Title for Camilla

[jcbcode99]

It all sounds like a huge mess to me fraught with multiple issues. Here is my take--unless HMQEII comes out and creates the Letters Patent herself, there is no way Charles is going to do it once he becomes King---and I quite agree that he shouldn't be the one to demote Camilla's rank. However, I don't think the Queen will do this because if that were the case, it would have happened when the marriage announcement occured. Changing Camilla's title sets a dangerous precedence for future monarchs wives and the simplest thing to do is to create her Queen when Charles becomes King and plop the Queen Mother's Coronation crown (Koh-i-noor and all) and all atop her head.

 

[Madame Royale]

If she survived The King, she would not be a dowager anything as she would already be a Princess in her own right

I found this sentence most informative. Thank you.

 

[Warren]

We can probably be certain that the word 'Dowager' won't be used in any circumstances by a royal widow. I can't think of the last time a Queen was called 'Dowager Queen xxx', and certainly not since the Hanoverians ascended the throne, nor can I recall a Dowager Royal Duchess. It's more a descriptive or technical term rather than a formal title for British royalty and seems to be confined to the aristocracy where "Dowager Duchess" still sounds something special.

 

[Jo of Palatine]

IIRC, that was the big problem with Lord Darnley and Mary Queen of Scots. He wanted the Scottish Crown Matrimonial, and the title of King, and she didn't want to give it to him. And we all see how well that worked out...

I can't check it right now but that's what Wiki says:
Henry Stuart, Lord Darnley was born in 1545, at Temple Newsam, Leeds, West Yorkshire, England, the son of the 4th Earl of Lennox, and his wife, Margaret Douglas. He was related to his future wife in at least three ways: they shared a grandmother in Margaret Tudor, putting both Mary and Darnley high in the line of succession for the English throne; Darnley was a descendant of a daughter of James II of Scotland and thus also in line for the throne of Scotland; and Darnley's family surname was due to a much more ancient connection to his male-line ancestor, Alexander Stewart, 4th High Steward of Scotland.

On their marriage, which took place 29 July 1565 in the chapel of Palace of Holyroodhouse in Edinburgh, Darnley was given the title of King of Scots, but he was a king consort only, with no royal powers."

The last info was new to me, too but I understand why Mary tried to keep him from the power - because his father was well-known for trying to get the throne of Scotland for himself while his mother had been the favorite of Mary Tudor for the succession in England and was thus regarded with hate by Elizabeth I. Both parents had so many connections, supporters etc. and Darnley had a weak character - to give him Royal power would have meant to endanger her own position.


While Prince Albert was to "German" in his connections and thinking and thus much too autocratic for the Britsih parliament of his time to want him as King Consort. While today it doesn't mean naything more than just another title confered on a person without real power behind it.

 

[Madame Royale]

The widowed Queen Consort thereby becomes Queen Dowager, though it is interesting that it is not a title used, rather one which is unspokenly observed. And that serves no greater purpose than to distinguish between those who were Consort, and they who are now the incumbent. So being addressed as HM Queen XXXX is in itself an adaption of the discussed title which seems, in a sense, agreeably unassuming.

confined to the aristocracy where "Dowager Duchess" still sounds something special.

So true and likely portrayed as an 'executive authority'.

 

[Russophile]

I don't think Dowager anything sounds special. I think it sounds fat. Like the big, fat, Dowager Duchess. I hope Camilla doesn't use that term at all!

 

[Madame Royale]

It sounds fat?.lol.

It's extremely unlikely that Camilla would use the distinction in any title if she outlives her husband, though if crowned Queen, a Dowager she will be.

 

[Elspeth]

Might be interesting to see what they'd call an ex-Queen who had the same name as the current Queen but wasn't the King's (or Queen's) mother. They might have to resort to Dowager.

 

[sophie25]

If the Queen lives as long as her mother and dosn't abdicate the discussion about Camilla and Charles' titles would be irrelevent anyway and that is very possible.

