of all honors, or are you disputing that too? The present Duchess of Cornwall can indeed automatically have the title of Queen Consort and still be using something else, therein does lie an historic anomaly but it's only an anomaly. Get it yet? All the talk about needing acts of parliament is overstated because no one has said she will not be Queen by law, just that she won't be actively and publicly using it. That decision was between her and her husband and the Queen. The government was informed and the government went along with it. Parliament was not required to do anything then and parliament won't need to have anything to do with it later, or their constitutional lawyers would obviously have pointed that out immediately when they came up with this formula for present and future usage.

 

[scooter]

Well, yeeesss, but from what we hear about the people in the upper echelons of royal advisors, they can be awfully circumspect about how they say things. Diana was 19 years old, in love with Charles and the whole "becoming Princess of Wales" business, with a huge wedding to prepare for, very little educational background or experience with critical thinking, on the front pages of every newspaper and magazine, and generally in the middle of an emotional whirlwind. She may well have been given the explanations. Whether she absorbed them is quite another matter.

I've said before and I'll say it again now - I think her family really failed her. The royal advisors are there to serve and protect the royal family, but it was her own parents who should have made her understand what she was getting into, and it doesn't sound as though they tried very hard.

Elspeth I agree with almost everything you wrote. However, in the matter of her being given explanations and not absorbing them, I highly doubt anyone layed out on the table the real scenario vis a vis Camilla. Regardless of how in love etc she was, I dont see any bride signing up for that regardless of how young and undereducated she was.

 

[Monika_]

Well, yeeesss, but from what we hear about the people in the upper echelons of royal advisors, they can be awfully circumspect about how they say things. Diana was 19 years old, in love with Charles and the whole "becoming Princess of Wales" business, with a huge wedding to prepare for, very little educational background or experience with critical thinking, on the front pages of every newspaper and magazine, and generally in the middle of an emotional whirlwind. She may well have been given the explanations. Whether she absorbed them is quite another matter.

I've said before and I'll say it again now - I think her family really failed her. The royal advisors are there to serve and protect the royal family, but it was her own parents who should have made her understand what she was getting into, and it doesn't sound as though they tried very hard.

I agree with the first part of your statement. As for Diana's family failing her, well, I doubt they could have done more than the average parents of a young lady who is in love and believes life will be all she expects.

But I do believe that the RF failed her. Had they supported her more and not condoned some of Charles' actions, it's quite possible we would not have to discuss Andrew Morton or Panorama. I think she struck out when she was at the end of her rope. Perhaps they couldn't change Charles, but they did not have to publicly accept and include Mr and Mrs Parker-Bowles in their circle. And they certainly didn't have to stand by and allow some of Charles friends to question Diana's stability, etc. That was a terrible way to take the spot light off of the real problem.

 

[wbenson]

That was a terrible way to take the spot light off of the real problem.

There was no "the problem." There were multiple problems, of which no party had a claim on all.

 

[Elspeth]

Elspeth I agree with almost everything you wrote. However, in the matter of her being given explanations and not absorbing them, I highly doubt anyone layed out on the table the real scenario vis a vis Camilla. Regardless of how in love etc she was, I dont see any bride signing up for that regardless of how young and undereducated she was.

Well, that's pretty much what I meant when I said that the royal advisors can be awfully circumspect. They probably tiptoed all round the subject and gave a few oblique hints and assumed she was enough of a member of the Establishment to understand what they weren't saying. And they probably didn't take into account that they weren't dealing with someone just like themselves.

 

[PrinceOfCanada]

Once again, the precedent of withholding a married woman's title within the BRF was set when HRH was with held from the last divorcee to marry into the immediate family (and I dont consider Princess Michael to be an equivilant position), ie the Duchess of Windsor. In fact, the only reason that Charles is the heir apparant and his mother and grandfather were king/queen is that the divorced lady in question was not regarded as fit to be queen. It's mighty convenient that it worked out that way, hmmm? Although in the earlier case, public opinion was much more in favor of Queen Wallis, to keep the very popular last PoW. I just finished reading the Duke of Windsor's autobiography. Most enlightening and with so many parallels to this case.

Except that no title was withheld from her. Edward was created Duke of Windsor after his abdication, and Wallis duly assumed the title upon their marriage. The style of HRH was forbidden to her, not the title.

Further, Charles would still be Heir Apparent had Edward remained King; Wallis was unable to bear children, and Elizabeth would have acceded to the throne upon his death in 1971.

Who said anything about changing it? Therefore, there's nothing incorrect there. The monarch is the fount of all honors, or are you disputing that too? The present Duchess of Cornwall can indeed automatically have the title of Queen Consort and still be using something else, therein does lie an historic anomaly but it's only an anomaly

Not quite. Camilla can use Duchess of Cornwall because it is a subsidiary title to the Prince of Wales, her husband. As King, Charles would have no subsidiary titles that she could use. The wife of a King is Queen; Princess is not something to which she would be entitled unless she were created Princess in her own right. Even then.. she would be Queen upon marriage. Period. That's how the law works. Unless you can provide a citation otherwise?

 

[brandon]

Not quite. Camilla can use Duchess of Cornwall because it is a subsidiary title to the Prince of Wales, her husband. As King, Charles would have no subsidiary titles that she could use. The wife of a King is Queen; Princess is not something to which she would be entitled unless she were created Princess in her own right. Even then.. she would be Queen upon marriage. Period. That's how the law works. Unless you can provide a citation otherwise?

Who's to say she won't be created princess in her own right and that is what they intend to do? They haven't actually stated so but it would require a royal warrant for her to be created Princess. The monarch can grant personal titles and styles at their pleasure, and that's what they've intended. It doesn't require any act of parliament because they don't intend to strip her of the title of Queen Consort which is hers also by common law, but that title will become "silent" in public and court usage, that's all. The British monarchs have granted personal titles for life before and parliament had nothing to do with it. For instance, in the case of the Duke of Windsor, all they had to do was confirm his abdication by their own parlilamentary act, but they never had to confirm the King's orders in council creating the Windsor title. Nor did they intervene on behalf of the Duchess of Windsor to overrule the monarch in his withholding of the HRH. As I said, they've already checked their constitutional experts, and their constitutional experts obviously disagree with you.

 

[PrinceOfCanada]

Who's to say she won't be created princess in her own right and that is what they intend to do?

It wouldn't matter; she would still be Queen as the wife of a King.

 

[wbenson]

Who's to say she won't be created princess in her own right and that is what they intend to do?

As Queen, she couldn't hold any styles and titles that flow from the King. (Use and hold are two very different things, though, but I hope they don't go down that road. I think that if they decide to go on a destructive rampage and make Camilla PC, they won't even bother issuing any documents. They'll just say it and do it and hope everybody does as they say.)

The British monarchs have granted personal titles for life before and parliament had nothing to do with it.

A King has never granted another title to his wife.

 

[ysbel]

I agree with the first part of your statement. As for Diana's family failing her, well, I doubt they could have done more than the average parents of a young lady who is in love and believes life will be all she expects.

But I do believe that the RF failed her. Had they supported her more and not condoned some of Charles' actions, it's quite possible we would not have to discuss Andrew Morton or Panorama. I think she struck out when she was at the end of her rope. Perhaps they couldn't change Charles, but they did not have to publicly accept and include Mr and Mrs Parker-Bowles in their circle. And they certainly didn't have to stand by and allow some of Charles friends to question Diana's stability, etc. That was a terrible way to take the spot light off of the real problem.

Do you really expect the Royal Family to take Diana's side over their own flesh and blood (Charles)? The Queen was a young woman of 22 when she had her first child and the pictures of her were radiant as I have ever seen of a young mother. And yet you expect the queen to turn against her firstborn son? When Diana's grandmother spoke in court against her own daughter's affair, she was accused of being heartless and unmaternal!

Of course, the Windsors looked out after their own! Its one of the most normal, most HUMAN instincts there is. For someone who confesses to admire Diana's humanness through all her faults, I cannot believe that you cannot see the normal ordinary humanness of the Royal Family's reaction to support Charles. It would have been much more unnatural and unusual for them to support Diana over Charles.

The Spencers could and should have looked out for her better than they did. Diana's father was an equerry to the Queen and her grandmother was the Queen Mother's lady-in-waiting and was the attendant who first broke the Queen into royal protocol. They were as much of an insider to the court as you could be and not be royal.

