King Charles and Queen Camilla

[BeatrixFan]

The Panorama programme was presented by Jonathan Dimbleby and you can watch it again here;

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/panorama/4303210.stm

Nobody is stripping Camilla of the title of Queen. She will still be Queen but she will be known as Princess Consort if the legislation goes through and it needs to go through because the title doesnt exist!!! It doesnt exist, it isn't there, it is not in our mortal realm, it doesn't know the light, it is a pipe dream, a plan, a suggestion - it is not one of her lesser titles now and will not be until it is created by an Act of Parliament and we were were told this by the Lord Chancellor, by people from the Department of Constitutional Affairs and by Royal aides. So no, not all posters agree with you because what you're saying is wrong. I've tried side-stepping the issue and being polite but you're not getting the message. You are wrong. An Act of Parliament IS needed for her to be Princess Consort. End of.

 

[Elspeth]

Well, it's obvious that people would ask questions about this Princess Consort stuff as soon as they mentioned it. While most Britons probably don't know (or care all that much) about the difference between the Princess of Wales/Duchess of Cornwall situation and the Queen Consort/Princess Consort situation, enough people do know the difference that someone was bound to raise the issue.

Maybe the negative response to John Major's comment about a separated Diana being crowned Queen just had them so spooked that they weren't thinking straight. But this whole business is just ridiculous. They've painted themselves into a corner in a room where it was obvious before they started that there weren't any doors or windows or even a fireplace in that corner.

 

[Avalon]

As Frothy said, we all agree that Camilla will be Queen and personally I would hate to see the day when she, being a Queen, would use a lesser title.
But I see no obstacles for Camilla to be known as the Princess Consort. Not be Princess Consort, just be known as such.

I think there are no rules in Britain that forbid anyone from using any title they want, unless they are impersonating someone. So Camilla could choose to be known as the Princess Consort, just as I could choose to be known as Princess of Armenia, when I am in Britain.

I don't want that to happen. But theoretically it can happen.

 

[Madame Royale]

Well, I'm pretty certain Australia would agree to the legislation required so there's at least one country

Its all very interesting.

 

[BeatrixFan]

I think there are no rules in Britain that forbid anyone from using any title they want, unless they are impersonating someone. So Camilla could choose to be known as the Princess Consort, just as I could choose to be known as Princess of Armenia, when I am in Britain.

You can't use a title you don't have and Camilla would be using a title she didn't have in place of her actual title. You can't choose to be known as Princess of Armenia in Britain - you wouldn't be allowed into the UK unless you had an Armenian version of the Deed Poll. For example, I'm changing my name via deed poll here and it's made very clear that although I'm going to be using a new name, I cannot legally be that name unless it's changed by an act of parliament but I can be known as that name. However, if I become an MP etc etc, I have to use my actual name with any titles I have. Well, that's the same for Camilla. She could be known socially as whatever she wanted to be known as but in all legal documents etc, she'd have to be cited as HM Queen Camilla and that's where it gets confusing so it's either do it properly through parliament or don't do it.

 

[Avalon]

You can't use a title you don't have and Camilla would be using a title she didn't have in place of her actual title. You can't choose to be known as Princess of Armenia in Britain - you wouldn't be allowed into the UK unless you had an Armenian version of the Deed Poll. For example, I'm changing my name via deed poll here and it's made very clear that although I'm going to be using a new name, I cannot legally be that name unless it's changed by an act of parliament but I can be known as that name. However, if I become an MP etc etc, I have to use my actual name with any titles I have. Well, that's the same for Camilla. She could be known socially as whatever she wanted to be known as but in all legal documents etc, she'd have to be cited as HM Queen Camilla and that's where it gets confusing so it's either do it properly through parliament or don't do it.

You've just ruined all my hopes of passing as Royalty in Britain!
Thanks for explaining, I certainly agree it would be much easier and would save loads of confusion if Camilla will be known under the title she will legally have - the Queen.

 

[BeatrixFan]

Britain has enough old Queens to last us a lifetime without our Armenian friends posing as Duchesses and Princesses. Name changing and titles is such a complex issue - I'm finding that out. The paper work is huge for me so it'd be titanic for Camilla.