 

[Madame Royale]

That wud be an interesting circumstance. Though could it not be easily clarified by the monarchs mother using the title Queen Mother, whilst the other could just be known as Queen XXXX?

Though if sharing the same name, that could lead to some confusion so perhaps the other could be known as Queen Dowager.

Intruiging stuff!

 

[jcbcode99]

Queen Dowager--what an interesting ring it has--it sounds odd, I supose I think it should be Dowager Queen. But, I doubt that will happen anyway--that's a discussion for after the next title gets figured out. I personally think that Camilla should be Queen Camilla, but Madame Royale has given a very eloquent reason for wanting Camilla to be HRH The Princess Consort (it's several pages back but I suggest new posters read it--it is enlightning!).
So, let's say she becomes Queen Camilla, then Charles passes away. William marries and his wife becomes Queen Whatever; wouldn't Camilla still be known as Queen Camilla? Incidentally, where does the Dowager Queen fall in the order of precedence? For QEQM was it QEII, QEQM, and so forth?

 

[Madame Royale]

If crowned Queen, and Charles dies before his wife then Camilla would be HM Queen Camilla. The term Dowager represents the position of the former reigning consort though not necessarily her title.

Camilla would then fall beneath the Queen Consort in the Order of Precedence, as has been the case for all surviving consorts.

 

[Elspeth]

That wud be an interesting circumstance. Though could it not be easily clarified by the monarchs mother using the title Queen Mother, whilst the other could just be known as Queen XXXX?

Though if sharing the same name, that could lead to confusion so perhaps the other could be known as Queen Dowager.

Intruiging stuff!

If the ex-queen isn't the mother of the current monarch, she can't be known as the Queen Mother, though. If William IV's widow had been called Victoria rather than Adelaide, then when Queen Victoria came to the throne, we'd have had two Queen Victorias and the older one wouldn't have been the Queen Mother. I don't really see how they could have avoided a Dowager handle in that case.

 

[Madame Royale]

Oh I did indeed read your post wrong.

For some reason, I thought you meant that there were three Queen's, one was the mother and one was not. I made no mention of the regnant. My mistake.

I think the Dowager would be HM Queen XXXX. Rembering, the Queen is HM The Queen so I'd have thought it wouldn't be to hard to distinguish who's who.

But perhaps the use of Dowager would be needed in such circumstances.

(Did I really type 'wud'? Oh dear...lol.)

 

[wbenson]

An outsider would have been confused to hear palace officials speak of the two Queens before the Queen Mother died in 2002. The Queen Mother was always "Queen Elizabeth" and the Queen was always "The Queen." I don't think the Queen Mother's name was all that well-known among those who couldn't remember her from before 1952.

 

[lynnecam1uk]

I was a big supporter of Diana, Princess of Wales and still am, and i do think Diana was treated very badly, i don't d oubt she had faults everyone does, but she was treated badly, and i was very saddened when she died as she was a lovely person and for a long time i felt that Camilla should not even be allowed to join the Royal Family, but as much as i still like and admire Diana and always will l(Rip Diana) my opinion of Camilla has changed, i like her very much and if she makes Prince Charles happy well i think she should now be allowed to be Queen when Charles becomes King. I now think Camilla and Charles should have been married all those years ago. I don't think i would necesarily curtsey to her but I would acknowledge Camilla as Queen.

 

[Roslyn]

Welcome, Lynne

I'm always pleased to read that someone who was a Diana supporter and was against Camilla has changed their mind and come to like her to the extent that you think she should be Queen. I'd be interested to know what changed your mind. Was it just that she makes Charles happy or was it something about Camilla herself that led you to reconsider your views?

 

[Jo of Palatine]

If crowned Queen, and Charles dies before his wife then Camilla would be HM Queen Camilla. The term Dowager represents the position of the former reigning consort though not necessarily her title.

Camilla would then fall beneath the Queen Consort in the Order of Precedence, as has been the case for all surviving consorts.

