The Royal Forums Coat of Arms


Join The Royal Forums Today
Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #761  
Old 04-20-2008, 04:05 AM
wbenson's Avatar
Moderator Emeritus
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: -, United States
Posts: 2,546
Quote:
Originally Posted by Charlotte1 View Post
Camilla could be known by a totally fictious title ( Princess Consort) and legally sign everything Camilla R but that then devalues all legal titles in the UK. By Camilla by openly using a title that has no legal foundation,would leave the gates open to anyone naming themselves 'Prince/ Princess/Duke/Duchess' etc all titles would be discredited.
Oh, I agree. I just think that if they go the Princess Consort route, they'll do that, everything else be damned. Why wreck just one coach when you can wreck an entire train? Creating a new title for one Queen just to please certain sycophantic loyalists to a deceased former Princess devalues titles almost as much, IMO.
__________________

  #762  
Old 04-20-2008, 04:20 AM
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: ***, United States
Posts: 16,873
Quote:
Originally Posted by Charlotte1 View Post
Princess Alice and the Wessex children actually legally hold ( or held in Alice's case) the titles they used.

Princess Alice, the Duchess of Gloucester became a princess when she married Prince Henry of Gloucester ( who was Duke of Gloucester) she was Princess Henry of Gloucester. After her husband died she asked the Queen if she could use her own name, so she was styled Princess Alice, Duchess of Gloucester, but by virtue of her marriage to a British prince, she did hold the title of princess.
She did hold the title of Princess, but the name "Princess Alice" is no more correct than the name "Princess Diana." Wives of princes don't become princesses in their own right, and it seemed a bit disingenuous of the royal advisors to expect that people would understand that Diana wasn't Princess Diana after the Duchess of Gloucester had suddenly metamorphosed into Princess Alice.

The main difference is that the degree of royalness is the same (HRH in both cases) whereas for Camilla it would be different. However, the fact that it was HRH in both cases doesn't make "Princess Alice" correct in the context of the British system.
__________________

  #763  
Old 04-20-2008, 04:25 AM
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: England, United Kingdom
Posts: 113
Princess Consort

Quote:
Originally Posted by Elspeth View Post
I assume they might do what they did for the Dowager Duchess of Gloucester and let her be known as Princess Camilla...
Alice Monagu-Douglas-Scott was permitted by HM the Queen to style herself as Princess Alice the Duchess of Gloucester because she did not wish to use the style of the Dowager Duchess of Gloucester. However, her style "princess" was not created by the letters patent but it was a mere courtesy title. For this reason, Camilla is not princess but is Princess Charles, nor Sophie the Countess of Wessex is a princess but is Princess Edward. Likewise, Diana was never Princess Diana but was Princess Charles during her marriage to the Princess of Wales & post their divorce Diana, Princess of Wales (without the).

Re: the Princess Consort

It must be possible to creat Camilla as the Princess Consort by the letters patent as in the case of Prince Albert, the husband of Queen Victoria, who was later created as the Prince Consort for the British Parliament did not allow him to style as HM the King Consort.

In addition to this, HRH the Prince Philip the Duke of Edinburgh has never been created as the Prince Consort but was created as the Duke of Edinburgh by George VI and later created as the Prince Philip by his wife.
  #764  
Old 04-20-2008, 10:06 AM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: , United States
Posts: 2,735
All wives of sons and male-line grandsons of The Sovereign automatically become HRH Princess of the UK, but only as reflected by their husband's name or title ("HRH The Princess Henry", "HRH The Princess of Wales").

However, The Sovereign can certainly grant the courtesy of being known as "Princess Diana" or "Princess Alice" without issuing letters patent as they ARE princesses by marriage. In Diana's case, she was permitted this courtesy without objection after divorce as the mother of a future King.
  #765  
Old 04-20-2008, 10:12 AM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: , United States
Posts: 2,735
Quote:
Originally Posted by serenissima View Post
It must be possible to creat Camilla as the Princess Consort by the letters patent as in the case of Prince Albert, the husband of Queen Victoria, who was later created as the Prince Consort for the British Parliament did not allow him to style as HM the King Consort.

In addition to this, HRH the Prince Philip the Duke of Edinburgh has never been created as the Prince Consort but was created as the Duke of Edinburgh by George VI and later created as the Prince Philip by his wife.
The big difference there is they are male and cannot share their wives' rank or titles. Therefore, they must use their own or be granted additional honours by The Sovereign.

