Title for Camilla

[Madame Royale]

I'd have a lot more respect for her and him if they just came out and announced that she would now be called The Princess of Wales.

It's admirable to make a decision and stick by it, I'd have thought...

To suggest the Duchess now, after 3 or so years, be officially known as Princess of Wales is, imo, a particularly rediculous motion. Infact, it would make them look like fools, and it's quite easy for someone on the outer to propose such a move, when it infact would bear no consequence on them.

It is relatively clear from your above statement that public approval is something you yourself don't have to contend with, like most of us here, I'm sure.

The 'issue' is not what title(s) she holds, inherently by way of marriage, but the title by which she is known.

For all concerned, not least of all for Camilla herself, the appropriate choice was made. One could not begin to fathom the pressure and press she'd have received if she were to have used the Princely title, whether hers to use or not. Any real chance of 'making it her own' (her role), would have been all but ruined from the get go. It's hardly fair in many ways, but never before had their been a situation such as theirs, and so scrupulously publicized at that.

 

[jcbcode99]

never before had their been a situation such as theirs, and so scrupulously publicized at that.

Truer words were never spoken on this thread.

I do think that what VeccioLarry was saying, which I applauded, was that opting to have Camilla to "be known as" HRH The Duchess of Cornwall was basically just leaving the door open for her "to be known as" HRH The Princess Consort. I do think that protocal should have been maintained--regardless of situation. After all, I am a second wife, and go by "Mrs. John Doe". Imagine if, because my husband's family or our local townspeople had decided that I was just horrible and not as good as my husband's ex-wife, that I had to be known by a different name. I just don't find it to be fair--regardless of whether or not it was the most practical thing to do at the time.
However, I have said in previous posts that I do think that giving Camilla the option to be HRH The Duchess of Cornwall gave her an immeasurable opportunity to create an identity seperate from Diana, which has been quite successful. I think that the title of "Duchess" suits her quite well; in my opinion, Princess would not suit Camilla. I'm sure she would wear it well and with grace and dignity, but she has taken this not often used title of Duchess of Cornwall and really created something just for her. And, if Charles does decide that out of deference for Wales to no longer allow the use of the title, then Camilla would have been a trendsetter in some ways as well. However, I would prefer that she be known as HM Queen Camilla rather than HRH The Princess Consort--simple because I do think that she deserves the honor.

 

[Jo of Palatine]

The question about "deserving" the honour:

lately we had some articles which brought up information about Queen Mum that have previously appeared in reknown biographies by Bradford and Brandreth, so seem to be true, at least to a certain extent.

In it is claimed that Queen Mum had strong prejudices and acted on them and that she treated prince Philip like a "mother-in-law from hell" while using her influence on the then still young Elizabeth to stay the force behind the throne - using her influence to her own advantage or against other people like poor Wallis Windsor.

Still noone would say that somebody with such a sometimes nasty behaviour should not have been Her Majesty as she didn't deserve this honour. We don't know much about Camilla but the rare first-hand information about what she does and what she says shows a person who does not have vindictive character traits - vindictiveness always backfires, IMHO and we would know by now. IMHO it shows how deep the respect and reference Queen Mum could install in people has been that only now people start to tell more about the "Iron Fist" in her velvet gloves they experienced and witnessed. But still people started to talk and they would have talked about Camilla if there was something to tell by now.

 

[Menarue]

I agree with everything above except "poor Wallis Windsor" she was not a person to be pitied, she took the King of England and turned him into a performing circus dog that did nothing but wait on her every whim and go to parties and design jewellery for her. From the moment he met her he never seemed to be able to think for himself.
She, in turn, never in her whole life quite "got" what a "King of England" was.

Queen Consort Camilla, of course, what other title could there be for her when her husband comes to the throne? I definitely agree that they should have come out with the title Princess of Wales when she married the Prince, the Diana myth should be forgotten as quickly as possible. A beautiful young woman who nearly caused the fall of the RF, in fact very much as Wallis did.

 

[Madame Royale]

I do think that what VeccioLarry was saying, which I applauded, was that opting to have Camilla to "be known as" HRH The Duchess of Cornwall was basically just leaving the door open for her "to be known as" HRH The Princess Consort.

And as that seems to be their intent (at the present time), then they have gone about 'the' business in an appropriate manner.

I do think that protocal should have been maintained--regardless of situation.

Alas, it's easy for us to say such things but in actuality, the implementation of protocol is, and has, been detemined not solely by the pages of history from which they were observed, but by the circumstances which sourround the institution (those who make it) of the day. Things change, and on occasion that means protocol, aswell.

