Title for Camilla


If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Status
Not open for further replies.
Oh Diana didn't want to bring down the Monarchy..good heavens no! A son's inheritance, afterall. She just wanted to give it what for (rightly or wrongly).
 
You, or anyone here (myself included), cannot categorically state this, jcbcode99...;)..though I do admire you'e steadfast conviction..hehe..:)

Madame Royale! :flowers:Where have you been? I do agree--no one can really state what is going to happen one way or the other, but I thought (and of course, I may be wrong) that Camilla would automatically be Queen unless a law was passed that would prohibit her from that title and instead give her the lower title of HRH The Princess Consort. Unless that law is passed, she is automatically the Queen--right? So, let's look at this scenario, just for a moment. THe Queen passes away one night. Because one cannot really schedule death in the daybook, we don't know when this will be. However, the Queen dies; in that instant, Charles becomes King. This means that Camilla is AUTOMATICALLY Queen in the same instant. Will Parliament then pass this law and give her a lower title after the fact? Most likely not. That's where I'm going with this. This law would have to be passed before HM passes--and would she approve such a law? I don't know, but I don't think she would. Sbe is too steeped in the tradition of her family, and I don't see her no-nonsense personality approving of something so complicated. Besides, it sets a precedent that many may not want set--if we're looking down the road.
 
That is not true or fair to say jcbcode99.
Perhaps it was harsh, Sirhon :flowers: but I think is is accurate. The only reason that this business of Princess Consort is being discussed is because Diana was married to Charles and she complained to the world about him and was able to garner lots of sympathy for herself. Camilla has already given up her rightful style of Princess of Wales, (althought she is in fact Camilla, The Princess of Wales) why should she have to give up HM The Queen? Diana would have never been Queen--she wanted a divorce, she got one. Unfortunantly, she died in a horrible car accident--but her dying that way made everyone feel this need to canonize her and treat her memory like a delicate piece of blown glass--and she doesn't really deserve all of that; she does deserve respect, but denying Camilla something that is legally and rightfully hers is going to an extreme that I just do not think is right. I respect tradition and I believe that whoever is married to the King should become the Queen.
 
Absolutely, jcbcode99 :flowers:

Camilla will be Her Majesty the Queen. No if's, buts or maybe's. The Question is how long she shall be Queen if the intent is for her to be known, officially as HRH the Princess Consort.

For all we know this process could already be underway, the logistics of it anyway, so as to provide as smooth a transition as possible when the time comes. If his coronation is already being penciled out then I'd be certain the issue of his wifes title would also be accorded the attention it so deserves.

Parliament is aware of the intended change, the Royal House is aware of the intended change and the Commonwealth Governments are aware of the intended change. This has been no hidden seceret, afterall. Of course, just because it's intended doesn't necessarily mean it's set in stone.

Can it be done? Most certainly it can and it's quite possible it shall. It's also possible that by the time Charles inherit's his mother's realm, that public endorsement of a Queen Camilla could have gained much vitality.

The only reason that this business of Princess Consort is being discussed is because Diana was married to Charles and she complained to the world about him and was able to garner lots of sympathy for herself

I wouldn't solely lay blame at Diana's feet. I've always seen it as having had more to do with the extramarital company sought by those involved, rather than a sympathy vote for Diana. I don't deny her involvement, I just don't think it right to blame her for the decision of Clarence House some 8 years after her death. We must remember that those who feel they have strong affiliations with the Late Princess' memory, are a minority. To propose such a change would not be done to make happy a minority of people, imo. So it's my belief that it reflects something deeper than that, something which goes beyond a marriage of two people.

The morals and merit, that we the people entrust in our institution!

And yet, my reasons for wanting Camilla to be Princess Consort are reflected by neither scenario...:)
 
Last edited:
Perhaps it was harsh, Sirhon :flowers: but I think is is accurate. The only reason that this business of Princess Consort is being discussed is because Diana was married to Charles and she complained to the world about him and was able to garner lots of sympathy for herself. Camilla has already given up her rightful style of Princess of Wales, (althought she is in fact Camilla, The Princess of Wales) why should she have to give up HM The Queen? Diana would have never been Queen--she wanted a divorce, she got one. Unfortunantly, she died in a horrible car accident--but her dying that way made everyone feel this need to canonize her and treat her memory like a delicate piece of blown glass--and she doesn't really deserve all of that; she does deserve respect, but denying Camilla something that is legally and rightfully hers is going to an extreme that I just do not think is right. I respect tradition and I believe that whoever is married to the King should become the Queen.

jcbcode99 (how did you come up with that name?) I don't have a problem with Camilla becoming Queen, the title is not affiliated with Diana the POW is.
When she decided to style herself as DOC I was very pleased with that choice, that is why I haven't objected to Camilla becoming queen. The Princess of Wales is a Queen in my Heart, so its of no importance to me when Camilla becomes queen.:)
 
I don't think it will be brought before Parliament unless it's understood beforehand what the result will be. I can see the headlines now: "Children die as Parliament debates Camilla's Title instead of <thing>."

I really do think that if Charles and Camilla decide that she should be known as "Princess Consort," they'll just go the unofficial route, accept that legally she's the Queen, and simply will people to call her what they want, unless the government of the day is opposed to such a move (honestly, I can't imagine the government of the day saying anything but "we'll respect your wishes.")
 
jcbcode99 (how did you come up with that name?) I don't have a problem with Camilla becoming Queen, the title is not affiliated with Diana the POW is.
When she decided to style herself as DOC I was very pleased with that choice, that is why I haven't objected to Camilla becoming queen. The Princess of Wales is a Queen in my Heart, so its of no importance to me when Camilla becomes queen.:)

Sirhon, that was a beautiful post!
As for my name, well, my husband came up with it--he's osbcode99 and I'm thusly jcbcode99. I have no idea how he came up with it, but he thought it was cute:wub:
 
Absolutely, jcbcode99 :flowers:

Camilla will be Her Majesty the Queen. No if's, buts or maybe's. The Question is how long she shall be Queen if the intent is for her to be known, officially as HRH the Princess Consort.

For all we know this process could already be underway, the logistics of it anyway, so as to provide as smooth a transition as possible when the time comes. If his coronation is already being penciled out then I'd be certain the issue of his wifes title would also be accorded the attention it so deserves.

Parliament is aware of the intended change, the Royal House is aware of the intended change and the Commonwealth Governments are aware of the intended change. This has been no hidden seceret, afterall. Of course, just because it's intended doesn't necessarily mean it's set in stone.

Can it be done? Most certainly it can and it's quite possible it shall. It's also possible that by the time Charles inherit's his mother's realm, that public endorsement of a Queen Camilla could have gained much vitality.



I wouldn't solely lay blame at Diana's feet. I've always seen it as having had more to do with the extramarital company sought by those involved, rather than a sympathy vote for Diana. I don't deny her involvement, I just don't think it right to blame her for the decision of Clarence House some 8 years after her death. We must remember that those who feel they have strong affiliations with the Late Princess' memory, are a minority. To propose such a change would not be done to make happy a minority of people. So it's my belief that it reflects something deeper than that, something which goes beyond a marriage of two people.

The morals, trust and merit, that we the people entrust in the institution!

And yet, my reasons for wanting Camilla to be Princess Consort are reflected be neither scenario...:)

Madame Royale, you have made me realize that I did not clarify myself! I do not lay the blame for this whole fiasco (love triangle, quadralateral, or whatever shape it takes) on just Diana. That would be irresponsible and, frankly, blind on my part. There was no innocent party here at all.
I do think that the proposal eight years ago for the title of Princess Consort was made to soften the marriage announcement because of the people who still revere Diana--and they are still around--look at what happened with the Memorial Service. It shows that public sentiment of a few still has influence. I think that will lessen with time, but I do think that tradition and law should be followed and she be Queen Camilla. I don't like the whole idea of second wives deserving less than their predecessors, which is what this amounts to.
 