 

[Frothy]

BeatrixFan,

Let us be absolutely clear. An act of Parliament is NOT needed to create her Princess Consort whatsoever, and I have offered you proof of that from a government department spokeswoman who is concerned with just this matter. You're wrong, the Government says you're wrong, and the Royal Family also say you are wrong. End of.

 

[Sister Morphine]

BeatrixFan,

Let us be absolutely clear. An act of Parliament is NOT needed to create her Princess Consort whatsoever, and I have offered you proof of that from a government department spokeswoman who is concerned with just this matter. You're wrong, the Government says you're wrong, and the Royal Family also say you are wrong. End of.

They why has BeatrixFan presented evidence saying the contrary? How could Parliament NOT be involved in this?


Aren't you the person, when discussing your "source", who stated that you couldn't divulge who they are? I don't know if that counts as "proof".

 

[Frothy]

I've linked to sources: one from the relevant Govt dept and the other the Royal Family's website! A government department trumps Panorama. I'm watching the show as we speak and it is tosh - for example, if you agreed with what was in this show you would be saying the marriage itself was illegal! Despite the Lord Chancellor stating this marriage is fully legal, the Panorama "expert" says it's nevertheless not! I hardly think most of us on this thread think that her correct title is Mrs. Parker-Bowles.

 

[BeatrixFan]

Exactly. Until you give us the name of your source, a statement from her in her role as a spokesperson for the Department of Constitutional Affairs then I'll stick with the evidence I've got from that department and from the Lord Chancellor that tells me otherwise and I'm sorry if that upsets you.

 

[Frothy]

BeatrixFan, that quote came from a Times story, I linked to it many moons ago in this thread. I am staying up to watch your Panorama programme through to see if there's anything in it to match your earlier post today. So far, they discussed the Princess Consort title and at no point - none whatsoever - did they say legislation would be needed to create this title. Is there a second discussion of the matter later in the show? I am at the Pope's funeral bit.

 

[Frothy]

Blimey, BeatrixFan, I do think that's a bit bad of you. I took you at your word that this Panorama programme contained statements from the Lord Chancellor, or from Government, that legislation would be needed to create the title "Princess Consort" and for Camilla to use it.

It says no such thing at any point whatsoever.

On the contrary and as I have repeatedly posted, legislation will be needed to deny her her role as Queen. We all knew that already. It says nothing anywhere that legislation is needed to make the PC title or to call her that. In fact their commentator Jonathan Dimbleby says exactlywhat I have been saying all along - legally Queen but using the PC title.

It is a - well, I don't know what TRF rules are so I want to be careful - a total inaccuracy to say that this show states legislation is needed to create her Princess Consort! How could you come on here and say that it does!

Posters wishing to check this for themselves can watch the show - the Princess Consort bit starts at around twenty minutes in and it is clear to see this assertion is utterly false.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/nolavconsole/ukfs_news/hi/bb_wm_fs.stm?news=1&bbram=1&bbwm=1&nbram=1&nbwm=1&nol_storyid=4303296

Starts at 19:15 or so.

 

[BeatrixFan]

Right. I'm a liar. Burn me at the stake and spit on my perfectly formed face. I didn't remember a programme word for word that was broadcast 2 years ago. Well what sort of a person am I? It's a wonder I haven't been shot by now you know. I was sure the Panorama programme said that - I'll have to watch it again for myself. Anyway dear, now that you've proved me wrong, give me the chance to prove you wrong and give us your "sources".

 

[Sister Morphine]

How can you use a title that doesn't exist? The Duchess of Cornwall exists.....it's one of the titles she received when marrying Charles. However, the wife of a King has but one title. So, if she's to use another one.....where will she get it from? A magic hat? A flying unicorn with a bag of titles?


I'm reading an article from the London Times dated March 22, 2005 as I type, and it says the following:

CAMILLA Parker Bowles will become Queen unless Parliament legislates to strip her of the right to the title, it was confirmed yesterday. The admission by the Department for Constitutional Affairs contradicts repeated assertions by Clarence House that she will be known only as Princess Consort on her husband’s succession, and not Queen.