Is it this way in Britain? In Russia it was different, if you look at the last Court Calendar before the revolution, of 1917. There first is the Emperor, but second is the emperor's mother, the Dowager Empress and third is the wife of the emperor.

You can find a link to it here:
http://www.riuo.org/SUCCESSION_ENGLISH.pdf

 

[lynnecam1uk]

hi Roslyn

well i think she seems a really nice person and from good reports i have read about her and watching her in my monarchy dvd and how she gets on with people and i have heard she is a caring person and from what i can see of her that is true and yes if she makes charles happy that is excellent. i did watch them get married on the tv and i guess iti s a bit of both Camilla herself and making Charles happy that has made me change my mind. and everyone deserves a second chance to be happy and Camilla deserves our support too.

Welcome, Lynne

I'm always pleased to read that someone who was a Diana supporter and was against Camilla has changed their mind and come to like her to the extent that you think she should be Queen. I'd be interested to know what changed your mind. Was it just that she makes Charles happy or was it something about Camilla herself that led you to reconsider your views?

 

[Madame Royale]

Is it this way in Britain? In Russia it was different, if you look at the last Court Calendar before the revolution, of 1917. There first is the Emperor, but second is the emperor's mother, the Dowager Empress and third is the wife of the emperor.

You can find a link to it here:
http://www.riuo.org/SUCCESSION_ENGLISH.pdf

Yes it is that way in Britain.

The Order of Precedence for female members of the British royal family is...

The Queen (whether they be regnant or consort), followed by the Queen Dowager (most recent if more than one).

 

[branchg]

It sounds fat?.lol.

It's extremely unlikely that Camilla would use the distinction in any title if she outlives her husband, though if crowned Queen, a Dowager she will be.

If Charles predeceased her at present, she would technically lose the distinction of being "The" Duchess of Cornwall and become Camilla, Duchess of Cornwall instead. "The" only applies to the wife of a living Duke, not a widow or former wife. The style of "Dowager Duchess of Cornwall" would only apply if William had an eldest son and became King as there would be a new Duke.

As with Princess Alice, Duchess of Gloucester, The Queen or William V could grant her the distinction of using the princess style as the widow of a son of the Sovereign ("HRH Princess Camilla, Duchess of Cornwall") or grant her a lifetime peerage of her own.

If her husband died after she became Queen Consort, she automatically loses the style of "HM The Queen" and becomes "HM Queen Camilla" as a dowager queen.

 

[LadyCat]

Since I live in the US obviously my opinion will fall in the "for what it's worth" department, but I don't see a problem with Camilla becoming Queen Camilla upon Charles' accession to the throne. From what I've read in this thread, it is obvious any other title will cause a bunch of constitutional problems down the road for any future consort.

But then I don't have a problem with Prince Phillip being King Consort and wonder why QEII didn't allow it. I know the rules are different if the Queen is Queen in her own right and her husband is the consort, still in a constitutional monarchy does it really matter what title the consort has, other than in the court of public opinion?

Would it damage the monarchy greatly for Camilla to be known as Queen Camilla?

Cat

 

[Russophile]

If the ex-queen isn't the mother of the current monarch, she can't be known as the Queen Mother, though. If William IV's widow had been called Victoria rather than Adelaide, then when Queen Victoria came to the throne, we'd have had two Queen Victorias and the older one wouldn't have been the Queen Mother. I don't really see how they could have avoided a Dowager handle in that case.

Holy Schnikies! You've made me go cross-eyed!

 

[branchg]

But then I don't have a problem with Prince Phillip being King Consort and wonder why QEII didn't allow it. I know the rules are different if the Queen is Queen in her own right and her husband is the consort, still in a constitutional monarchy does it really matter what title the consort has, other than in the court of public opinion?

Would it damage the monarchy greatly for Camilla to be known as Queen Camilla?