After all, I am a second wife, and go by "Mrs. John Doe". Imagine if, because my husband's family or our local townspeople had decided that I was just horrible and not as good as my husband's ex-wife, that I had to be known by a different name.

A different name? It is but a 'name' her husband holds and so is not so dissimilar afterall. She remains Princess of Wales; it's just not her primal title in an official capacity.

I just don't find it to be fair--regardless of whether or not it was the most practical thing to do at the time.

Whether deemed practical by some and impractical by others, it is what it is and was done for a reason. A reason that clearly needed an unprecedented alternative, as seen in the best interests of those concerned and dare I say, the monarchy.

However, I have said in previous posts that I do think that giving Camilla the option to be HRH The Duchess of Cornwall gave her an immeasurable opportunity to create an identity seperate from Diana, which has been quite successful.

Absolutely! It was the right move to have been made, imo.

but she has taken this not often used title of Duchess of Cornwall and really created something just for her.

As I'm sure would be the case if she were created Princess Consort.

And, if Charles does decide that out of deference for Wales to no longer allow the use of the title, then Camilla would have been a trendsetter in some ways as well.

In a matter of speaking, yes.

However, I would prefer that she be known as HM Queen Camilla rather than HRH The Princess Consort--simple because I do think that she deserves the honor.

We know...hehe...

 

[Jo of Palatine]

I agree with everything above except "poor Wallis Windsor" she was not a person to be pitied,

I don't think that The Duke and Duchess of Windsor were treated properly by the RF, there was quite some spite involved and as historians have proved, a lot of it came directly from Queen Mum, with the establishment following her lead. So when it comes to that, IMHO Wallis Windsor was "poor Wallis".

 

[Menarue]

Wallis was nice to the Queen Mother?
They were as different as chalk and cheese, a worldly adventurer and a well brought up Scottish/English Lady. The Queen mother knew that it would be a terrible strain on her husband being King, it was a nightmare for him just to make a speech because of his voice impediment. As she said, she had had a nice life until Wallis appeared, she was perfectly satisfied being the Duchess of York.
I think that we are inclined to forget at the time Wallis was being considered by Edward to be the future Queen of England she was still a married woman and her husband was still very much in her life. Documents have been disclosed recently that say she was being investigated and it is said that she had another lover at the same time as Edward. When Edward ,on her advice, became King, he was cutting down on expenditure such as hand soap and beer for his workers, but he was spending a fortune on jewellery for Wallis (which was probably not her fault).
A friend of mine was the daughter of Mrs Belloc Lowndes the author, who remarked when she saw Wallis at the theatre that she thought Wallis´s jewels were so many and so big, that they were probably false, she was shocked to find they weren´t.
I am sorry this is getting off the subject of Camilla but I really feel that Wallis is not deserving of any sympathy from anyone. Her main support was her aunt Bessie Merrieweather, both money and moral but she was soon left behind.....she did send her a birthday cake for her 100th birthday though.
The Queen mother may not have been the sweet old lady that the public thought but if she didn´t like Wallis she certainly had her reasons and not all of us are sweet all the time, she had her public façade and it worked.
Hearing about her debts after her death was what surprised me most.
So that this isn´t completely off rail. Camilla will be Queen, I never though I would say this but I really think she will do very well.

 

[muriel]

I do not think there was anything wrong in the QM maintaining the image she had, or that there was anything conradictory with the image. She played the perfect Queen - always gracious in public, aware of her duty to the realm, but also aware of the constitutional constraints of her role. There was certainly a role for her - and there was a reason for Hitler referring to her as the most dangerous woman in Europe.

As regards debts at the end of her life, I think it is fair to say that expenses / cash liquidity etc were not issues that she was concerned about in her last decade or so. Her household was run in a style she was accustomed to, and thats what she had. I don't know of many 101 year olds who typically worry about radically altering their life styles. Her estate was sufficient to cover any overdrafts that may have been run up. I just hold the belief that when people get very old, it is for their children and grandchildren to take care of hem. In this case, they did, by letting her lifestyle not be affected by her dwindling cash resources.

 

[Menarue]

Queen Elizabeth, the Queen Mother, lived the life she had always lived and expected to live and that is how it should be for someone who was Queen of England.

 

[Skydragon]

I don't know of many 101 year olds who typically worry about radically altering their life styles. Her estate was sufficient to cover any overdrafts that may have been run up. I just hold the belief that when people get very old, it is for their children and grandchildren to take care of hem. In this case, they did, by letting her lifestyle not be affected by her dwindling cash resources.

If you don't know of many 101 year olds or even 80 years olds that have to radically alter their lifestyle, I suggest you go and see some of the folk at Age Concern, they have no option but to live according to the money in their purse!