NI_MPU('middle');
Any change to her status may also have to be approved by the 17 parliaments in countries where the new King will be head of state.

I also see this:

A spokeswoman for the Department for Constitutional Affairs, headed by Lord Falconer of Thoroton, the Lord Chancellor, said that an Act of Parliament would be required.

And this:

Asked about the position of other countries where the Prince of Wales would become head of state on his succession, the spokeswoman replied: “I think you are right in thinking it would require legislation for her not to be Queen.”
Another official at the department said: “There definitely has to be legislation because it is changing the role of the wife of the monarch. That has to be approved by Parliament.”

So are all these people liars?

 

[BeatrixFan]

Ok, I was wrong on the Panorama front although I could have sworn I saw Lord Falconer on there telling us what Sister Morphine has managed to post here;

A spokeswoman for the Department for Constitutional Affairs, headed by Lord Falconer of Thoroton, the Lord Chancellor, said that an Act of Parliament would be required.

 

[Sister Morphine]

More from that same article:

The Thurrock MP asked whether the proposed marriage of HRH the Prince of Wales to Camilla Parker Bowles was “morganatic”, by which Mrs Parker Bowles would not inherit on the Prince’s death.
Mr Leslie replied: “No.”


Patrick Cracroft-Brennan, the editor of Cracroft’s Peerage, said: “It has been a tradition for more than 1,000 years that the wife of the King automatically becomes Queen. They will have to legislate. If they don’t they are tampering with centuries of English tradition and history.”

So, if the marriage is not morgantic....the title Princess Consort would suggest that it was. Why would she get a title that goes against the kind of marriage she entered into? This isn't like the Princess de Rethy over in Belgium.

 

[BeatrixFan]

As Queen Mary said when it was suggested that Wallis and Edward have a morganatic marriage; "This isn't Belgium you know!".

 

[Madame Royale]

How can you use a title that doesn't exist?

Well, quite simply one is created.lol.

 

[BeatrixFan]

Created by an act of parliament.

 

[Elspeth]

BeatrixFan,

Let us be absolutely clear. An act of Parliament is NOT needed to create her Princess Consort whatsoever, and I have offered you proof of that from a government department spokeswoman who is concerned with just this matter. You're wrong, the Government says you're wrong, and the Royal Family also say you are wrong. End of.

You haven't offered proof. You've quoted from a spokeswoman who says she can be called Princess Consort without legislation, and you're accepting what the royal family website says about her future title. The point at issue here is that branchg and Beatrixfan (and, it seems, other posters) are saying that the royal family website is incorrect because she won't actually BE Princess Consort without legislation, so she'd have to be calling herself by a title she doesn't actually possess. It would have no legal standing, and she would still have to sign any legal documents with her HM title, not some HRH title that's basically some sort of fiction. I'm sure she could call herself Princess Consort (or Bozo the Clown), but without legislation, it's just a title attached to nothing.

While I suppose it's possible that this scenario could happen, it seems more Gilbertian than real.

 

[wbenson]

Couldn't the title "Princess Consort" just be created by a Royal Warrant, as the title of "Princess Royal" is? No other title needs an act of Parliament to be created, so I don't see why Princess Consort should. Of course, that doesn't mean she wouldn't be the Queen, which she most definitely will be when Charles accedes.

 

[BeatrixFan]

If a Dukedom is created, you're giving someone a new title which they can use as they wish. However, if you create a Dukedom and say that a King must now be known as a Duke, then that needs an Act of Parliament as you're replacing one office with a new one.

 

[branchg]

I agree that that Camilla will de jure be Queen, as the rightful wedded spouse of The King. Like now, she is de jure Princess of Wales, being the rightful wedded spouse of The Prince of Wales.

But de facto, she is only always and everywhere, officially and unofficially, 'known as' The Duchess of Cornwall. The fact that both on the official site of the monarchy as on the site of The Prince of Wales, still can be read: "It is intended that The Duchess of Cornwall will use the title HRH The Princess Consort when The Prince of Wales accedes to The Throne."

