Title for Camilla

[kimebear]

I don't think many have a problem with Queen Camilla even now. The Princess Consort title just doesn't sit right, especially in the UK. Traditionally the wife of a King was Queen. Of course there is the exception with places like Morocco where the consort is HRH Princess Lalla Salma, not Queen Salma or even the debate that is going to rage in The Netherlands if Maxima is not given the title of Queen. Why fix something that isn't broken?

Since I agree that she would almost have to be made a princess in her own right beforehand, how would that little move not ruffle the feathers that they are trying to appease? Then Camilla would be HRH Princess Camilla with or without Charles.

[Skydragon]

Originally Posted by Lemon Lyman

I have to agree with Skydragon - my thoughts when Wallis was mentioned -times have changed.

In those days you would never have seen a member of the royal family divorced or marry a divorcee (or even a non-virgin). Now that happens- in the UK one in three marriages end in divorce. It was hardly heard of in the 20/30/40's

it is incredibly when you think that it was only in 1918, that women over the age of 30 gained the right to vote. It took another 10 years to abolish the age qualification and put men and women on an equal footing. So yes times have indeed changed.

It is wrong, IMO, to suggest there have been no changes in the attitude of the people, monarchy, constitution or the church since 1936. As some of us have said, different women, different times and different circumstances. There are very few polls conducted about the question of Queen Camilla now it would seem (apart from the Express), in another 5 - 10 years will it even be discussed.

[ysbel]

I think a lot of the particulars about the Wallis and Edward case have nothing to do with Charles and Camilla.

However, I don't think that monarchs can ignore the prevailing norms of society at the time. I simply question whether divorcing your life and later marrying the woman you were seeing when you were married is as taboo as it once was. Looking at relationships around me, I see it all the time and the actors are not punished.

In the future, its going to be hard to judge Charles and Camilla sharply if the divorce rate stays high and people continue to marry the other 'person' from their first marriage. For the public to do that would be the proverbial 'pot calling the kettle black' and the general public doesn't like to do that.

Now my grandmother who would be 108 this month would be horrified but then she would be horrified at Diana, Princess Anne, Andrew, and a whole scads of younger royals.

There was a time when these actions were roundly condemned by all levels of society no matter who did them, no matter what mitigating circumstances were involved but that time has long gone by.

Now people look at mitigating circumstances and this is the age of people reinventing themselves.

[brandon]

There's nothing wrong with people "reinventing" themselves. At one point, it might have been known as Christian forgivenness. Nowadays we hear "doesn't he/she deserve a chance at happiness?" This later question of course is a non-sequitur because you cannot prove that anyone and everyone deserves another chance at happiness. There are qualifying circumstances and those are imposed by certain bodies, i.e., the church. So that some royals might circumvent church teaching as commoners used to do and go up to Scotland, is one possible way-around to avoid the embarrassment of being told you cannot marry again in an actual church ceremony according to our rites on English soil. So it's not a question of punishment, it's more a question of who's trying to "reinvent" themselves and what they can get away with. An ordinary person in the street might be able to do one thing, and not really care whether they do the religious service and get by with a registry office ceremony only, however a royal is held to a different standard, if not by some who turn a blind eye to everything they do then certainly by the religious rules. btw, there's a difference between just the *total* divorce rate and the percentage of people who then remarry with the third party involved in the initial divorce. Probably quite a bit of difference too.

[Elspeth]

The situation between Wallis and Camilla is different to the extent that I don't think it was Camilla's status as a divorced person or even necessarily her status as Charles's mistress that was the sticking point. From what I can tell, the real issue is the hostility that had already been shown toward the royal family because of the circumstances of Diana's marriage, divorce, and death and the way the press adroitly shifted the blame from themselves to the royals and Camilla and whipped up public fervour against them in order to have people forget the role of the press in Diana's death.

With Princess Anne getting divorced and remarried, there was precedent for divorce and remarriage in the royal family, and I have a feeling that if Diana hadn't been quite so stunningly popular, there would have been no question at all about an alternative title for Camilla when Charles became King. Given the circumstances, it's always possible she'd have opted for the Duchess of Cornwall title rather than the Princess of Wales title even if Diana hadn't been such an icon; however, I think it was Diana's popularity, coupled with the fear of public opinion, that led to this Princess Consort nonsense. Now that public opinion has on the whole settled down quite a bit (the Daily Mail notwithstanding) and Camilla has shown herself to be a useful member of the royal firm, I really don't see why they don't gradually drop this charade. Otherwise they're going to run the risk of having a PR disaster on their hands at the accession, which will overshadow Charles and possibly even the memory of his mother. Camilla's status shouldn't be the single most important aspect of the new reign, and the royal advisors are heading for another debacle if they don't do something about it before then.

[iowabelle]

Have to agree with you, Elspeth. Ten years later, look at how much emotion Diana arouses in us (for good and bad) at the Royal Forums. "Princess of Wales", like the Lover's Knot Tiara, was just too closely associated to Diana.

But there's never been an example in England (I can't make blanket statements about the rest of the UK) to call the Queen Consort anything except that. A morality clause has never been imposed on anyone, including George IV's Caroline (who probably merited one more than almost any queen I've ever heard of).

And even if they choose to call Camilla "Princess Consort" we'd all know they really meant "Queen." To make an analogy in the animal kingdom, you can call a zebra a horse if you wish (since they are similar animals), but we all know it isn't a horse.

[Skydragon]

Originally Posted by iowabelle

To make an analogy in the animal kingdom, you can call a zebra a horse if you wish (since they are similar animals), but we all know it isn't a horse.

Well now you mention it..... just joking.

[branchg]

The situation with Wallis is not comparable to Camilla. For one thing, a King didn't abdicate the throne (or more accurately) lose his right to the throne by marrying a divorcee. Unlike the situation in 1936, divorce and remarriage is accepted by The Church and society as a whole. The marriage was approved by The Sovereign, The Prime Minister and The Archbishop of Canterbury and widely accepted by the British public.

However, there is not yet acceptance for Camilla becoming Queen Consort, although that is changing.

[brandon]

You are certainly welcome to your perception of the situation, but that was not a Church of England marriage ceremony that was performed in Windsor, just a "blessing". My perception, on the other hand, regarding that is that is why they took as long to get married - because they were hoping the Church of England would soon change their teachings just to suit Charles. I suspect she (camilla) didn't really care in the end one way or the other how their wedding was performed and perhaps given subsequent events she was unsure of her own health, so she didn't want to lose all she'd campaigned for behind the scenes for so many years. I think Mrs. Simpson was actually more concerned with her possible damaging role to the monarchy than Camilla has ever been. She actually urged EdVIII not to give everything up for her.

[kimebear]

The question of the validity of the marriage is a non-starter because it has been accepted. Camilla was granted an HRH style and post marriage Charles retains his right to ascend as king. That is why the issue of Camilla possibly taking the "princess consort" title is such a question. Legally there is absolutely no need for it. An altogether different situation from Wallis who had no title prior.

[jcbcode99]

Originally Posted by brandon

You are certainly welcome to your perception of the situation...

I think that perhaps a lot is being assumed here; we have no way of knowing what Charles and Camilla discuss in private. And, apparently the marriage is considered to be legal--or else Camilla would not be entitled to be addressed as Her Royal Highness The Princess Charles Philip Arthur George, Princess of Wales and Countess of Chester, Duchess of Cornwall, Duchess of Rothesay, Countess of Carrick, Baroness of Renfrew, Lady of the Isles, Princess of Scotland and, I might add the future Queen Consort unless legislation is passed that takes away her right to be Queen and renames her HRH The Princess Consort. Until that time, I will refer to her as the future Queen because as of now that is her standing.

[Monika_]

Originally Posted by brandon

You are certainly welcome to your perception of the situation...

Brandon, I agree with you. The 'blessing' was just that, a blessing. They were actually married in the civil ceremony. I think we all recall the confusion during the planning stages when Clarence House announced the marriage's change of venue from Windsor Castle to the Guildhall, Windsor. This substitution came about when it was discovered that the legal requirements for licensing the royal castle for civil weddings would require opening it up to other prospective couples for at least three years.

In other words, it appears that a civil ceremony was necessary; otherwise the whole thing could have been taken care of within the cozy walls of the castle.

[Sister Morphine]

Originally Posted by Elspeth

The situation between Wallis and Camilla is different to the extent that I don't think it was Camilla's status as a divorced person or even necessarily her status as Charles's mistress that was the sticking point. From what I can tell, the real issue is the hostility that had already been shown toward the royal family because of the circumstances of Diana's marriage, divorce, and death and the way the press adroitly shifted the blame from themselves to the royals and Camilla and whipped up public fervour against them in order to have people forget the role of the press in Diana's death.

I really don't see why they don't gradually drop this charade. Otherwise they're going to run the risk of having a PR disaster on their hands at the accession, which will overshadow Charles and possibly even the memory of his mother.

I completely agree with this post. I think even if Charles married a single woman, who came from nowhere.....there still would have been drama. Which is sad, because in that scenario the woman would have done nothing to warrant such hostility. I can see how SOME people were less than accepting of Charles and Camilla's relationship....to a point. She was a part of the reason they ended up getting divorced. A small part, but a part. And for people who just generally feel that royalty should be held to higher standards, love for Diana or not, the heir to the throne marrying his former mistress would have cheesed them off. But at a certain point there needs to be acceptance of the situation and a realization that people deserve to be happy. They clearly are happy, so people need to just get over it.


And as to the second point you made, I think the last thing the family wants is what title Camilla gets to be more newsworthy than remembrances of the late Queen. So I would think they'd clear that up sooner rather than later. You want the transition to go smoothly, and the only way it's going to happen is if there is no question about who is calling whom what.

Originally Posted by iowabelle

Have to agree with you, Elspeth. Ten years later, look at how much emotion Diana arouses in us (for good and bad) at the Royal Forums. "Princess of Wales", like the Lover's Knot Tiara, was just too closely associated to Diana.

But there's never been an example in England (I can't make blanket statements about the rest of the UK) to call the Queen Consort anything except that. A morality clause has never been imposed on anyone, including George IV's Caroline (who probably merited one more than almost any queen I've ever heard of).

And even if they choose to call Camilla "Princess Consort" we'd all know they really meant "Queen." To make an analogy in the animal kingdom, you can call a zebra a horse if you wish (since they are similar animals), but we all know it isn't a horse.

To be honest, I wish Camilla would have just chosen to use the title Princess of Wales and gotten it over with. Even if Diana hadn't died, her and Charles would still have been divorced. The title would no longer be hers. So anyone he remarried, Camilla or not, would have been entitled to use it, regardless of public sentiment. If Diana and Charles were still married at the time of her death and he then later remarried, I could understand some touchiness about it.


And your analogy is quite apt. The wife of the King is the Queen, that's how it's been, that's how it'll always be. She'll be Queen Camilla whether she's called that in public or not.

[Monika_]

Originally Posted by Sister Morphine

I think even if Charles married a single woman, who came from nowhere.....there still would have been drama. Which is sad, because in that scenario the woman would have done nothing to warrant such hostility..."

Yes, any woman Charles married after Diana would have a tough time of it. There would be the inevitable comparisons, etc. I totally agree with that. But I respectfully disagree with your assumption that there would be 'hostility.' If Charles married someone who came into his life after he was divorced from Diana, things would have been different. Not easy perhaps, but quite different...

[Warren]

Posts discussing the marriage of the Duke and Duchess of Windsor and the withholding of the HRH have been moved to the Duke & Duchess of Windsor thread.

[Vecchiolarry]

Hi Elspeth,

"Bozo the Clown" - too funny
That is now forever how I will think of her, no matter what title she claims....

As far as the Queen Mother and her opinions - she probably believed in the old adage about mistresses - "One beds them , not weds them!!"....

I personally don't care for the woman and never have, but she is however now legally married to Charles and inherits all his baggage (titles and all)....
However, as Elspeth says, she can call herself 'Bozo the Clown' if she wants....

Larry

[Skydragon]

Originally Posted by Vecchiolarry

However, as Elspeth says, she can call herself 'Bozo the Clown' if she wants....Larry

Indeed, but most likely she will be called Queen Camilla by the majority of people.

[kimebear]

Personal remarks have been deleted. Let's not go down this road today everyone.

kimebear
British Royal Forums Moderator

[Jo of Palatine]

Originally Posted by brandon

Yes, he started to speak about being "Defender of Faiths" the minute he realized his first marriage was probably headed toward the divorce court. How convenient. As if anyone would really want such a disgraceful, deceitful individual to be defender of their faith when he can't even honor his own. No doubt the Guildhall ceremony was appropriate for him but not in any sense that contributes well to the history of that family, that's for sure. Charles is happy in his lies, alright, but unfortunately for you many people in the Commonwealth are headed to the exit door and want to be a republic. No Millie for Queen in Oz-land it seems.

Let the Aussies deal with it in time and enjoy the feeling of living in a republic for yourself. But if you'd cared to inform yourself about Charles, then you'd know that he has an university degree in anthropology which includes anthropology of religions, since 1970. So he obviously had thought about religions and their developpment pre-marriage to Diana.

[Warren]

Posts more concerned with the details of the wedding service have been moved to The Marriage thread.