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.:eek:

I don't think we'll ever find out the truth about a lot of aspects of the Queen Mother until someone manages to write an authoritative biography that isn't vetted by the royal family. I'll be extremely surprised if the Shawcross biography isn't more of the same "the Queen Mother was perfect" stuff we've been getting for the last goodness knows how many decades.
 
As far as I'm aware, it wasn't even thought likely that Charles and Camilla would marry so the proposal of Princess Consort wouldn't have even been suggested.

What I meant was that 8 years after her death, it was proposed.

I don't like the whole idea of second wives deserving less than their predecessors, which is what this amounts to.

I'm not so sure it's a matter of second wives (well, certainly isn't for me), but the way circumstances played out.
 
I don't think we'll ever find out the truth about a lot of aspects of the Queen Mother until someone manages to write an authoritative biography that isn't vetted by the royal family. I'll be extremely surprised if the Shawcross biography isn't more of the same "the Queen Mother was perfect" stuff we've been getting for the last goodness knows how many decades.

Well she was.
 
jcbcode99 (how did you come up with that name?) I don't have a problem with Camilla becoming Queen, the title is not affiliated with Diana the POW is.
When she decided to style herself as DOC I was very pleased with that choice, that is why I haven't objected to Camilla becoming queen. The Princess of Wales is a Queen in my Heart, so its of no importance to me when Camilla becomes queen.:)

If Diana is a Queen in too many people's hearts, it'll be of great importance. As stated earlier in the thread, a constitutional monarchy exists because the public wants it. If the public can't stomach the notion of Charles as King and Camilla as Queen because Diana holds that place in their hearts, then I really do fear for the future of the monarchy.

After the abdication in 1936 it was relatively easy (although by no means a thoroughly foregone conclusion) for the Duke of York to become King in his brother's place. If something of the sort happens to Charles because people have tuned out of a monarchy where Diana no longer exists, in favour of a fantasy monarchy in their hearts and minds where Diana reigns supreme, then there are going to be much harder questions being asked along the lines of "why bother with the monarchy at all?" And the answers aren't going to be all that obvious.
 
Vindictive old bat? Grande dame of the British Empire I'd say. Marvellous woman and we could do with a few more like her rather than her chavvy grand-daughters. We could do worse than the Queen Mother for inspiration.
 
Yep, vindictive old bat. Grande dame too, of course.
 
I don't think we'll ever find out the truth about a lot of aspects of the Queen Mother until someone manages to write an authoritative biography that isn't vetted by the royal family. I'll be extremely surprised if the Shawcross biography isn't more of the same "the Queen Mother was perfect" stuff we've been getting for the last goodness knows how many decades.

It will be surprising if The Queen allows Shawcross to publish any true revelations on her mother's feelings about the many events in her life. The Queen Mother was not one for revelation and preferred a fantasy image instead.

It was well-known The Queen Mother was adamantly opposed to Charles marrying Camilla. That's not to say she didn't like her personally, but accepting her as the new Princess of Wales and future Queen Consort was another matter altogether.
 
Is it well known? I don't believe that for a second. The Queen Mother adored her grandson and wanted him to be happy. Camilla makes him happy, I refuse to believe that the Queen Mother would have with-held such happiness from someone she loved.
 
But the truth remains that both the Queen Mother and the current Queen have always put duty and honor before everything in their lives. I cannot in good conscience believe that the Queen Mother would been happy seeing Camilla as Charles' wife. Yes, she makes him happy. Yes, I'm sure she is a perfectly lovely woman who will someday make a dignified queen, but would the Queen Mother have approved of the marriage, absolutely not. Wallis made her husband very happy too, but the Queen Mother never forgave her either.
 
The Queen Mother wasn't exactly close to David though. It's a different situation with different ties. And I don't know how you can say the truth remains that the Queen Mother and the current Queen have always put honour first when neither of them have exactly had anything happen in which they've had to do so. The Queen Mother didn't say anything after 1947 except, "Such a charming film" so where people get off saying she would have loathed the marriage of her grandson is beyond me. How can you presume to know what a woman who never ever spoke to the press felt about a situation she may or may not have been asked her opinion on?
 