 

[muriel]

If you don't know of many 101 year olds or even 80 years olds that have to radically alter their lifestyle, I suggest you go and see some of the folk at Age Concern, they have no option but to live according to the money in their purse!

You may find there is typically quite a lot of difference between the mental faculties of people at 80 and 101..... and if you have the money or you know your children will take care of your expenses, at age 101 why would you bother?

 

[branchg]

Part of The Queen Mother's cash flow problems were also attributable to the fact she transferred her own fortune (estimated at $30 million) to a trust for her great-grandchildren in 1987. The income was payable to them for their expenses via a trustee until her death. After that, the trust ended and the remaining principal was paid in equal shares to her grandchildren (with the exception of Charles).

 

[muriel]

Part of The Queen Mother's cash flow problems were also attributable to the fact she transferred her own fortune (estimated at $30 million) to a trust for her great-grandchildren in 1987. The income was payable to them for their expenses via a trustee until her death. After that, the trust ended and the remaining principal was paid in equal shares to her grandchildren (with the exception of Charles).

Actualy I do remember reading this a long time ago. Irrespective of what caused the cash flow shortage towards the end of her life, I am sure the QM had no doubt that her costs would be taken care of by HM!

 

[kimebear]

We are drifting. You can discuss HM The Queen Mother here:

http://www.theroyalforums.com/forums/f23/hm-queen-elizabeth-the-queen-mother-1900-2002-a-555.html

 

[CasiraghiTrio]

As you can see here, the very first title for Charles probably was His Royal Highness Prince Charles, Earl of Merioneth.

Letters Patent 22 October 1948

In the letters patent his father is referred to as HRH Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh and his mother HRH Princess Elizabeth, Duchess of Edinburgh. It doesn't mention any other title for the children of said marriage than Royal Highness and the prefix prince/princess. Thus Charles surely was known by his father's secondary title, as I don't think "Duke of Edinburgh" was a Royal Dukedom such as "York", like the ones given to a son of the souverain. If so, Chrles would have been HRH prince Charles of Edinburgh?

The letters patent says: " in addition to any other appellations and titles of honour which may belong to them hereafter", so doesn't clarify this question.

The letters patent of 21. Nov. 1947 was about "granting unto Lieutenant H.R.H. Sir Philip Mountbatten, K.G., R.N. and the heirs male of his body lawfully begotten the dignities of Baron Greenwich in the County of London, Earl of Merioneth and Duke of Edinburgh." In other documents the king made it clear that he didn't want to create Philip a Prince of the Uk, so I guess he was not a Royal duke like his son of York, but a Royal Highness with a peerage of duke. Thus his heir would hold his secondary title as a courtesy title in addition the the HRH prince Charles.

But Jo, wasn't the earldom of Merioneth only his courtesy title? He was not Merioneth is his own right, only by courtesy as the Duke of E's eldest son.
I thought of that before I posted about Cornwall being his first title, but then I thought since it was only by courtesy, and because no one called him that........ In fact, just before he was born the King took the liberty of making him HRH Prince so that he would not be known by the courtesy earldom. At least, that's what I thought, based on the story as told by Pimlott.
It does not matter. I'm not wanting to discuss it and certainly have no desire to argue and debate it because it's not worth it to me. I was just curious about it.

Anyway, we are all used to Camilla being Duchess of Cornwall now (we can argue that it would be better for her to use the Wales title, but in the end, everything is fine and our protests will just cause unnecessary unhappiness with something that was always fine) and then she will become Queen probably in the 2020s and the teenagers at that time will have no conscious memory of Diana. Diana will just be a figure in their modern history books.

There are more important things than Camilla's "senior title" to fight for. Keep perspective!!
Fight for love, prosperity, and health for all!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[wbenson]

Thus Charles surely was known by his father's secondary title, as I don't think "Duke of Edinburgh" was a Royal Dukedom such as "York", like the ones given to a son of the If so, Chrles would have been HRH prince Charles of Edinburgh?

"Royal dukedoms" aren't different from ordinary dukedoms except that they're held by somebody royal, and Philip was (meaning that royal dukedoms can stop being royal, as will happen when the Dukes of Kent and Gloucester die, and non-royal dukedoms can become royal, which I don't think has ever happened). That means Charles was HRH Prince Charles of Edinburgh from his birth until 1952 (when he became Duke of Cornwall and Rothesay, etc.) Anyways, it doesn't really matter what Philip was. Charles was assuredly a prince (meaning he wouldn't use the courtesy title, even if he technically held it, like every other royal heir to a dukedom), and his father (and mother) were of Edinburgh, so he was too.

 

[Elspeth]

Well, they're different in that they can't be inherited by brothers and cousins like regular dukedoms. If Andrew dies before Edward, Edward doesn't inherit the York title.

 

[sirhon11234]

A beautiful young woman who nearly caused the fall of the RF, in fact very much as Wallis did.

I'm sorry but that is such an exaggeration imo...

 

[branchg]

Well, they're different in that they can't be inherited by brothers and cousins like regular dukedoms. If Andrew dies before Edward, Edward doesn't inherit the York title.

Correct. And technically a dukedom (or any other Peerage) granted to a son or grandson of The Sovereign remains "of the blood royal" forever, even without the style of HRH, because it re-merges with the Crown once there are no more direct heirs of the first holder and is never created outside the royal family.

 

[Al_bina]

Fairly speaking, I do not see much difference between late Duchess of Windsor and Duchess of Cornwall: divorcees with a past. The background is somewhat different, but both situations do not positively contribute to the image of the British monarchy.

 

[Iluvbertie]

Well, they're different in that they can't be inherited by brothers and cousins like regular dukedoms. If Andrew dies before Edward, Edward doesn't inherit the York title.

I am under the impression, based on what I really don't know, that if a Duke (or any other title) is created it is always using the 'heirs male of the body' and so a brother or cousin couldn't inherit from the first creation either.

e.g. my older brother gets Duke of Greatness and he dies with only daughters then his brother doesn't inherit the title but if he has three sons then each of their lines are eligible based on their order of birth so that after he dies and the eldest son dies the second son can inherit the title as he is an 'heir male of the body' but the younger brother of the first Duke of Greatness can't inherit it as he isn't an 'heir male of the body'.

If we go back to the Gloucester title - when the elder brother of the present Duke died his younger brother was able to inherit it but if both the brothers had died it couldn't go to the Duke of Kent's line as that line wasn't descended from the first Duke of Gloucester of this creation.

Please correct me if I am wrong but that is how it has always seemed to me and I don't know where I learnt it that way.

 

[wbenson]

I am under the impression, based on what I really don't know, that if a Duke (or any other title) is created it is always using the 'heirs male of the body' and so a brother or cousin couldn't inherit from the first creation either.

I'm pretty sure that's the case for all dukedoms created in the past couple of centuries. I think some old ones might pass to heirs male general, though (which includes descendants of ancestors).

The Crown Office (Forms and Proclamations Rules) Order 1992

And for Us Our heirs and successors do appoint give and grant unto him the said name state degree style dignity title and honour of Duke of and by these Presents do dignify invest and ennoble him by girding him with a sword and putting a cap of honour and a coronet of gold on his head and by giving into his hand a rod of gold [or, if the grant is to a woman, “dignify invest and really ennoble her with such name state degree title and honour of Duchess of ”] to have and to hold the said name state degree style dignity title and honour of Duke of unto him and the heirs male of his body lawfully begotten and to be begotten

 

[branchg]

If we go back to the Gloucester title - when the elder brother of the present Duke died his younger brother was able to inherit it but if both the brothers had died it couldn't go to the Duke of Kent's line as that line wasn't descended from the first Duke of Gloucester of this creation.

Prince Richard inherited his dukedom from his father, The Prince Henry, who died after his eldest son. If both brothers had been deceased, the title would have been extinct and returned to the Crown.

The creation of Peerages in the male heirs of body means they can only be inherited by your son or male-line grandson. If neither survives you, the peerage becomes extinct.

 

[Iluvbertie]

Prince Richard inherited his dukedom from his father, The Prince Henry, who died after his eldest son. If both brothers had been deceased, the title would have been extinct and returned to the Crown.

The creation of Peerages in the male heirs of body means they can only be inherited by your son or male-line grandson. If neither survives you, the peerage becomes extinct.

That is exactly what I said - that the title wouldn't have passed to the Kents had both sons died rather than just the eldest.

 

[Velasco]

In my ideal world, Charles would be by-passed in the succession and Queen Elizabeth would be succeeded by a "young" (relatively) King William V.

Charles would get some title such as Duke of Edinburgh, or Essex, or something prestigious like that, and Camilla enjoy the female equivalent. Preferably they would remain as Duke and Duchess of Cornwall, as there is no sense changing duchies for another, but I don't know if this is legally possible or if the title automatically passes to the King's firstborn male child (ie, Charles and Camilla would automatically lose it once William ahd a son).

However, if Charles does become King, then I can see no good reason why Camilla shouldn't become Queen consort, except for the fact that people would rather have seen Diana be Queen Consort. Which is understandable and a fairly good reason of itself, considering how the monarchy is not what it once was and the BRF will have to appease public opinion on such matters if they do not want to get the boot in the next few generations. So then the suggested title, "Princess Consort", which sounds ok since Prince Philip and Prince Albert were both Princes Consort (a precedent), and it is still a unique, lofty sounding title worthy of the royal consort.

I would also like (regardless of which title she gets - Queen/Princess Consort) for her to be elevated to the peerage in her own right. Historically, commoner wives and/or their immediate families were elevated to the peerage shortly before or upon marriage. Elizabeth Woodville's father was made Earl Rivers and her son was made Marquis of Dorset; Anne Boleyn was made Marchioness of Pembroke suo jure and her father was made Earl of Wiltshire; etc etc. So Camilla should be made a Duchess/Marchioness/Countess, so that her son and descendants will in time be a Duke/Marquis/Earl, which is only fair given their close kinship (even if not by blood) to the royal house.

 

[Empress]

Frankly, I see no reason for Camilla's children from a previous marriage to reap the benefits of her current marriage. As far as I am aware there is no precedent for that. I see no reason why she should not have some title in her own right, although I doubt very much that she cares about this (or else, I think that she should not have married him in the first place).

No, I don't see any good reason for them to be given a title, and what's more, a special remainder would have to be created so that her titles could pass on to her children, as most titles pass through the male line, rather than the female line, unless a special remainder has been created.

At this time, when the royal family is apparently attempting to downsize a bit, I don't think that it would be prudent economically or PR wise, to grant titles to the children of Camilla, who are not noble or aristocratic in the first place.

 

[Velasco]

Well, any hereditary title granted to Camilla would automatically be inherited by her son, even if succession is only permissible in the male line and her daughter cannot inherit.

Camilla is the granddaughter of the Baron Ashcombe and descends from the Earls of Albermarle (she is a cousin of the present Earl, Rufus Keppel). There is also some evidence to suggest that she is a great-granddaughter through an illegitimate line of Edward VII and thus her husband's 2nd cousin.

Since her children are the step-children of the Prince of Wales and future King of England, I do consider them aristocrats/noble, even if not by blood, but by connection to the throne.

When Edward IV married Elizabeth Woodville, her sons from her first marriage were received at court and treated not only as nobility, but also elevated. Her eldest son Thomas Grey was knighted, made Earl of Huntingdon and then Marquis of Dorset; and her younger son Richard was knighted, and given a whole string of honours before his abrupt early death. Her father, a mere 'esquire', was made 1st Earl Rivers and Lord Treasurer.

Later Kings, notably Henry VIII, also granted plenty of lands and titles to their wives relatives, in recognition of their new found status and proximity to the Crown.

Just seems strange to me that the children of the de jure Princess of Wales and Duchess of Cornwall, future Queen/Princess Consort of England, should be treated as mere commoners. A viscounty would suffice

 

[Empress]

No, the only way that a title can be inherited from a female is if a special remainder is created saying that this is the way that it will happen. And then that remainder would have to be recreated for each instance. So if Camilla has a title, the only way that her son would inherit it is if it was created with that remainder in place or made after it's creation.

With Elizabeth Woodville, it is an entirely different situation in a different time. Her first husband was dead, and her family had helped Edward secure his throne after defecting from the other Kings camp. These days are not the same as they were then, and peerages can not and should not be bought or given just based on relation to a member of the royal family. In the middle ages, to which you speak, it was common for the king to grant lands and honors to his retainers in place of paying them a salary for the jobs that they did for him. Counselors, lawyers, courtiers, etc were not given a salary, they were sometimes given an allowance, but most often their "payment for services rendered" were given in lands and titles from which they could earn their living.

 

[Al_bina]

Why exactly should children of Duchess of Cornwall from the first marriage have any titles through the second marriage of their mother? The last I have heard, the children in question want nothing, but remain private citizens. Tom and Laura are a part of the Parker Bowels family. If their father has got any titles to pass, Mr. Tom Parker Bowels can have them. I tend to share Empress' opinion on this matter.

 

[Menarue]

Why exactly should children of duchess of Cornwall from the first marriage have any titles through the second marriage of their mother? The last I heard, the children in question wanted nothing, but remain private citizens. Tom and Laura are a part of the Parker Bowels family. If their father has got any titles to pass, Mr. Tom Parker Bowels can have them. I tend to share Empress' opinion on this matter.

What title could they possibly get, they are Parker-Bowles children and have his title which the last time I heard was Mr. and now his daughter is Mrs. Lopes. Perhaps Laura´s husband is going to get a title by inheritance one day that is different. They are the step children of the Prince of Wales, that is all, not royal by any means.