Camilla could not be known as Princess Consort without legislation. Unlike the present situation whereas she enjoys many different titles as the wife of the heir to the throne, once her husband is King, there is no other title for her use except Queen.

Since she is presently a princess of the UK by marriage, using her ducal style as Duchess of Cornwall is not a problem because she shares her husband's rank as HRH and can use whatever style he holds. If she became Princess Consort, she would legally be morganatic since she does not enjoy the rank and title of HM The Queen.
  #766  
Old 04-20-2008, 10:58 AM
jcbcode99's Avatar
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Richmond Area, United States
Posts: 1,979
Quote:
Originally Posted by branchg View Post
The big difference there is they are male and cannot share their wives' rank or titles. Therefore, they must use their own or be granted additional honours by The Sovereign.

Camilla could not be known as Princess Consort without legislation. Unlike the present situation whereas she enjoys many different titles as the wife of the heir to the throne, once her husband is King, there is no other title for her use except Queen.

Since she is presently a princess of the UK by marriage, using her ducal style as Duchess of Cornwall is not a problem because she shares her husband's rank as HRH and can use whatever style he holds. If she became Princess Consort, she would legally be morganatic since she does not enjoy the rank and title of HM The Queen.
If she became Princess Consort by Letters Patent or was just known as Princess Consort? How could she be morganatic when Charles' own grandmother was a commoner who became Queen? Diana was a commoner as well, Sarah was a commoner, Sophie was commoner--Wouldn't Queen Mary's marriage to George V have been considered morganatic, but Queen Victoria thought that ridiculous (James Pope Hennessey bio). I thought that morganatic marriages were not recognized in the UK?
I believe that when the original announcment was made that it said that Camilla would be HRH The Princess of Wales, but would be known as HRH THe Duchess of Cornwall, and upon Charles' becoming King she would be known as HRH The PRincess Consort--no one said anything about demoting her, just calling her by a different style. Using a different style is not morganatic.
I think I'm confused--this subject is fraught with nuances and precdence and just plain confusion.
__________________
Janet

"We make a living by what we do; we make a life by what we give" Winston Churchill
  #767  
Old 04-20-2008, 11:44 AM
Warren's Avatar
Administrator in Memoriam
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 15,469
What Branchg means is that by not allowing Camilla to share her husband's rank and title would effectively make her 'morganatic'. The definition of morganatic is the spouse (and children) not having a claim to the title of the person of higher rank. The refusal of George VI to allow the Duchess of Windsor to share her husband's style of HRH while sharing his title made her part-morganatic, even though the concept of a morganatic marriage is not recognised in British law.
__________________
Seeking information? Check out the extensive Royal A-Z
  #768  
Old 04-20-2008, 11:49 AM
lucien's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Amsterdam, Netherlands
Posts: 7,160
Quote:
Originally Posted by Elspeth View Post
Welcome to part 3 of the ongoing discussion about the title Camilla will hold if and when Charles becomes King.

Part 2 can be found here.

What title?No question,the one she is fully entitled to:Queen.

About time the Brits get over it,and quitte the false sentiments,
often fueled by what they call press.

So,Queen Camilla it will be.
  #769  
Old 04-20-2008, 12:17 PM
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: ***, United States
Posts: 16,873
You might want to let the royal family official website know, then...

They still seem to think she's going to be Princess Consort.
  #770  
Old 04-20-2008, 12:23 PM
TheTruth's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Between the first and second floor of the Eiffel Tower, France
Posts: 2,651
Quote:
Originally Posted by lucien View Post

What title?No question,the one she is fully entitled to:Queen.

About time the Brits get over it,and quitte the false sentiments,
often fueled by what they call press.

So,Queen Camilla it will be.
It's been repeated over and over again that when Prince Charles married Camilla, it was very clear that she shouldn't be Queen consort but Princess consort. For the moment, no one is talking about Queen consort. :

From wikipedia : Queen consort - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Quote:
When their wedding was announced it was declared that, in the event of Charles's ascent to the British throne, Camilla would assume the title of Princess Consort and not that of Queen. Subsequent British ministerial comment during Parliamentary discussion confirmed, however, that she would necessarily retain the few legal prerogatives reserved for, and the legal title of, a British queen consort.
__________________

Please, help find a cure for ALS

Because it matters...
  #771  
Old 04-20-2008, 12:26 PM
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: ***, United States
Posts: 16,873
Quote:
Originally Posted by branchg View Post
All wives of sons and male-line grandsons of The Sovereign automatically become HRH Princess of the UK, but only as reflected by their husband's name or title ("HRH The Princess Henry", "HRH The Princess of Wales").