Yes, 'intended', but still it are no murmurings during an interview, it is written black on white on official websites and outspoken in official statements. That makes me doubt about the future de facto situation.

This makes me think about the Netherlands, where the intention is that the spouse of the Sovereign will officially be styled HRH The Prince (Princess) of the Netherlands, no matter the gender of the spouse. Will Charles, who wants to adapt monarchy to the Third Millennium, streamline the styles too, in an attempt to make it more in line with today's egalitarian views?

Such a step would however set a precedent for the wife of William and his successors...

It is not the same thing. By virtue of her marriage to Charles, she is HRH The Princess Charles, Princess of Wales, Duchess of Cornwall, Duchess of Rothesay, etc. She holds the rights and precedence of her position as the wife of the heir to the throne and uses the style of HRH The Duchess of Cornwall, rather than her senior one as Princess of Wales. It does not change her precedence in the UK.

By virtue of her husband's ascension to the throne, she automatically becomes HM Queen Camilla. There is no other title or style for the wife of the King at this time. Because the Consort is styled by parliamentary precedent, any deviation requires approval from Parliament, particularly since holding a lesser rank (which Princess Consort is) implies a morganatic marriage where none exists.

 

[branchg]

Couldn't the title "Princess Consort" just be created by a Royal Warrant, as the title of "Princess Royal" is? No other title needs an act of Parliament to be created, so I don't see why Princess Consort should. Of course, that doesn't mean she wouldn't be the Queen, which she most definitely will be when Charles accedes.

No, because the title is being created for a Queen Consort who holds superior rank and precedence as the wife of the King. The rank, title and style of "HRH Princess of the UK" is governed by the 1917 Letters Patent of George V and does not apply to a Queen.

There has to be legislation from Parliament to remove her rank and title as HM The Queen, which then frees The King to make her a princess of the UK with precedence after His Majesty.

 

[branchg]

So, if the marriage is not morgantic....the title Princess Consort would suggest that it was. Why would she get a title that goes against the kind of marriage she entered into? This isn't like the Princess de Rethy over in Belgium.

That's the real problem here. Camilla and Charles have an equal marriage where she shares all of his titles, styles and rank. So, how do you suddenly "downgrade" her rank and title as Queen once Charles is The Sovereign?

It just doesn't add up and Clarence House knows it. They tried to slip it in and say, "oh, don't worry....she won't be Queen, she'll be Princess Consort instead" when there is no constitutional basis for making that statement.

Unless Parliament and the Crown Commonwealth agree to alter the title and style of the succession, it's not going to happen.

 

[BeatrixFan]

Why didnt she just use the Princess of Wales title and have done with it? Its caused so many problems. She should have gone with the Princess of Wales title and they should have been honest and said, yes, she will be Queen. It would save so much hassle.

 

[sirhon11234]

quote

Why didnt she just use the Princess of Wales title and have done with it? Its caused so many problems. She should have gone with the Princess of Wales title and they should have been honest and said, yes, she will be Queen. It would save so much hassle.

Because Camilla and Clarence House knew that the Princess of Wales title is too much associated with Diana.

 

[ysbel]

That's going to be a major problem for William's future bride when Charles becomes King.

 

[wbenson]

No, because the title is being created for a Queen Consort who holds superior rank and precedence as the wife of the King. The rank, title and style of "HRH Princess of the UK" is governed by the 1917 Letters Patent of George V and does not apply to a Queen.

There has to be legislation from Parliament to remove her rank and title as HM The Queen, which then frees The King to make her a princess of the UK with precedence after His Majesty.

On the not being a Princess part, the Duke of Edinburgh is not covered by the letters patent of 1917, but he was created HRH in 1947 and a Prince of the United Kingdom in 1957. I don't see why she couldn't simply be granted those titles in addition to the title of HM the Queen, and then just use the Princess Consort titles. I wouldn't agree with it however, and I would prefer to see her as Queen.