I don't believe they did their best at the time; remember the response Diana's sisters made when she had reservations about the wedding? Too late Dutch, your face is on the tea towels.

 

[brandon]

It wouldn't matter; she would still be Queen as the wife of a King.

She could be anything under the sun but what the monarch has decided she would be known by in daily and formal use is another matter. There's a difference between denying a title and making the distinction of using another title. In the second case, granting one doesn't somehow cancel the other, or deny its existence.

 

[brandon]

As Queen, she couldn't hold any styles and titles that flow from the King. (Use and hold are two very different things, though, but I hope they don't go down that road. I think that if they decide to go on a destructive rampage and make Camilla PC, they won't even bother issuing any documents. They'll just say it and do it and hope everybody does as they say.)



A King has never granted another title to his wife.

They've already gone down what you call "that road". I think the point isn't really at all whether a king has done this or that before, the point is they've decided since this is his inherent right as the monarch to do so, that they will exercise that right. However I'm sure they'll observe whatever is necessary to make the creation effective through either royal warrant or LP. It's too important to do it just by stating it. For instance, the Queen didn't issue any LP about Lady Louise's styling, it was simply a statement put out without further ado. But that was for the daughter of a youngest son of a monarch. This future case will be watched more intently.

 

[wbenson]

the point is they've decided since this is his inherent right as the monarch to do so

I've never seen anything that says that. The most I've seen officially is a vague "she will use the title..." statement.

 

[Iluvbertie]

They've already gone down what you call "that road". I think the point isn't really at all whether a king has done this or that before, the point is they've decided since this is his inherent right as the monarch to do so, that they will exercise that right. However I'm sure they'll observe whatever is necessary to make the creation effective through either royal warrant or LP. It's too important to do it just by stating it. For instance, the Queen didn't issue any LP about Lady Louise's styling, it was simply a statement put out without further ado. But that was for the daughter of a youngest son of a monarch. This future case will be watched more intently.

If I remember correctly at the time of the wedding the PM was asked in Parliament about the titles of Camilla.

He replied that she would, in fact become the Princess of Wales, but not use it and that she would be Queen Consort.

At about the same time, and I can't remember whether it was in the same speech, it was mentioned that it would take an Act of Parliament to deprive Camilla of the title Queen. It couldn't simply be done with a LPs as her title by right of Charles' inherited title would be that of Queen and therefore to deprive her of that title would take an Act of the British Parliament which Charles would then have to sign.

 

[PrinceOfCanada]

It couldn't simply be done with a LPs as her title by right of Charles' inherited title would be that of Queen and therefore to deprive her of that title would take an Act of the British Parliament which Charles would then have to sign.

Precisely. Whether she is created a Princess in her own right or not is immaterial; she would derive her title from her husband. Which would make her Queen.

 

[Madame Royale]

If it's their will, then it shall have it's way. Period.

And I think people place more emphasis on the process than is really necessary. I'm certain it has it's measures, don't get me wrong.

No abdication necessary it safe to say (for those who are prone to eccentric displays of disaproval over the matter..haha). He, Charles, married the woman which would have been, imo, the pivotal crux of any such constitutional measure.

As for the disclosure of what style and title shall be used by the Duchess, I think the majority of people couldn't care. Those who lend their stout support to the Duchess will naturally be up in arms over any such proposal, but I think you'd find that having been stated by Clarence House itself, that a great many would obligingly accept it. No one asked for it, and needless to say I'm not sure if many (you, me and whoever) would have expected such a move. It came willingly.

As far as we're aware, they are perfectly content with their decision, and until such a time as it's officially called into question and disreputed, then no one can say otherwise.

I guess we'll just see how it all turns out...

 

[Jo of Palatine]

Oh, I respectfully disagree. It only required a yes or no response. Diana was quite clear with her emphasis on 'of course,' as if to say that any other scenario was unthinkable. But for Charles it hit a nerve. He didn't expect the question and he couldn't think of a good answer.

Probably he had only read the interviews that his parents had given when asked if in love, so didn't think he would be asked... And really, it is a very personal question, even if the readers are overly interested in the answer, it still is very personal. Did someone ask him and Camilla if they were in love, BTW?

Plus I learned in my English lessons that there are great differences between "being in love with somebody" and "to love somebody". I think Charles was "in love" with her, he told his friends and wrote it in letters he send around the time of his engagement. (See Dimbleby). He in addition believed he could "love" her in time. So for me this idea about love - that it starts out as "being in love" and ends in "loving" explains his words for me. He was simply not quite sure at which point he was back then but was convinced he would end up loving her.

 

[Jo of Palatine]

Whether Charles married Camilla, Tiggy Legge-Bourke (thank God he didn't! I mean really, Queen Tiggy? Eeesh), or Miss Maria Lumpyfastener, 17 The Poplars, Brighton, his new wife would still be called Queen upon accession. Period.

"Tiggy" Legge-Bourke actually would have been Queen Alexandra, as that is her "real" name.

 

[branchg]

Who said anything about changing it? Therefore, there's nothing incorrect there. The monarch is the fount of all honors, or are you disputing that too? The present Duchess of Cornwall can indeed automatically have the title of Queen Consort and still be using something else, therein does lie an historic anomaly but it's only an anomaly. Get it yet? All the talk about needing acts of parliament is overstated because no one has said she will not be Queen by law, just that she won't be actively and publicly using it. That decision was between her and her husband and the Queen. The government was informed and the government went along with it. Parliament was not required to do anything then and parliament won't need to have anything to do with it later, or their constitutional lawyers would obviously have pointed that out immediately when they came up with this formula for present and future usage.

You are incorrect. It was made very clear that legislation will be required for Camilla not to be known as HM Queen Camilla. She cannot use a lesser style and title ("HRH The Princess Consort") once her husband becomes The Sovereign other than what flows to her as his wife. The precedents are clear that the wife of The King is automatically Queen and nothing else.

If Parliament agrees to do so, legislation can be passed stating she will not hold the rank and title of Queen, leaving Charles free to create her a princess of the UK in her own right via letters patent. If the Crown Commonwealth nations agree, Camilla can then be "HRH The Princess Consort" in her own right. However, it would be creating a morganatic marriage since she would not hold equal rank to her husband.

Is this a big deal? Maybe, maybe not. She is a second wife and not the mother of the King's children who are in line to succeed. On the other hand, Diana was never going to be Queen and Charles' wife has the right to be Queen Consort when the time comes.

It will depend on public opinion at the time, but I think the Government and Commonwealth will be very reluctant to change it.

 

[Monika_]

Probably he had only read the interviews that his parents had given when asked if in love, so didn't think he would be asked...

Are you suggesting that he had to prep for the interview and/or study his lines? It may be personal, but it's hardly complicated.

Did someone ask him and Camilla if they were in love, BTW?

There's never been any doubt.

 

[Elspeth]

You are incorrect. It was made very clear that legislation will be required for Camilla not to be known as HM Queen Camilla. She cannot use a lesser style and title ("HRH The Princess Consort") once her husband becomes The Sovereign other than what flows to her as his wife. The precedents are clear that the wife of The King is automatically Queen and nothing else.

But as wbenson said, they might just do a brute-force "this is what she'll be called and we don't care that it's fictitious" end-run around all this stuff.

 

[Monika_]

Elspeth, I really don't think any of this would be an issue if not for the fact that Wallis was denied the HRH. I don't think it has as much to do with Diana as some people suggest. Just my opinion...

 

[Skydragon]

Probably he had only read the interviews that his parents had given when asked if in love, so didn't think he would be asked... And really, it is a very personal question, even if the readers are overly interested in the answer, it still is very personal. Did someone ask him and Camilla if they were in love, BTW?

IMO, the majority of British men of that age, at that time would have said something similar. It is quite simply not the sort of question one asks!

 

[scooter]

Probably he had only read the interviews that his parents had given when asked if in love, so didn't think he would be asked... And really, it is a very personal question, even if the readers are overly interested in the answer, it still is very personal. Did someone ask him and Camilla if they were in love, BTW?

Plus I learned in my English lessons that there are great differences between "being in love with somebody" and "to love somebody". I think Charles was "in love" with her, he told his friends and wrote it in letters he send around the time of his engagement. (See Dimbleby). He in addition believed he could "love" her in time. So for me this idea about love - that it starts out as "being in love" and ends in "loving" explains his words for me. He was simply not quite sure at which point he was back then but was convinced he would end up loving her.

Excuse me, but I recently reread the Dimbleby book, and at no point in it does he say that he/Charles loved or was in love with his first wife. But this is all a moot point, for the purpose of this thread. But just for the sake of this discussion, by definition if Charles said 'he believed he could love his first wife in time', by definition, he was not in love with her when he married her. If not then, then when? It is very convenient, for the sake of obfuscation, to keep dragging Diana into this. Its. About. Camilla. and how people feel about her, not Diana. Regardless of who the first wife was, the adulterous affair that Charles and Camilla conducted cant be whitewashed out of the collective conciousness of people, despite a best effort attempt. As a result many people dislike or dont respect them. If you think I am wrong, I suggest you go look at the Favorite British Royals thread. Diana had 50 votes. Charles and Camilla COMBINED had 12. Does this not tell you something?

 

[PrinceOfCanada]

Its. About. Camilla. and how people feel about her, not Diana. Regardless of who the first wife was, the adulterous affair that Charles and Camilla conducted cant be whitewashed out of the collective conciousness of people, despite a best effort attempt.

And what about the numerous adulterous affairs that Diana conducted, hmm? Or do those not count? All three of the people in that triangle behaved reprehensibly. All of them.

But that's neither here nor there. What's at issue is that for Camilla to be known as the absurd nonsense title of Princess Consort, 16 separate Parliaments will have to pass acts declaring so. And in the process creating a morganatic marriage. Which isn't allowed in the UK.

 

[Jo of Palatine]

Excuse me, but I recently reread the Dimbleby book, and at no point in it does he say that he/Charles loved or was in love with his first wife.

Dimbleby, page 280 (hardcover edition by Little, Brown & Company): "In private, he confided to one of his friends that though he did not yet love her, she was lovable and warm-hearted, and he was sure he could fall in love with her."

I think that Charles was completely at a loss about what love means and that that fact terrified him. He had always been an man caged in by his duties and the expectations of the people surrounding him and probably he only saw marriages like the upper class had them (once you share interests - whatever they are - love will grow if you like each other in the beginning) or like the one of his parents ("I immediately knew this was him" - or so, I imagine...) and couldn't trust the first and didn't find the second. So he tried to settle for the first, not realising there was a third way. But once he realised that, he grabbed it: and Camilla, no matter what she wanted.... Because I doubt she wants to be queen. She loves Charles and she is okay with being his wife and she will be his queen but we have yet to find out how much she sacrificed for Charles. But from my experience of a nice, quiet, comfortable life as a member of polite society (which still exists!) she sacrificed a lot. Camilla had her cake and enjoyed it pre-marriage. But now she is envied the cake she had to exchange for her former one - which is much more decorated but less tasty IMHo.

 

[Jo of Palatine]

Regardless of who the first wife was, the adulterous affair that Charles and Camilla conducted cant be whitewashed out of the collective conciousness of people, despite a best effort attempt.

Oh, but you know, there are people who are wishing all others to live strictly by the rules (even though they personally find numerous of reasons to "not always" apply these rules for their own private life) and there are people who accept that things are not always as they should be. I must say that I'm getting tired of those people who always insist that the "adulterous affair" is what keeping them off Charles and Camilla when they never seems to see that Diana was no better. The bible tells that those without guilt should throw the first stone - as I have had my onw introduction to human nature I'd say that those who throw the first stone are the greatest hypocrites alive!

But it's quite interesting to see that image and public reception works not like that. Here's Darwinism in full force and as such, the winner takes it all: meaning king Charles and queen Camilla are going to be a great success!

 

[Monika_]

Dimbleby, page 280 (hardcover edition by Little, Brown & Company): "In private, he confided to one of his friends that though he did not yet love her, she was lovable and warm-hearted, and he was sure he could fall in love with her."

Sorry, but I've expressed warmer feelings for my pets. From a woman's point of view (granted one) that would hurt.

 

[Monika_]

But it's quite interesting to see that image and public reception works not like that. Here's Darwinism in full force and as such, the winner takes it all: meaning king Charles and queen Camilla are going to be a great success!

I'd like Darwin's input. And can you please define 'winner'?

 

[Jo of Palatine]

I'd like Darwin's input. And can you please define 'winner'?

The one who's still there when all others have chucked out of the game or been killed.