The Royal Forums Coat of Arms


Join The Royal Forums Today
Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #921  
Old 04-28-2008, 11:48 PM
wbenson's Avatar
Moderator Emeritus
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: -, United States
Posts: 2,546
I think it will become extremely less relevant if an extremely small minority (the Diana Circle types) manage to make it seem like "Queen Camilla" shouldn't happen.
__________________

  #922  
Old 04-29-2008, 12:07 PM
PrinceOfCanada's Avatar
Nobility
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Toronto, Canada
Posts: 356
Quote:
The monarchy on a road to extinction as a result of Camilla bearing a lesser style and title?
My understanding is that Royal marriages in the UK are not morganatic, meaning that she must share his title. (Special case for the Queen; Philip could not be made King, as Kings technically outrank Queens, which simply wouldn't do. Yes, that should be changed).
__________________

  #923  
Old 04-29-2008, 08:54 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Melbourne & Sydney, Australia
Posts: 3,978
Conventionally does share his title, though can be created a lesser style and rank. It's possible, and may well happen.

Though being possible doesn't mean it's going to happen, and by the time Charles succeeds his mother, Camilla may well remain Queen. Not to my liking but I'm sure whatever her title, I'll remain supportive of the lady that is Camilla.
__________________

"Dressing is a way of life" - Monsieur Saint Laurent
  #924  
Old 04-30-2008, 08:31 AM
PrinceOfCanada's Avatar
Nobility
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Toronto, Canada
Posts: 356
You're ignoring the point about morganatic marriages. One of the issues with Wallis Simpson was that Edward suggested simply creating her a Duchess, so she wouldn't take the title & style of HM Queen, which would have got everyone's noses out of joint. That was flatly rejected, as it would therefore have been a morganatic marriage, which is not permitted in the UK.
  #925  
Old 04-30-2008, 08:36 AM
LadyCat's Avatar
Nobility
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: WM, United States
Posts: 371
But that was a first marriage and any children would have presumably been in the line of succession. This is not the case with Charles and Camilla.

Cat
  #926  
Old 04-30-2008, 05:05 PM
wbenson's Avatar
Moderator Emeritus
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: -, United States
Posts: 2,546
If Charles and Camilla have children (which is highly unlikely and probably impossible now*), those children would be in the line of succession.

*Edit: Definitely impossible unless she has some divine ability to regenerate her uterus.
  #927  
Old 04-30-2008, 05:06 PM
PrinceOfCanada's Avatar
Nobility
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Toronto, Canada
Posts: 356
That doesn't have much to do with it, as children inherit titles from the father anyway (barring circumstances when the Sovereign is Queen in her own right).
  #928  
Old 04-30-2008, 06:04 PM
LadyCat's Avatar
Nobility
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: WM, United States
Posts: 371
Quote:
Originally Posted by wbenson View Post
If Charles and Camilla have children (which is highly unlikely and probably impossible now*), those children would be in the line of succession.

*Edit: Definitely impossible unless she has some divine ability to regenerate her uterus.
Which is exactly my point. Camilla is unable to have children and would hardly desire to at this stage of the game I'm sure. My other point was that with David and Wallis it was the first marriage for David and any offspring would have been in the line of succession. With the marriage not being recognized by the CoE due to Wallis' status as being divorced, it would have been an impossible situation, which evidently everyone knew as David chose to abdicate in order to marry Wallis.

Cat
  #929  
Old 04-30-2008, 11:04 PM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: , United States
Posts: 2,735
Quote:
Originally Posted by PrinceOfCanada View Post
You're ignoring the point about morganatic marriages. One of the issues with Wallis Simpson was that Edward suggested simply creating her a Duchess, so she wouldn't take the title & style of HM Queen, which would have got everyone's noses out of joint. That was flatly rejected, as it would therefore have been a morganatic marriage, which is not permitted in the UK.
Which was ridiculous considering the letters patent issued in 1937, which created a morganatic marriage denying Wallis her royal rank and title as HRH The Princess Edward, instead creating her "Her Grace The Duchess of Windsor".
  #930  
Old 04-30-2008, 11:08 PM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: , United States
Posts: 2,735
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyCat View Post
But that was a first marriage and any children would have presumably been in the line of succession. This is not the case with Charles and Camilla.
It doesn't matter because Charles and Camilla are already married and she shares her husband's current rank and title as HRH The Princess Charles. Once he becomes King, she is automatically Queen and nothing else.

A very different scenario than the one faced by Edward VIII in 1936.
  #931  
Old 04-30-2008, 11:15 PM
PrinceOfCanada's Avatar
Nobility
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Toronto, Canada
Posts: 356
Quote:
Which was ridiculous considering the letters patent issued in 1937, which created a morganatic marriage denying Wallis her royal rank and title as HRH The Princess Edward, instead creating her "Her Grace The Duchess of Windsor".
Except that it wasn't morganatic, b/c Edward VIII was demoted in rank from King to Duke. Thus, the marriage was between equals. Not equals by birth, but equals by title and style.

Quote:
It doesn't matter because Charles and Camilla are already married and she shares her husband's current rank and title as HRH The Princess Charles. Once he becomes King, she is automatically Queen and nothing else.
Quite. This whole 'debate' is rather more pointless than the proverbial tempest in the proverbial teapot.
  #932  
Old 04-30-2008, 11:23 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Melbourne & Sydney, Australia
Posts: 3,978
Quote:
A very different scenario than the one faced by Edward VIII in 1936.
Precisely so.

The will of the day shall have it's way. Whatever it may be.

Quote:
You're ignoring the point about morganatic marriages.
Incorrect. However, if you think it can't happen, then that itself, would be ignoring the reality it could and may. Though it is only intended, at this point in time, and would amount to nothing without the support of the government of the day. Though in saying that, no one here can speak on behalf of an administration yet to hold office so any definite conclusions which are here expressed, remain premature and uncertain. No matter what the current stance on morganatic union.
__________________

"Dressing is a way of life" - Monsieur Saint Laurent
  #933  
Old 05-01-2008, 12:02 AM
wbenson's Avatar
Moderator Emeritus
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: -, United States
Posts: 2,546
Quote:
Originally Posted by PrinceOfCanada View Post
Except that it wasn't morganatic, b/c Edward VIII was demoted in rank from King to Duke. Thus, the marriage was between equals. Not equals by birth, but equals by title and style.
Though I agree that it wasn't morganatic (for reasons I'll elaborate on below), they weren't equals by title or style. Edward was also a Prince of the United Kingdom, thus bearing the style "Royal Highness." Wallis was denied that.

The reason I don't think it's morganatic is because the style "Royal Highness" is granted by gift of the Sovereign, who can take it away as he or she pleases. Therefore, Wallis had no right by marriage to claim it, as I believe the Letters Patent creating Edward Duke of Windsor lawfully took the style "Royal Highness" away from her.
  #934  
Old 05-01-2008, 07:49 AM
LadyCat's Avatar
Nobility
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: WM, United States
Posts: 371
Quote:
Originally Posted by branchg View Post
It doesn't matter because Charles and Camilla are already married and she shares her husband's current rank and title as HRH The Princess Charles. Once he becomes King, she is automatically Queen And nothing else.

A very different scenario than the one faced by Edward VIII in 1936.
Exactly! To compare Camilla & Charles to Wallis & David is to compare apples and oranges. In the case of Wallis she was going to be denied sharing her husband's rank and title, not so with Camilla. She will be Queen as she will, by law, share her husband's rank on his accession to the throne. Whether or not she is called Queen hardly matters, it will be her proper title, just as Princess of Wales is a title she holds but chooses not to use (for obvious reasons).

Cat
  #935  
Old 05-01-2008, 08:37 AM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: , United States
Posts: 2,735
Quote:
Originally Posted by PrinceOfCanada View Post
Except that it wasn't morganatic, b/c Edward VIII was demoted in rank from King to Duke. Thus, the marriage was between equals. Not equals by birth, but equals by title and style.
The Act of Abdication stated Edward was relinquishing his right, and that of his descendants, to the throne. Once it became law, he automatically reverted to his birthright style and title of HRH The Prince Edward as a son of George V under his father's 1917 Letters Patent. In March 1937, George VI issued letters patent creating him Duke of Windsor as well.

As with any marriage to a son of the Sovereign, his wife should have automatically shared her husband's rank and style as HRH Princess of the UK, the same as her sister-in-laws, HRH The Duchesses of Kent and Gloucester. The effect of the letters patent issued in May 1937 was to specifically deny The Duke's wife and children the right to share his royal rank, which he retained alone.

The definition of a morganatic marriage is one in which the wife does not share her husband's title and rank, which was certainly the case with Wallis. She was entitled to be a Princess of the UK through marriage (with the style of a Duchess since her husband was created a Peer), but was limited to the style of Her Grace, rather than HRH.
  #936  
Old 05-01-2008, 08:49 AM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: , United States
Posts: 2,735
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyCat View Post
Whether or not she is called Queen hardly matters, it will be her proper title, just as Princess of Wales is a title she holds but chooses not to use (for obvious reasons).
Camilla automatically became HRH The Princess Charles with marriage and shares all of her husband's styles, titles and rank as heir to the throne. Her title as Princess of Wales is not being used, instead she is using her ducal title and style as Duchess of Cornwall, which is fine since Charles is Duke of Cornwall.

But once he becomes King, there is no other style and title for her to use except Queen. She would not be a princess anymore, so she cannot use that style as her title because it is inferior in rank to being Queen Consort.

It will have to be created for her by the King after Parliament intervenes to remove her right to be Queen with legislation.
  #937  
Old 05-01-2008, 08:56 AM
LadyCat's Avatar
Nobility
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: WM, United States
Posts: 371
Unless Letters Patent are issued creating her a Princess of the UK in her own right. Whether this takes place before or after is anyone's guess. I may be wrong (imagine that!) but it appears this would be the only way she could use the title "Princess Consort" without any changes n legislation.

Cat
  #938  
Old 05-01-2008, 09:23 AM
jcbcode99's Avatar
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Richmond Area, United States
Posts: 1,979
I have to admit that I think this is very cut and dried predicament; when Charles becomes King his wife automatically becomes Queen Consort--as the law now stands that is the progression of things. She can't be HRH The Princess Consort until the law changes--and it appears that there is no rush to do so on the part of HMQEII. That tells me that this whole Princess Consort title was a diversions for the Diana-ites out there. Which brings me to my other point--the idea that Camilla, who is not using the style HRH The Princess of Wales out of respect for Diana, should have to take a lesser title than her husband out of respect for Diana yet again (who never would have held the HM The Queen title) really just does not make any sense to me at all. The only scenario I can really think of that is similar is that of King Leopold and Queen Astrid; when she died there was such an outpouring of grief that he ended up secretely marrying Lillian--who become HRH The Princess of Rethy---and whose children were not in the line of succession. That is so insulting, I can not even begin to imagine how I would feel given that situation. I honestly see no reason why Camilla cannot be Queen Camilla--and I have read this thread many times--and it all comes back to one thing:
upon Charles ascension, Camilla automatically becomes Queen. Unless a letters patent is issued prior to QEIIs death. If the letters patent is not issued, then Camilla would be in a situation where she would have to lose her title--which sets a dangerous precedent. So, it all hinges on what happens now--and I think that QEII is waiting it out.

As an aside, I have particularly enjoyed the discussions about the Duke and Duchess of Windsor. In the past I have agreed that she should not have held the HRH, but I have come to the opinion that it was an injustice to her that she did not receive it as her sisters-in-law held it. They weren't divorced, true, but Edward did give up the throne for her.

One more thought--if Camilla does become a Princess of the UK in her own right, as Phillip is one with the Duke of E title, would she receive a title that she could pass to her son?
__________________
Janet

"We make a living by what we do; we make a life by what we give" Winston Churchill
  #939  
Old 05-01-2008, 09:33 AM
LadyCat's Avatar
Nobility
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: WM, United States
Posts: 371
As title pass through the male lne, any title Camilla is given in her own right - such as Princess of the UK - would die with her.

Cat
  #940  
Old 05-01-2008, 09:39 AM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Melbourne & Sydney, Australia
Posts: 3,978
Quote:
Originally Posted by jcbcode99 View Post
would she receive a title that she could pass to her son?
I should certainly say not!
__________________

__________________

"Dressing is a way of life" - Monsieur Saint Laurent
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
american archie mountbatten-windsor asia asian birth britannia british british royal family camilla camilla's family camilla parker-bowles camilla parker bowles carolin china china chinese ming dynasty asia asian emperor royalty qing chinese clarence house commonwealth countries coronation crown jewels customs dresses duchess of sussex duke of sussex edward vii elizabeth ii family tree gemstones genetics george vi gradenigo harry and meghan hello! highgrove history hochberg house of windsor hypothetical monarchs japan japanese imperial family japan history jewellery kensington palace king edward vii king juan carlos książ castle liechtenstein lili mountbatten-windsor line of succession list of rulers meghan markle monarchists monarchy mongolia names pless politics portugal prince harry queen elizabeth ii queen victoria st edward sussex suthida thai royal family tradition unfinished portrait united states united states of america welsh


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 09:26 AM.

Social Knowledge Networks

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