The title of King is reserved for a reigning Sovereign. Since a King always outranks a Queen, the husband of a regnant Queen must hold a lesser rank and title as a Prince of the UK. Queen Victoria wanted to elevate her husband to King, but Parliament refused to consider it. Instead, Prince Albert was granted the title and style of HRH The Prince Consort.

This title and rank was considered for Philip as well, but he refused it. In 1957, The Queen created him a Prince of the UK in his own right and granted him the distinction of being "The Prince Philip". Since he was already Duke of Edinburgh, his title then became "HRH The Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh". Howver, his style remains "HRH The Duke of Edinburgh" as a royal duke.

The issue of Camilla's style and title when her husband becomes King is automatic in law. As the wife of the King, she must be HM The Queen as wives always share their husband's rank in the UK. If Parliament wishes to intervene with legislation, then it would be possible for her to be known as HRH The Princess Consort instead.

 

[Elspeth]

Is it this way in Britain? In Russia it was different, if you look at the last Court Calendar before the revolution, of 1917. There first is the Emperor, but second is the emperor's mother, the Dowager Empress and third is the wife of the emperor.

You can find a link to it here:
http://www.riuo.org/SUCCESSION_ENGLISH.pdf

This created some friction in the British court after Edward VII died. Queen Alexandra and her sister (the Tsar's mother) were trying to insist that Queen Alexandra, the King's mother, should have precedence over Queen Mary, the King's wife, because that's how it was done in Russia. It seems that between her bid to remain first lady in the land and her refusal to move out of the big house at Sandringham, she was something of a thorn in Queen Mary's side for many years.

 

[Elspeth]

If Charles predeceased her at present, she would technically lose the distinction of being "The" Duchess of Cornwall and become Camilla, Duchess of Cornwall instead.

That sounds more like the style of a divorcee. Is it the same for a widow and a divorcee?

 

[wbenson]

The issue of Camilla's style and title when her husband becomes King is automatic in law. As the wife of the King, she must be HM The Queen as wives always share their husband's rank in the UK. If Parliament wishes to intervene with legislation, then it would be possible for her to be known as HRH The Princess Consort instead.

I think that if they go the "Princess Consort" route (I hope they don't), they'll just issue a press release stating that "HM the Queen wishes to be known in public as HRH the Princess Consort." It avoids any legal issues and doesn't create any precedents for future monarchs. In the event of any official paperwork talking about her, it would still call her the Queen, etc. Yes, she'd be the Queen, but no law demands that anyone request to be called the Queen. She could issue a request now to be called "Lady Mimblewamble the Third of Heligoland," and I think at least some media outlets would start calling her even that absurd title. Soon the people would follow.

 

[wymanda]

If Charles predeceased her at present, she would technically lose the distinction of being "The" Duchess of Cornwall and become Camilla, Duchess of Cornwall instead.

I disagree there. If Charles were to pass on before the Queen, William would become Duke of Cornwall and Camilla would be the Dowager Duchess of Cornwall and, by law, Dowager Princess of Wales.

 

[AuroraB]

I disagree there. If Charles were to pass on before the Queen, William would become Duke of Cornwall and Camilla would be the Dowager Duchess of Cornwall and, by law, Dowager Princess of Wales.

I was always under the assumption that only the son of the Sovereign could be the Duke of Cornwall. The Queen could make William the Prince of Wales, but not Duke of Cornwall or Duke of Rothesay.

 

[Elspeth]

I think that if they go the "Princess Consort" route (I hope they don't), they'll just issue a press release stating that "HM the Queen wishes to be known in public as HRH the Princess Consort." It avoids any legal issues and doesn't create any precedents for future monarchs. In the event of any official paperwork talking about her, it would still call her the Queen, etc. Yes, she'd be the Queen, but no law demands that anyone request to be called the Queen. She could issue a request now to be called "Lady Mimblewamble the Third of Heligoland," and I think at least some media outlets would start calling her even that absurd title. Soon the people would follow.

You're such an optimist. Why would they go to all that trouble when they could just call her Camilla Parker Bowles? They'll probably still be doing that when she's Queen.