If Diana is a Queen in too many people's hearts, it'll be of great importance. As stated earlier in the thread, a constitutional monarchy exists because the public wants it. If the public can't stomach the notion of Charles as King and Camilla as Queen because Diana holds that place in their hearts, then I really do fear for the future of the monarchy.

After the abdication in 1936 it was relatively easy (although by no means a thoroughly foregone conclusion) for the Duke of York to become King in his brother's place. If something of the sort happens to Charles because people have tuned out of a monarchy where Diana no longer exists, in favour of a fantasy monarchy in their hearts and minds where Diana reigns supreme, then there are going to be much harder questions being asked along the lines of "why bother with the monarchy at all?" And the answers aren't going to be all that obvious.

Well, your assesment is very interesting Elspeth. I think its unfair that some people don't want Charles to become king because they don't want to see Camilla become queen. And then there are probably some people who only want Charles to become king because they want to see her as his queen.
 
She can't be Queen and a Princess Consort at the same time. She is Her Majesty The Queen, not Her Royal Highness Princess Camilla, once her husband becomes King.

That's the difference.

I'm not sure about that, since I read the documents of the discussion between the heraldry-expert Garter Principal king of Arms, the senior officer at the college of Arms and the government when it came to create Prince Philip a prince of the UK even though he was not born into the Royal family but married into it and was in a position where he could not partake on his spouse's rank. In addition there was the discussion about the rank of wifes of Royal princes.

So while of course Camilla would be queen as wife of the king she could in addition be a princess of the UK in her own right. Because the reading is that the wife only shares the rank of her husband but does not yet become herself a peeress as a Royal duchess or a princess. That's why Camilla is sometimes called HRH The princess Charles, princess of Wales...

But there are cases when a peeress in her own right married another peer, she still stayed a peeress, even though she often took on the name of her husband if he was higher ranked than her. So Charles of course can create Camilla a princess of the UK in her own right with the title of princess Consort.

But what happens if king Charles decides in order to solve some problems in his family that it's time to do something for gender equality? He could decree that all "children of the body" of princesses of the UK are to be treated like the children of the princes. That would mean that Anne's children become prince/princess as grandchildren of a souverain and that Beatrice and Eugenie's children are Lord/Lady Firstname Windsor or father's name with the rank of children of a duke. But it would mean as well that Tom and Laura would be Lord/Lady Firstname as they are children of a princess but not child/grandchild of the souverain....

Hm... I think he'd better stick with his wife the queen before he creates this kind of public problem.
 
So while of course Camilla would be queen as wife of the king she could in addition be a princess of the UK in her own right. Because the reading is that the wife only shares the rank of her husband but does not yet become herself a peeress as a Royal duchess or a princess. That's why Camilla is sometimes called HRH The princess Charles, princess of Wales...

But there are cases when a peeress in her own right married another peer, she still stayed a peeress, even though she often took on the name of her husband if he was higher ranked than her. So Charles of course can create Camilla a princess of the UK in her own right with the title of princess Consort.

Her rank and title flow from her husband, not in her own right. She is a commoner with no titles of birth and is HRH The Princess Charles by marriage, in addition to his other titles and styles as the heir to the throne.

Once he is King, she can only be HM The Queen as there is no other style or title for the wife of the Sovereign. Since Charles would no longer be a Prince of the UK, Camilla cannot be a Princess of the UK as his wife.

Her precedence and title once she is Queen Consort is hers for life by right of the succession. If Charles dies, Camilla would remain a dowager queen with superior precedence to the princesses of the blood and after the new Queen.

That's why Parliament would have to define her rights legally if she wishes to be HRH The Princess Consort instead.
 
Her rank and title flow from her husband, not in her own right. She is a commoner with no titles of birth and is HRH The Princess Charles by marriage, in addition to his other titles and styles as the heir to the throne.

Once he is King, she can only be HM The Queen as there is no other style or title for the wife of the Sovereign. Since Charles would no longer be a Prince of the UK, Camilla cannot be a Princess of the UK as his wife.

Her precedence and title once she is Queen Consort is hers for life by right of the succession. If Charles dies, Camilla would remain a dowager queen with superior precedence to the princesses of the blood and after the new Queen.

That's why Parliament would have to define her rights legally if she wishes to be HRH The Princess Consort instead.

If at the time of Charles' accession public opinion does not support Camilla being referred to as Queen, I don't think the issue of Camilla being referred to as Princess Consort would be put to Parliament. She would continue to legally be Queen (just as she is currently the Princess of Wales) but would be referred to as the Princess Consort. Putting the new title would be a torturous process, and would need to be approved by the Parliaments of all the countries and dominions of the realm. I don't see that happening. You risk opening the whole issue of the relevance of the monarchy
 
If Diana is a Queen in too many people's hearts, it'll be of great importance. As stated earlier in the thread, a constitutional monarchy exists because the public wants it. If the public can't stomach the notion of Charles as King and Camilla as Queen because Diana holds that place in their hearts, then I really do fear for the future of the monarchy.

After the abdication in 1936 it was relatively easy (although by no means a thoroughly foregone conclusion) for the Duke of York to become King in his brother's place. If something of the sort happens to Charles because people have tuned out of a monarchy where Diana no longer exists, in favour of a fantasy monarchy in their hearts and minds where Diana reigns supreme, then there are going to be much harder questions being asked along the lines of "why bother with the monarchy at all?" And the answers aren't going to be all that obvious.

It's going to be a tough situation IMO. Some simply want to abolish the Monarchy, some want Camilla as Queen and others already think about making a revolution if this title is given to her. Then we have the Diana/Camilla "problem" but I don't see how it would bother people. Diana was divorced so she couldn't have sat next to Charles as Queen. But like you said perfectly, there's the risk of creating a big mess and destroy the constitutional monarchy. Some Diana fans feel as much anger for Charles as for Camilla so even if he becomes King, the royal institution will also have a hard time.
 
Her rank and title flow from her husband, not in her own right. She is a commoner with no titles of birth and is HRH The Princess Charles by marriage, in addition to his other titles and styles as the heir to the throne.

Once he is King, she can only be HM The Queen as there is no other style or title for the wife of the Sovereign. Since Charles would no longer be a Prince of the UK, Camilla cannot be a Princess of the UK as his wife.

That is not correct. Charles as king can create her a princess in her own right just like his mother created prince Philip a prince in his own right. Both Philip and Camilla were not considered a prince/princess in their own right but it was established that the souverain can create a Royal spouse into a prince/princess in their own right. HM did that with her husband and Charles can do that with his wife. Okay, normally it makes no sense as his wife will be sharing his rank but if he wants to he can do it. Because his spouse is not queen herself but only his Queen Consort, so she does not wear the Crown and her titles in her own right don't merge with the Crown on his ascension and they don't when she is created a princess of the UK.

It was established as a fact when the ychecked into the status of the first commoner to become a member of the Royal family - which was HRH The Duchess of York.

Here's the link to the documents:
Files from the National Archives (UK) on Royal Styles and Titles

That's the list and you can then click on the documents.

That's the link to the discussion about Lady Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon marrying the duke of York:
HO 144/22945 -
it's halfway down the dicument, starting with a date in 1923. :flowers:
 
I think the Diana supporters, who have never come to terms with the fact that not only was she divorced, but if she was still alive would be well on in her 40's and probably married to someone else, make a lot more noise than their current actual numbers.

I would be very surprised if, when the Queen dies, there is any general 'uprising' over Charles being King. We have a Monarchy, and the various parts of the United Kingdom have had one going back well over 1000 years. It is laid down who is the heir, and this has largely been the person who has inherited. I think the vast bulk of the population would accept the normal process of succession.
 
Okay, normally it makes no sense as his wife will be sharing his rank but if he wants to he can do it. Because his spouse is not queen herself but only his Queen Consort, so she does not wear the Crown and her titles in her own right don't merge with the Crown on his ascension and they don't when she is created a princess of the UK.

He can create her HRH The Princess Consort if Parliament agrees it is constitutionally possible for a Queen Consort with the rank of Her Majesty to hold the lesser style and rank of HRH and Princess of the UK at the same time. This is not possible under the current precedents.

Legislation will be required to remove her lawful rank and title as Queen, freeing Charles to create her a Princess in her own right as The Queen did with The Duke of Edinburgh. She cannot be styled as a Princess when she is not a princess in law. Right now, she IS a Princess of the UK and styled by her husband's peerage as Duchess of Cornwall.

I do not see how this is possible since it would call into question what happened in 1936 with Edward VIII and Wallis Simpson. The King had suggested to Baldwin that he marry Wallis morganatically and create her HRH The Duchess of Lancaster, rather than Queen. Baldwin and The Commons agreed there is no such thing as a morganatic wife for The Sovereign and she is automatically Queen as the wife of The King.

So my point remains that either she is Queen or legislation is passed denying her rightful title and rank and creating her a morganatic wife as Princess Consort.
 
Charles as king can create her a princess in her own right just like his mother created prince Philip a prince in his own right. Both Philip and Camilla were not considered a prince/princess in their own right but it was established that the souverain can create a Royal spouse into a prince/princess in their own right. HM did that with her husband and Charles can do that with his wife.

The situation with Philip is very different indeed since husbands do not share the titles or styles of their wives. George VI created Philip a Duke with the style of Royal Highness upon marriage to The Princess Elizabeth to ensure her husband would have his own appropriate rank and title.

Once she became Queen, the issue of whether Philip was automatically a Prince of the UK by being created HRH by George VI was reviewed. The conclusion was that he enjoyed the style and title of Royal Highness, but was not a Prince of the UK unless letters patent were issued creating him one. In 1957, The Queen issued letters patent taking care of it.

The precedents with Philip do not apply to Camilla.
 
So, let me see if I understand this. Regardless of everything that has occurred, when Charles becomes King, Camilla is automatically Queen--she cannot hold a lesser style because is Queen, according to Baldwin when Edward wanted to marry Wallis and give her the style of HRH The Duchess of Lancaster. That wouldn't work because the wife of the sovereign automatically becomes the Queen, correct?
So, one route is to create a law before Charles ascends the throne that would make Camilla HRH The Princess Consort upon his ascension; that way there is no confusion and it is settled in such a way that she is never Queen and thusly, never loses the title of Queen.
Let's say she is created HRH The Princess Consort. If Charles predeceases Camilla, what would she then be known as? She wouldn't be the Dowager Princess Consort because William's wife would be Queen--would Camilla continue to be the Princess Consort? What would her ranking be? A Dowager Queen still holds a great deal of rank--would we be looking at yet another title change for Camilla? Why should she have to lose title rank because Charles dies? How would that work? That's an issue that should be addressed.
It is much easier to just let her be Queen and Dowager Queen. That is how it has been done. Why change it now? I'm already confused trying to figure out the options. Perhaps someone could list the options so we can have a reference point?
 
I assume they might do what they did for the Dowager Duchess of Gloucester and let her be known as Princess Camilla. Princess Alice was never a princess in her own right, but that's how she was styled after her husband died and her daughter-in-law became Duchess of Gloucester.

Really, between the morganatic arrangement where the Duchess of Windsor wasn't an HRH even though the Duke was and even though morganatic marriage doesn't exist in British law, the Princess Alice precedent, and then Lady Louise rather than HRH Princess Louise, the royal family are rather giving the impression that if need be, they'll just make it up as they go along if that's what it takes to get to where they need to get.

Which I'm sure is part of the confusion about whether they can or can't make the Princess Consort thing stick.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom