Title for Camilla

[msleiman]

I think that Diana and Sarah should have been giving a title at the time of the divorce. If Andrew did remarry that his wife would be the Duchess of York and Sarah would also hold the title of Duchess of York. The Queen should have giving them their own title out right. This would have stopped some of these problems. Diana would have held a different title at her time of death and the title would not have such a event tied to it. JMHO

 

[TheTruth]

I think that Diana and Sarah should have been giving a title at the time of the divorce. If Andrew did remarry that his wife would be the Duchess of York and Sarah would also hold the title of Duchess of York. The Queen should have giving them their own title out right. This would have stopped some of these problems. Diana would have held a different title at her time of death and the title would not have such a event tied to it. JMHO

Yes, I agree it would have been easier but nobody had thought Diana would die either. It's indeed a difficult situation.

 

[Jo of Palatine]

A document I found at: HO 144/22945
as part of the archived material of the discussion about the rank and position of the wife of the Prince of Wales:

"Buckingham Palace

16th May 1923

Dear Boyd,

Many thanks for your letter of yesterday about the question of the rank and position of the wife of the Prince of Wales in the case of His Royal Highness's marriage.

Your letter leaves no doubt in the matter that the lady, whoever she may be, would automatically become Princess of Wales and a Royal Highness.

yours very truly,

Stamfordham

H. R. Boyd Esq.
C.B.E.,
Home Office"

Camilla became automatically Princess of Wales and will automatically become queen once her husband becomes king. That's her position and rank when it comes to the law. But it is made clear in that discussion that "Prince of Wales" is a peerage and while the wife of a peer can use a "lower" title of her husband's, it is a difference when it comes to the queen Consort, as her husband is not longer a peer. The king has no lower title than king, he is not a prince of the UK - at least that was the argument when it came to Edward VIII. - because he lost his style as a prince, he had to be created a new peer by his brother and while this letters patent included the right for him to use the title of HRH, it was not included for his wife.

While Charles following the example of his mother (who created her husband a prince of the Uk, even though he was not born into the British royalty) can create Camilla a "princess of the UK" in her own right even though she is not a princess of the Blood Royal, she still will take her rank from her husband as his title is the higher one.... And I doubt that is changeable without leaving all wifes of husbands of rank out in the cold in the UK...

I can just imagine the outcry of the Diana-fans if Camilla becomes a princess in her own right instead of just being the wife of a prince and later king!

 

[jcbcode99]

Oh My Jo! You've opened up a whole other discussion! Camilla would not just be the "Princess Consort" she would actually be Princess Camilla in her own right--isn't that interesting? I still vastly prefer the title of Queen Camilla--I wonder which one the Diana Circle would prefer? PRincess Camilla or Queen Camilla? That is an interesting topic of debate!

 

[BeatrixFan]

The only thing to please the Diana Circle would be compulsory corpse worship. May we all fall on God's mercy if they're to become the voice of the majority. Morons.

 

[jcbcode99]

The only thing to please the Diana Circle would be compulsory corpse worship. May we all fall on God's mercy if they're to become the voice of the majority. Morons.

BeatrixFan, eloquent, as usual. I commend you--and yes, they are morons

 

[BellaFay]

Oh My Jo! You've opened up a whole other discussion! Camilla would not just be the "Princess Consort" she would actually be Princess Camilla in her own right--isn't that interesting? I still vastly prefer the title of Queen Camilla--I wonder which one the Diana Circle would prefer? PRincess Camilla or Queen Camilla? That is an interesting topic of debate!

I think part of the problem has arisen because the title 'Prince of Wales' was invested on Prince Charles by the Queen. So the title of 'Princess of Wales' is also in the hands of the Queen. If she doesn't want to invest Camilla with the title (and her childish behaviour towards Camilla's family at her marriage suggests that she doesn't approve of it and her) then Camilla won't receive the title. Whereas the title 'Duke of Cornwall' is Prince Charles's by birth. He was Duke of Cornwall the second that his mother became Queen and therefore his wife is automatically the 'Duchess of Cornwall', whatever the Queen thinks of it.

 

[jcbcode99]

Huh? I'm confused (something often heard from me) but I thought that upon marriage Camilla was entitled to all of his titles but choose the Duchess of Cornwall title because the PoW was so closely identified with Diana (a smart move, in my opinion--she has made the DoC title her own whereas there would have always been comparisions had she choose the PoW title). Her full style is 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. I don't think it is a question of investing Camilla with the title--it was hers upon marriage. I've not read anything that states otherwise--
and, I don't think Charles would have married Camilla if the Queen didn't give approval--and Camilla is wearing the Queen Mum's jewels--which were left to the Queen and the Queen alone. Someone must like Camilla to be handing out all the bling.

 

[kimebear]

If she doesn't want to invest Camilla with the title (and her childish behaviour towards Camilla's family at her marriage suggests that she doesn't approve of it and her) then Camilla won't receive the title.

What was the childish behavior?

 

[BeatrixFan]

I would also point out BellaFay that Camilla IS the Princess of Wales. It's nothing to do with the Queen.

 

[jcbcode99]

I would also point out BellaFay that Camilla IS the Princess of Wales. It's nothing to do with the Queen.

Hear Hear! Some day I think I will just start refering to her as the PoW and see the reactions.

 

[BeatrixFan]

Oh I do. And nobody dares pull me up on it. They know they shall get a thick ear if they do.

 

[Elspeth]

What was the childish behavior?

I think the behaviour being referred to is her nonattendance at the Prince of Wales's wedding, which was apparently taken to mean that she disapproved. Since the wedding was originally going to take place at Windsor Castle, when presumably HM would have shown up, I think her absence has other reasons than disapproving of the marriage.

 

[Elspeth]

I think part of the problem has arisen because the title 'Prince of Wales' was invested on Prince Charles by the Queen. So the title of 'Princess of Wales' is also in the hands of the Queen.

Only to the extent that she can choose to create her eldest son Prince of Wales or choose not to. Since she's chosen to, the Princess of Wales title automatically becomes part of the list of titles carried by the Prince of Wales's wife from the moment of his marriage. Camilla is choosing to use a title that doesn't have such close associations with Diana as the Princess of Wales title, but she's still the Princess of Wales.

 

[tinkerbell1948]

Oh I do. And nobody dares pull me up on it. They know they shall get a thick ear if they do.

 

[ToytownZara]

Would she actually be crowned Queen as long as Andrew Parker-Bowles is still living? Isn't this some sort of CoE nightmare - or quagmire?

I don't care what she's called, really (well, I do but I'm not dragging that all out again) - but as long as APB is alive, that seems to cause a problem.

Long live the Queen! Charles may have one heck of a wait, anyway, if the longevity of his grandmother is indicative of anything - and the Queen is certainly in better health than her sister was. All of this may be moot for more reasons than one!

 

[BeatrixFan]

APB being alive causes no problem. Ancient history. Everyones moved on. He has no bearing on her life now or in the future.

 

[CasiraghiTrio]

Actually, APB is an interesting question. Because, wasn't there a problem when Diana was still alive? Some people said Charles couldn't remarry & be divorced king is the first wife was still living? Wouldn't the same problem apply for (Queen?) Camilla?

If the answer is negative, just say so, a simple 'no'. No insults, no sarcasm, please. I'm just curious. If it's a stupid question, so be it.

 

[tinkerbell1948]

Actually, APB is an interesting question. Because, wasn't there a problem when Diana was still alive? Some people said Charles couldn't remarry & be divorced king is the first wife was still living? Wouldn't the same problem apply for (Queen?) Camilla?

If the answer is negative, just say so, a simple 'no'. No insults, no sarcasm, please. I'm just curious. If it's a stupid question, so be it.

I have actually wondered the same thing , isn't that why it says on her section of the offical Royal website website that she is expected to be known as HRH the Princess Consort?

The Royal Family > TRH The Prince of Wales and The Duchess of Cornwall > Background


I should imagine that this was all thrashed out before Charles and Camilla married (not sure though)

 

[Elspeth]

I don't see why Andrew Parker-Bowles's existence should make a difference to what Camilla is called when Charles becomes King. If the existence of an ex-husband wasn't enough to stop them getting married, I don't see why it should make a difference to her status on Charles's accession.

 

[wbenson]

Some people said Charles couldn't remarry & be divorced king is the first wife was still living?

They were wrong. There is no law preventing the accession to the throne of a King who has been remarried while the first wife is still alive.

 

[ToytownZara]

I don't see why Andrew Parker-Bowles's existence should make a difference to what Camilla is called when Charles becomes King. If the existence of an ex-husband wasn't enough to stop them getting married, I don't see why it should make a difference to her status on Charles's accession.

On that, we agree - but what about the religious aspects? And does the Archbishop of Canterbury get any say in it, if her ex WAS still living at the time of coronation?

Could she be CALLED Queen without being CROWNED as such - or am I just a dithering idiot who needs major revision on the subject of royalty?

I'm not trying to be difficult, I'm just a bit confused.

 

[kimebear]

I think the behaviour being referred to is her nonattendance at the Prince of Wales's wedding, which was apparently taken to mean that she disapproved. Since the wedding was originally going to take place at Windsor Castle, when presumably HM would have shown up, I think her absence has other reasons than disapproving of the marriage.

Ah. I had thought that her absence was a result of the venue, not the marriage. After all she came to the service at the chapel and apparently gave them a lovely reception. I dont think she was particularly pleased with her son's choice (no arrows from the Camilla fans please) for reasons solely having to do with the bad publicity their pre-marriage relationship gave the royal family.

But, the proof is in the pudding, or in this case, the jewels. I think Camilla's true acceptance came with the dazzling jewels she has been sporting as of late. Camilla would wear the Delhi Durbar and the Boucheron Honeycomb tiaras only over Her Majesty's dead body if there was real animosity. Camilla will most assuredly take the title of Queen upon Charles' ascension after several years of a successful marriage when there is less likely to be public anger towards it.

 

[Jo of Palatine]

On that, we agree - but what about the religious aspects? And does the Archbishop of Canterbury get any say in it, if her ex WAS still living at the time of coronation?

Could she be CALLED Queen without being CROWNED as such - or am I just a dithering idiot who needs major revision on the subject of royalty?

I'm not trying to be difficult, I'm just a bit confused.

As Camilla's first husband was a Catholic, I guess fot the CoE Charles is a widower and Camilla never was married properly. At least that's how Catholics deal with the case when the first spouse was not a catholic and the first marriage did not take place in the Catholic church according to the wedding sacrament, then the second marriage is the real one.

But if now a document shows up by Andrew Parker Bowles saying that the queen is going to abdicate next year and that Charles will bump him off, I start yelling!

 

[BellaFay]

What was the childish behavior?

According to the media press pack on Prince Charles's website for the wedding there was meant to be a 5 minute photo-call for the couple and their families on the steps of St George's Chapel when they emerged after the service. This never happened, because: a) the Queen walked off the steps and into her waiting car, leaving Prince Charles ushering to an empty space beside him; and b) someone ordered the ushers inside the chapel to close the doors in front of the Shand family, thus preventing them from emerging onto the steps until after the Queen & Prince Philip had departed. The former can be confirmed by looking at an unedited video of the ceremony and the latter by Tom P-B's joke about it on US tv recently.
The 'Greville' jewels which Camilla frequently wears - the 5 strand necklace & engagement ring - were given to the Queen Mother in 1942 by a close friend. King George VI thought them so extravagant that he forbade her to wear them in public during & after the war years. They first appeared in public onlyafter the King's death, in 1960 for the State Visit of President De Gaulle. I, therefore, doubt that she would have considered them part of the Royal Collection of jewels. Certainly, according to people I know in the Royal Collection the Queen Mother didn't consider her paintings collection to belong to the Queen and therefore bequeathed it to Prince Charles, knowing that he would then allow the Royal Collection to display it. So I would think that it was quite possible that this particular set of jewels - particularly the engagement ring - was bequeathed to Prince Charles directly. NB It was recently revealed in the BRitish press that the Queen went to great lengths to prevent the Queen Mother's will from ever being revealed in public - so none of us in the Forum will probably live to know who the Queen Mother bequeathed the jewels to.

 

[jcbcode99]

I thought that the Queen Mother left all jewels to her daughter in a sovereign to sovereign exchange that would exempt the pieces from taxation.

 

[kimebear]

That's what I thought too. I had always believed that (a) Charles was very close to his grandmother (more so that to his own mother) and (b) the Queen Mother highly disapproved of Camilla and any idea that Charles had about marrying her. So I would be suprised if the jewels actually went directly to Charles since he would have had to pay a duty on them and that, if they had, he would dishonor his grandmother's feelings about Camilla by letting her wear the jewels without his mother's consent. Like I said earlier, I don't think the queen was especially happy about the marriage, but if she had wanted to, she could have made it impossible for them to marry without taking away his place in the line of succession. For a variety of reasons, their wedding day was probably not a happy one for the queen and perhaps her stellar sense of propriety was lessened on the occasion, but she and Camilla seem to get along nowadays and that's all that matters.

 

[wbenson]

Could she be CALLED Queen without being CROWNED as such - or am I just a dithering idiot who needs major revision on the subject of royalty?

She very well could be. No coronation is necessary to affirm her title. The wife of the King becomes the Queen immediately upon the death of the previous monarch.

 

[Jo of Palatine]

For a variety of reasons, their wedding day was probably not a happy one for the queen and perhaps her stellar sense of propriety was lessened on the occasion, but she and Camilla seem to get along nowadays and that's all that matters.

As all mothers, the queen had to learn that at some point her children are grown-ups who make their own decisions and their own faults. I found an interesting page about the documents that were exchanged by the involved bodies of the government when it came to the queen's wish to bestow the title of a prince of the UK on her husband (which had never been done before to a person not born into the British Royal family). I think after prince Charles and Camilla had decided to marry they informed the queen and she started the procedure to see how it could work when it comes to the constitution.

In any case Charles could have asked parliament for their agreement if the queen had decided to say no and if parliament did not agree, he could have gone to the European Court of human rights to have the Royal marriages Act changed so he could marry Camilla without loosing his place in the succession. I am convinced he did not want to do that but he could have done it. So he had quite some arguments against all the queen could say and somehow I doubt she said so much about this matter. She only took care IMHo that the procedure was conform with the laws and that was that.

 

[BellaFay]

That's what I thought too. I had always believed that (a) Charles was very close to his grandmother (more so that to his own mother) and (b) the Queen Mother highly disapproved of Camilla and any idea that Charles had about marrying her. So I would be suprised if the jewels actually went directly to Charles since he would have had to pay a duty on them and that, if they had, he would dishonor his grandmother's feelings about Camilla by letting her wear the jewels without his mother's consent. Like I said earlier, I don't think the queen was especially happy about the marriage, but if she had wanted to, she could have made it impossible for them to marry without taking away his place in the line of succession. For a variety of reasons, their wedding day was probably not a happy one for the queen and perhaps her stellar sense of propriety was lessened on the occasion, but she and Camilla seem to get along nowadays and that's all that matters.

If the Queen Mother was so anti Charles and Camilla as a couple why did she allows Prince Charles to entertain Camilla at Birkhall Lodge (her own property) during her lifetime. IMO I don't think we'll ever find out the QM's true opinion of the couple until William Shawcross's official biography of the QM gets published - if that ever happens of course! According to Richard Kay the text of the biography was handed to the Queen's private secretary for royal vetting and approval in the first week of September 2007. According to Penguin Publishers' website it was due for publication in October 2007. It hasn't been heard of since September and no new publication date has been given. Jonathan Dimbleby's 820page tome took less than 2 months to vet and we know that that had pieces edited out of it at Buckingham Palace's request, because Dimbleby admitted as much in 1994. So heaven knows what is being edited out of the QM biography during the 4 months its already been with the Queen.