However, The Sovereign can certainly grant the courtesy of being known as "Princess Diana" or "Princess Alice" without issuing letters patent as they ARE princesses by marriage. In Diana's case, she was permitted this courtesy without objection after divorce as the mother of a future King.
She was Diana Princess of Wales after divorce, not Princess Diana. People called her Princess Diana from the moment she was married, but it didn't make it a correct style.
  #772  
Old 04-20-2008, 12:30 PM
lucien's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Amsterdam, Netherlands
Posts: 7,160
Quote:
Originally Posted by Elspeth View Post
You might want to let the royal family official website know, then...

They still seem to think she's going to be Princess Consort.

Good morning Elspeth!
  #773  
Old 04-20-2008, 12:34 PM
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: ***, United States
Posts: 16,873
Afternoon, Lucien...
  #774  
Old 04-20-2008, 12:35 PM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: , United States
Posts: 2,735
Quote:
Originally Posted by Elspeth View Post
She was Diana Princess of Wales after divorce, not Princess Diana. People called her Princess Diana from the moment she was married, but it didn't make it a correct style.
Legally, of course, you are right. But the Palace also referred to her on many occasions as "Princess Diana" so I think it's safe to assume she was granted the courtesy.
  #775  
Old 04-20-2008, 12:42 PM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: , United States
Posts: 2,735
Quote:
Originally Posted by jcbcode99 View Post
If she became Princess Consort by Letters Patent or was just known as Princess Consort? How could she be morganatic...
At present, she is legally "HRH The Princess Charles" the same as any wife of a son or male-line grandson of a Sovereign. Because Charles is the heir to the throne, he also is Prince of Wales, Duke of Cornwall and Rothesay, Earl of Chester & Carrick, etc. As his wife, Camilla holds these titles as well, which means she can use any of them as her style without calling into question her rank as HRH and a Princess by marriage.

Once Charles becomes King, his wife is automatically Queen Consort. Her style, title and rank is superior to a princess as HM Queen Camilla. The question of whether she can, in fact, be called "something else" (i.e. a lesser rank and title as Princess Consort) when she is legally Queen has not been considered yet by Parliament.

It is possible they will agree this can be done, but I think they will run into problems constitutionally and require legislation.
  #776  
Old 04-20-2008, 12:48 PM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: , United States
Posts: 2,735
Quote:
Originally Posted by Warren View Post
The refusal of George VI to allow the Duchess of Windsor to share her husband's style of HRH while sharing his title made her part-morganatic, even though the concept of a morganatic marriage is not recognised in British law.
What happened in 1937 with the issuance of letters patent denying Wallis royal rank created a legal precedent for a morganatic marriage in the UK.

She was denied the rank and title of "HRH Princess Edward", which should have been hers automatically by law, and allowed only "Her Grace Wallis, Duchess of Windsor", which was inferior to her husband's rank and title as a son of the Sovereign.

There is no question the marriage was morganatic legally.
  #777  
Old 04-20-2008, 01:55 PM
jcbcode99's Avatar
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Richmond Area, United States
Posts: 1,979
I misunderstood--I know that if Camilla were to be HRH The Princess Consort that there would be an inequality, thus in effect making it a morganatic marriage--I was just confused that it would be regarded defacto as a morganatic marriage.
Was it Her Grace Wallis, Duchess of Windsor or was it Her Grace Wallis, The Duchess of Windsor?
So here is my question--and if it has been asked forgive me but there is so much going on in this thread I get dizzy reading it--
Currently, Camilla is legally HRH Camilla, THe Princess of Wales but goes by HRH The Duchess of Cornwall--she holds the equal of all Charles' titles
So, when Charles becomes King will it be a similar situation of her legally holding the title of HM The Queen Camilla but instead choosing to style herself as HRH The Princess Consort?
As I understand it, the debate is whether she will choose to be known as Queen or Princess. Personallly, and take it for what its worth--but I just don't like Princess for Camilla. Call me old-fashioned, but it just would not suit her. Duchess suits her, and Queen would suit her as well.
I'm with Lucien.
__________________
Janet

"We make a living by what we do; we make a life by what we give" Winston Churchill
  #778  
Old 04-20-2008, 02:17 PM
TheTruth's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Between the first and second floor of the Eiffel Tower, France
Posts: 2,651
Legally and powerfully speaking, what will it change if Camilla becomes Queen consort ? Seemingly a Queen consort doesn't have any official power. She's certainly a major advisor of the King (and I assume Camilla already accomplishes this role). So, whether Camilla is Queen consort or not, what will it change for the UK ?
__________________

Please, help find a cure for ALS

Because it matters...
  #779  
Old 04-20-2008, 04:11 PM
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: England, United Kingdom
Posts: 113
Quote:
Originally Posted by branchg View Post
What happened in 1937 with the issuance of letters patent denying Wallis royal rank created a legal precedent for a morganatic marriage in the UK.

She was denied the rank and title of "HRH Princess Edward", which should have been hers automatically by law, and allowed only "Her Grace Wallis, Duchess of Windsor", which was inferior to her husband's rank and title as a son of the Sovereign.

There is no question the marriage was morganatic legally.
What I understand from what people who were happened to be there during that one of the most unsettled times of our history is that because the reigning king abdicating so suddenly (due to his marriage) was such an extraordinary event and the abdicated king was to have his kingly title deprived from himself etc was also unusual, this situation was treated as such an extraordinary matter.

Re: the idea of not creating Wallis Simpson as Her Royal Highness seemed to have come from the King because he was concerned about the possibility of Wallis divorcing from his older brother in due course (as she had done so from her previous husbands twice before) and he felt that it might become difficult to take Her Royal Highness away from her should she ever divorce from the Duke of Windsor etc, the King in the end decided not to creat her Her Royal Highness. For the duke also had renounced all his rights to the British throne upon his abdication, according to the government, his marriage to Wallis was not regarded as a morganatic one.

Though legally there was no law re: "morganatic" marriage existed in England, for the House of Hanover as well as the House of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha were both tied to their house laws re: the "non-moganatic" marriage, until the dynasty's name was changed to Windsor, they all married to non Roman Catholic people who were born as royal, serene or ducal highnesses.

Re: Camilla being created as the Princess Consort

Though she may automatically become HM the Queen (consort) upon her husband's assenssion to the throne, it is possible for her to use the title of HRH the Princess Consort with the style of the Princess Camilla should she be created as such. Having said that, what will happen during the coronation of her husband will be a matter of dispute. Will she be annointed as the queen consort or will she not be annointed after her husband having been annointed as the king ? If she is going to be annointed, then, she should be known as HM the Queen. Then, the Prince of Wales himself nowadays says that he'd rather be known as the Defender or the Faiths rather than the Defender of the Faith (of the Church of England), he himself may wish not to be annointed as king. Then all the matters re: the office of king may become rather non-English that our parliament in Westminster will probably have to re-design the nature of the office of king.
  #780  
Old 04-20-2008, 04:20 PM
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: England, United Kingdom
Posts: 113
How about HRH the Lady Consort of Mann or HRH the Duchess Consort of Normandy ?
__________________

Closed Thread

Tags
camilla, camilla parker bowles, duchess of cornwall, princess consort, queen consort, styles and titles


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Victoria's Future Title? rop81 Crown Princess Victoria, Prince Daniel and Family 80 09-12-2021 08:00 PM
Will and should Camilla use the title of Queen when Charles becomes King? muriel The Prince of Wales and the Duchess of Cornwall 17 11-10-2011 10:20 AM
Crown Prince Hamzah relieved of his title: November 28, 2004 Amoula Current Events Archive 338 04-22-2005 09:28 AM




Popular Tags
america american archie mountbatten-windsor asia asian birth britain britannia british royal family buckingham palace camilla camilla parker-bowles camilla parker bowles carolin china china chinese ming dynasty asia asian emperor royalty qing chinese clarence house colorblindness commonwealth countries coronation daisy doge of venice dresses duchess of sussex duke of sussex elizabeth ii family tree fashion and style gemstones genetics george vi gradenigo hello! henry viii highgrove history hochberg house of windsor hypothetical monarchs japan japanese imperial family jewellery king juan carlos książ castle liechtenstein list of rulers medical monarchist movements monarchists mongolia names nara period plantinum jubilee pless politics portugal prince harry queen elizabeth ii queen victoria royal ancestry solomon j solomon spanish royal family suthida thai royal family unfinished portrait united states united states of america wales welsh


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 10:40 AM.

Social Knowledge Networks

eXTReMe Tracker
Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2021
Jelsoft Enterprises
×