Title for Camilla


If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Status
Not open for further replies.
The question is if Charles actually wants to announce that she'll be known as HRH The Princess Consort. I personally can't see him as doing that - it would be a personal defeat if he is not able to accord his legal wife her legal title. Of course when this "it is intended..." was published, they did it for the sake of the marriage and the right of Camilla to be known as HRH but I seriously doubt it was Charles' idea and that he whole-heartedly supported it. It was a means to an end and nothing more.

It is no secret that what Charles and the people of his office at St. James' and what the queen and her people of her office at BP think is most of the time not the same. Once Charles' is king, only his opinion counts and the guys at BP are out of business. I doubt that it is in the interest of the government to insist on a change in tradition, Charles won't want that either, so it will just be the media and we have no idea how the media will react in the direct aftermath of HM's death.

I'm not sure it's only Charles's choice. While this isn't a popularity contest and results of polls aren't necessarily all that relevant, the royal family has hopefully learned a few lessons about the dangers of trying to do major things that are really unpopular. If the government and the senior royal advisors really believe that forcing the issue of Camilla being known as HM the Queen Consort (and being crowned and whatever) will do serious damage to the institution of the monarchy, Charles might not have much choice. This is the obstacle that Edward VIII ran into - he was concerned about what he wanted when he was King, whereas the government and the civil servants were more concerned with preserving the institution of monarchy and the position of King in general; the identity of the person in the position was a lot less important to them than the stability of the institution itself.
 
I'm not sure it's only Charles's choice. While this isn't a popularity contest and results of polls aren't necessarily all that relevant, the royal family has hopefully learned a few lessons about the dangers of trying to do major things that are really unpopular. If the government and the senior royal advisors really believe that forcing the issue of Camilla being known as HM the Queen Consort (and being crowned and whatever) will do serious damage to the institution of the monarchy, Charles might not have much choice. This is the obstacle that Edward VIII ran into - he was concerned about what he wanted when he was King, whereas the government and the civil servants were more concerned with preserving the institution of monarchy and the position of King in general; the identity of the person in the position was a lot less important to them than the stability of the institution itself.
While you might not feel that polls or public opinion are relevant, I think to ignore this week's poll about the approval rating of the idea of Camilla being Queen is 17%, down 10 points in the last year, would be very dangerous to the future of the monarchy. For Charles to arrogantly force upon the British people someone who has an approval rating far lower than GWB, is risking a lot. They might well say leave and take her with you.
 
I think that it is ridiculous to think that Camilla will be anything less than Queen--regardless of that statement of pacification issued by the Palace when Charles and Camilla were married. The Monarchy is an institution that holds dear long standing traditions and honors. It is unimaginable to think that, due to public opinion over Diana's never to be assumed role of Queen, that Camilla should have to resort to the use of a leser title. If this is to be intended, that she will be the Princess Consort (a title which does not suit her maturity, in my opinion) then someone better get some paperwork ready because it will be next to impossible to demote her once QEII passes. Incidentally, if this were the true intention, then I think that a Letters Patent would have been passed before now that stated that Camilla would never receive the title of Queen and would be the Princess Consort---but such legislation has not been seen. And, Camilla is wearing the jewels of former Queens (Queen Mary, and QEQM) in official capacities. It seems to me that the lack of information indicates that she will be Queen.
 
I wonder if this whole lesser-title business is because of the irregular marriage issue. They weren't married in church, which is an unusual thing for the heir to the throne. Perhaps some sort of deal was worked out behind the scenes. Too bad I likely won't be around when the time comes for the correspondence about the wedding negotiations are available.:rolleyes:
 
While you might not feel that polls or public opinion are relevant, I think to ignore this week's poll about the approval rating of the idea of Camilla being Queen is 17%, down 10 points in the last year, would be very dangerous to the future of the monarchy. For Charles to arrogantly force upon the British people someone who has an approval rating far lower than GWB, is risking a lot. They might well say leave and take her with you.
If polls were 100% correct 100% of the time, the UK would no longer be members of the EU.:rolleyes: When the time comes, I believe the majority of the British people will be pleased to see Charles as King, with Camilla as Queen Consort at his side! :wub:

What George Bush and his approval rating has to do with anything I'm not sure, monarchy is not quite the same as politics, even less so than American politics.
 
I wonder if this whole lesser-title business is because of the irregular marriage issue. They weren't married in church, which is an unusual thing for the heir to the throne. Perhaps some sort of deal was worked out behind the scenes. Too bad I likely won't be around when the time comes for the correspondence about the wedding negotiations are available.:rolleyes:
The mess about the title was I believe an attempt to calm the apparent hysteria of the Diana fans who were threatening demonstrations by 1000's and of course the not very Christian Christians. Divorce didn't happen, it was unthinkable especially for Royal couples.

Times change and the monarchy has attempted to change with it.
 
The mess about the title was I believe an attempt to calm the apparent hysteria of the Diana fans who were threatening demonstrations by 1000's and of course the not very Christian Christians. Divorce didn't happen, it was unthinkable especially for Royal couples.

Times change and the monarchy has attempted to change with it.
I believe you are right in your analysis. The hysteria was pretty wild. I wouldn't mind betting that with the objective distance of 10 years after the death of Diana, not a few, really quite ordinary decent people, are aghast and more than a little ashamed of their behaviour back then.

As to the polls? As you have already noted, it is more than numbers. Unless it is carried out by a scrupulously credible "independent" specialist agency, the way questions are couched dictate the kind of response required. We are all then manipulated by the "Poll" results.

As for the not very Christain Christians? I believe the Archbishop of Canterbury has a lot to answer for. In miriad ways the CofE has moved with the times, but, in this very normal instance, he took an express train back to 1935.

I am not sure about divorce in Great Britain but here in my country the civil laws regarding divorce for the man in the street were greatly liberalised with WWII. Most churches took a mere 30-40 years to "get with the programme". :ohmy: :D
 
I wonder if this whole lesser-title business is because of the irregular marriage issue. They weren't married in church, which is an unusual thing for the heir to the throne. Perhaps some sort of deal was worked out behind the scenes. Too bad I likely won't be around when the time comes for the correspondence about the wedding negotiations are available.:rolleyes:

I can well imagine that as a decent man Charles realised that asking for a church wedding would create a difficult situation for the church officials, especially as he himself probably was well aware that the main point was not that Camilla was divorced but that he wanted to marry the woman who had been exposed by the then wife as the reason for the marital problems. Which, even if it is not the whole truth, is sufficient enough to give clerics some serious headaches.

Plus Charles with his known notion of preferring to be the "defender of faiths" rather than the "defender of the faith" might equally not been overly keen on being married in church but might have preferred to show that the civil wedding is an option for all britons including their future king. who knows...
 
Devorsed!!!

I think that Camilla is doing a great job, but as to the title I firmly believe that the King or Queen should be the devender of the faith. As Camilla is a devorsed woman she should or cannot be queen. Now, I'm sure that Prince Charles if he is king can change these historical royal laws, but this should not be to his or his wife's benifit, but to the kings and queens who will reighn after him.
 
There is no doubt that when Charles succeeds to the throne, Camilla will legally be Queen. If Charles takes the view at the time (despite what was said at time of the engagement of C&C) that he would prefer that she be known as Princess Consort, he can issue letters patent to the effect. Legally, she would continue to be Queen but just be referred to as Princess Consort - just like the current arrangement where she is Princess of Wales, but prefers to use one of her lesser titles.

Some might argue of how she might use a lesser title that does not exist. As King, Charles will be font of all honour, and there will be nothing stopping him from creating the title of Princess Consort for her to use.

The only problem with this scenario is that once her husband is King, Camilla can only be styled as Queen. The wife of the King is Queen Consort, not a Princess.

Camilla holds no titles of her own, other than what flows to her as Charles' wife. Being known as "HRH The Princess Consort" requires him to create a title via letters patent that essentially grants her a title and rank separate from him in her own right.

Since she will legally be Queen, Parliament would have to intervene with legislation permitting her to reliniquish her title and rank in favor of a new one created by The Sovereign.
 
The only problem with this scenario is that once her husband is King, Camilla can only be styled as Queen. The wife of the King is Queen Consort, not a Princess.

Camilla holds no titles of her own, other than what flows to her as Charles' wife. Being known as "HRH The Princess Consort" requires him to create a title via letters patent that essentially grants her a title and rank separate from him in her own right.

Why?

"HM The King requests that HM The Queen be known informally as HRH The Princess Consort."

Who's going to stop them? There's no criminal intent, so I assume it isn't illegal. OK, so it doesn't make a particle of sense, but the way they've been faffing around with styles and titles recently, I can't see that being a deal-breaker.
 
Last edited:
I think there is a distinction between the words "title" (the name of the person) and "rank" (how high up the heirarchy they are). Therefore, the Duke of Windsor's wife became the Duchess of Windsor automatically on their marriage as is customery for a woman to take her husband's title, but the HRH is the rank is I believe a personal gift of the monarch and is not automatically added on to the title as a right.

Not true. The style and title flow together with the appropriate rank upon marriage. Wallis married a son of the Sovereign and was automatically entitled to the title of "HRH The Princess Edward". Since George VI created his brother a royal duke, his wife was entitled to share his rank as a royal duchess and by styled "HRH The Duchess of Windsor".

The justification for the 1937 Letters Patent was that Edward had renounced his future descendants' rights to the throne through the Act of Abdication, in return for being exempted from the Royal Marriages Act. As such, George VI issued letters patent limiting the rank and style of HRH to his brother alone, taking the position that The Duke's wife and future children would not be members of the royal family.

There is no question The Sovereign had the right to issue letters patent denying royal rank to The Duke's wife. The Act of Abdication was an extraordinary breach in the line of succession.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I think that Camilla is doing a great job, but as to the title I firmly believe that the King or Queen should be the devender of the faith. As Camilla is a devorsed woman she should or cannot be queen. Now, I'm sure that Prince Charles if he is king can change these historical royal laws, but this should not be to his or his wife's benifit, but to the kings and queens who will reighn after him.

As the very first 'Defender of the Faith' was divorced not once but twice, divorce shouldn't enter into the equation at all.

There is no legislation that says that a Queen can't be divorced.

In 1936, there was an argument put forward that the people wouldn't accept a twice divorced woman (as part of a smoke screen to get rid of an unsatisfactory, to some anyway, king). The times then were also that divorced people had a stigma attached to them. These days about 1/3 marriages end in divorce and there is no stigma attached.

There is no reason why a divorced woman can't be Queen or Queen Consort.

Camilla should be Queen as she would be the wife of the King. There is no other qualification needed.
 
Why?

"HM The King requests that HM The Queen be known informally as HRH The Princess Consort."

Who's going to stop them? There's no criminal intent, so I assume it isn't illegal.

Parliament and the Crown Commonwealth must approve any change in the title and succession of the monarchy, including The King's wife. If they agree after consultation with the PM there is no issue, then fine.

I think they will be reluctant to allow a precedent to be created without legislation being passed from a constitutional standpoint.
 
Perhaps I'll throw a spanner into the works.:) Whether or not it was Diana fanatics who contributed to the hysteria about C & C's wedding, the fact is that Camilla broke life-long vows that she made before God and her family and friends when she had an extra-marital affair with Prince Charles. Had Charles never been married, Camilla's adultery would still be wrong. Things can be forgiven by the parties involved, but there are still consequences to actions. Camilla makes a fine support to Prince Charles; I certainly don't disagree with that. However, there's something about her receiving the title of Queen that bothers me. The title of Princess Consort is in keeping with the role that she's carved out as the Duchess of Cornwall--being a supportive presence even without the Princess of Wales title and all the formality that's involved with it.
 
Last edited:
Charles broke the same vows, though. I don't think it's fair to say that Charles can be King but Camilla needs to be punished with a lower position, especially when it's the monarch, not the consort, who's taking on the position of Supreme Governor of the Church.
 
I don't think that consequence is the same as punishment. I think that she's been "punished" enough, having been held up to ridicule for years and horrible cartoons made of her, etc. I've had the impression, though I could be wrong, that Camilla wants to stay in the background and not take the titles that are her right by marriage. In some ways, I think that she's more PR-savvy than the Prince of Wales.:flowers:

Charles broke the same vows, though. I don't think it's fair to say that Charles can be King but Camilla needs to be punished with a lower position, especially when it's the monarch, not the consort, who's taking on the position of Supreme Governor of the Church.
 
--being a supportive presence even without the Princess of Wales title and all the formality that's involved with it.

She is not "without the Princess of Wales title". She has chosen not to use it. The moment she & Charles were pronounced husband and wife she took on all of his rank, style & title. That is Princess of Wales, Duchess of Cornwall, Duchess of Rothsay, Countess of Chester etc etc etc............
 
As Camilla is a devorsed woman she should or cannot be queen.

Oops....is this 1850 or 2008?

I am a Dane and as such it isn't my business to interfere with the affairs of the British. But having a King whos wife didn't have the title of Queen, but something else....IMO would be presenting her to the rest of the world as being unworthy of that title.

Being devorsed IMO isn't something that makes a person unworthy. Not at all.

Continuing to maintain a marriage that dosen't work is unworthy - it is actually plain stupid.

Of course a devorsed woman can become Queen, if she has the qualities needed and does wonderful work for her country.
 
Yes, I'm aware of that. My point was that she seems to prefer using the lesser title of Duchess of Cornwall.

She is not "without the Princess of Wales title". She has chosen not to use it. The moment she & Charles were pronounced husband and wife she took on all of his rank, style & title. That is Princess of Wales, Duchess of Cornwall, Duchess of Rothsay, Countess of Chester etc etc etc............
 
My point was that she seems to prefer using the lesser title of Duchess of Cornwall.

Or she did so because of the sentiment some British still, at the time, had towards Princess Diana.

IMO it is time for those British to start looking forwards. Having Camilla as Queen when time comes will be of greater benefit to GB - then still mourning about someone beloved who died years ago.
 
To me, the issue isn't that she's divorced. If if were a case that her husband cheated on her and so she divorced him, that would be a different matter. My opinion is that adultery is an extemely serious matter and shouldn't simply be swept under the carpet.





Oops....is this 1850 or 2008?


Being devorsed IMO isn't something that makes a person unworthy. Not at all.

Continuing to maintain a marriage that dosen't work is unworthy - it is actually plain stupid.

Of course a devorsed woman can become Queen, if she has the qualities needed and does wonderful work for her country.
 
My opinion is that adultery is an extemely serious matter and shouldn't simply be swept under the carpet.

Adultery appears in marriages that doesn't function. I really don't care who committed the adultry - husband or wife. It wouldn't have been committed if the marriage worked.

Punishment for adultry isn't even 1850.......it's stepping right back into the dark Middel Ages.

If she committed adultry in her marriage to Charles it would be quit a different matter - then she was not worthy to be Queen.
 
To me, the issue isn't that she's divorced. If if were a case that her husband cheated on her and so she divorced him, that would be a different matter. My opinion is that adultery is an extemely serious matter and shouldn't simply be swept under the carpet.

No one is sweeping it under the carpet - afterall the Prince of Wales admitted it publicly, as did his first wife. No one though seems to suggest that had Diana still be married to Charles that she wasn't worthy of being queen, despite being a serial adulterer.

Adultery is a matter between the couple within the marriage and shouldn't be something on which the rest of us have a say - advise yes, say no.

I know many wonderful people who have committed adultery. Some have worked through whatever was wrong in the marriage that saw them stray, some got divorced, either way I don't hold it against them.

The very basis of the Christian teachings is forgiveness of sins but it seems that the people who keep bringing up the church and Charles' future position in the Church of England are the ones who least practice that essential aspect of Christianity - forgetting one thing that is said in the Bible - 'vengeance is mine saith the Lord'. I am not pointing the finger at anyone here at all. But I am saying that if people are using the Church and the teachings of the church about the sanctity of marriage to stop Camilla becoming Queen then they should have a very good look at themselves and read their Bible a bit better and try some good old fashioned Christian forgiveness.
 
Though currently in favour of the intended alternative, I think that if it were to remain an unsort topic in say 5 to 10 years from now (the Queen's health proceeding), then even I should be of the opinion that for what will be a comparatively short reign, that any such move to re-establish this particular reigning consorts title would be, by then, a most wearisome display of antipathy.

If Charles succeeded tomorrow then for certain, I'd like to see her created Princess Consort, purely for the reasons I voiced some time ago within this very thread. But as time progresses, I do contemplate the prerequisites of it's inference and needless to say, my reasons and the reasons behind the proposal are entirely dissimilar.

That would surely make for a rather bitter-sweet reality, I suppose you could say.
 
Parliament and the Crown Commonwealth must approve any change in the title and succession of the monarchy, including The King's wife. If they agree after consultation with the PM there is no issue, then fine.

I think they will be reluctant to allow a precedent to be created without legislation being passed from a constitutional standpoint.

I honestly don't think most Parliamentarians in any of the countries involved care or really even know, myself. A few will froth at the mouth for a few weeks, a few will say just remove all of their titles and be gone with the lot, and the rest probably won't know that they should be involved.
 
Hi,

It would seem that everyone involved in this marital highjinks was guilty.
Charles, Diana, Camilla & Andrew. They were all unfaithful to their marriage vows and yet, now, they all get along; apparently even Diana smiled and tolerated Camilla in the end. So, who are we to judge???

Andrew Parker Bowles was even at Prince Charles' birthday party; so they're all playing 'happy familys' now.....

If the Royal Family & government of the day want Camilla to be "Queen", then, she will be queen. And, we have nothing to say about it. End of story!!!

BTW, I really have no admiration for any of these characters and I hope that The Queen lives for at least 20 more years and a Queen Camilla & a King Charles won't matter..

Larry
 
Charles broke the same vows, though. I don't think it's fair to say that Charles can be King but Camilla needs to be punished with a lower position, especially when it's the monarch, not the consort, who's taking on the position of Supreme Governor of the Church.

I agree which is why I think The Archbishop of Canterbury might well decline to do the coronation. All things being equal, they were both adulterers and should be judged by the same standard, in regards to the crown and trhe church. Fair is fair.
 
I agree which is why I think The Archbishop of Canterbury might well decline to do the coronation.

Why would he do that when he signed off on their marriage so publicly? If he was really that opposed to them, he wouldn't have done the blessing of the marriage.
 
Yes, I'm aware of that. My point was that she seems to prefer using the lesser title of Duchess of Cornwall.

Which is certainly understandable. Diana died with the style of Princess of Wales and was the mother of the future King.

But once her husband becomes King, there is no reason why Camilla shouldn't be Queen.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom