King Charles and Queen Camilla

[BeatrixFan]

Well of course they do but don't tell me that you honestly believe everything they say? They said George V had died peacefully in his sleep when in fact, his doctor had finished him off. They say what sounds pretty and fits with the image most of the time.

 

[Warren]

Exactly as I have always said, legislation is needed to remove the rank of Queen. No legislation is needed to create her Princess Consort in addition.

Frothy, do you mean to say that this debate, which has raged over 11 pages and precisely 213 posts, has been resolved in two sentences?

 

[Frothy]

Avreenah, thank you!

Just about everybody accepts that Camilla will be known as Princess Consort when the Queen dies. The govt says so. Buck/Clarence House say so on their official websites. The BBC says so. The Times says so. Everybody says so!

Except TRF posters!

Look, there are a sizeable body of so-called "experts", some trotted out on that Panorama slot, that say that the marriage wasn't legal and Camilla is still Mrs. Camilla Parker-Bowles - and they are using the same arguments BranchQ has been advancing, that of precedent. There was no precedent for a member or the BRF to marry in a registry office and it was specifically forbidden in two Marriages Acts and Princess Margaret was not allowed to marry because of just this rule. The "law" said no, legislation required? To overturn the precedent?

It absolutely wasn't. They used the Human Rights Act, an amorphous blob of cover-all law and Parliament went through no sessions.

But today, anybody want to argue that she isn't the Duchess of Cornwall?

As long as Camilla remains Queen, legislation is not needed. Just a letters Patent. 'Her Majesty the Queen is also gazetted in the additional style of Her Royal Highness the Princess Consort and will use the same.... Her Royal Highness will retain all her rights and precedence as Queen" or words to that effect.

Problem solved! No laws needed!

Precedence is a flimsy reed. If precedence had held legal force Camilla would not now be Duchess due to her wedding being a civil ceremony.

 

[Frothy]

Warren!

Two sentences.... back up by about 500 pages of prior posts, or in this case, a long and dull article from the Times and a longer and duller BBC Panorama programme (which post-dates it, March vs October '05, proving that post-wedding nothing had changed).

And then there is the small matter of the unchanged official position of the BRF on their websites, which f course are .gov websites.

Hey, I have an idea. Shall I write to the Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs and see what he says. I could submit the reply to a an admin, if they guarantee my own name/email address will remain confidential, and we could then post it.

Not that I don't love going round endlessly on this subject smile:

 

[BeatrixFan]

And so we're back to the beginning again. She won't be known as the Princess Consort. This is what we've spent 11 pages trying to explain to you. They may have said that but they have since told us that it's an impossibility without legislation. That's the whole point. We're saying that she can't be Princess Consort without an act of parliament and thats what Buckingham Palace and Clarence House have since said, with the total and full backing of the Department of Constitutional Affairs. Do we really have to go through all this again? It needs an act of parliament. It doesn't just need a Letters Patent at all. Lord Falconer has explained all of this, his aides and legal team have explained it ad nauseum. He explained it at length to Gyles Brandreth and it's in Gyles's book - Charles and Camilla ; Portrait of a Love Affair. Maybe we should just agree that in your world she'll be Princess Consort and in the real world she'll be Queen Camilla because that's what she'll be and only an act of parliament will change that, an act of parliament we will never see passed through the House of Lords or introduced by a socialist government.

 

[BeatrixFan]

Hey, I have an idea. Shall I write to the Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs and see what he says. I could submit the reply to a an admin, if they guarantee my own name/email address will remain confidential, and we could then post it.

Well you told us you had inside information that said an act of parliament wasn't needed so don't write to the SoS for Const. Affairs, just give us a statement from your source in the department that we can verify and then we'll happily ignore all the evidence stacked up against your argument.

 

[Frothy]

BeatrixFan

They may have said that but they have since told us that it's an impossibility without legislation. That's the whole point. We're saying that she can't be Princess Consort without an act of parliament and thats what Buckingham Palace and Clarence House have since said, with the total and full backing of the Department of Constitutional Affairs.

I really don't know if you are just trying to pull my chain, or what.

Nobody has said that. It doesn't say that in the article above, it doesn't say that in Panorama, the Lord Chancellor did not say that, and Buck/Clarence House have never said that.

Where? Please, can you cite a source? What I am quoting says the exact opposite to what you are saying. She can't be Princess Consort instead of Queen without an Act, but that's not what we are discussing here. We are discussing as well as.

 

[Frothy]

BeatrixFan,

You appear to refuse to accept the fully sourced, linked-to right above you statement by the Dept. of Constitutional Affairs that legislation is only needed to deny her the right to be Queen, not to style her Princess Consort. It's there. It's sourced. I don't get what you don't accept, do you argue that the Times made up the quotation?

 

[User0501]

BeatrixFan



I really don't know if you are just trying to pull my chain, or what.

Nobody has said that. It doesn't say that in the article above, it doesn't say that in Panorama, the Lord Chancellor did not say that, and Buck/Clarence House have never said that.

Where? Please, can you cite a source? What I am quoting says the exact opposite to what you are saying. She can't be Princess Consort instead of Queen without an Act, but that's not what we are discussing here. We are discussing as well as.

By right Camilla will be queen upon HRH Prince Charles ascension to the throne but she prefers to be as The Princess Consort instead of HM The Queen.Even though she will be addressed as HRH The Princess Consort,she will receive all the privileges as a queen not privileges as a Princess Consort.So it is just pure her preferences to be called as HRH The Princess Consort.So you can address her as either HRH The Princess Consort or HM The Queen or HM Queen Camilla.All salutation refers to only one person that is Camilla.

 

[BeatrixFan]

For the love of Joe Dolan! I'm not trying to pull your chain, I couldn't give Harold Bishop's left earlobe to be quite honest but it does puzzle me a) why you're disregarding evidence from the Lord Chancellor and his office, from Buckingham Palace and Clarence House and numerous constitutional experts and b) why you change the subject whenever we question your "source". I mean, what are we discussing here? I give up. Let someone else have a go because I'm truly confused. You call her Princess Consort, I'll call her Queen and we can all run under a bus together.

 

[BeatrixFan]

It's there. It's sourced. I don't get what you don't accept, do you argue that the Times made up the quotation?

Sorry luv, I don't actually care what it says anymore. You've won this one. I just can't be bothered.

 

[Frothy]

BF, I'm happy to call a "let's agree to disagree" truce if you want because we'll never convince each other but I want to clear some stuff up

For the love of Joe Dolan! I'm not trying to pull your chain, I couldn't give Harold Bishop's left earlobe to be quite honest but it does puzzle me a) why you're disregarding evidence from the Lord Chancellor and his office, from Buckingham Palace and Clarence House and numerous constitutional experts and b) why you change the subject whenever we question your "source".

What evidence, where? I'm not trying to be stubborn here. You said the evidence was in the Panorama show so I watched the entire thing, start to finish, and (sad, sad person confesses) got so caught up in this silly debate that I stayed up way past my bedtime to do it. But there wasn't any mention of it in the show except to back up what I've been arguing.

Re: "my source" I never said I had one other than what I am publicly linking to. I said (and probably shouldn't have, it was sheer frustration) that I am sort of (very distantly indeed) involved professionally. I can't elaborate without giving away my id and don't want to and you can safely ignore that.

When I say "I have cited sources" I'm not talking about some mysterious robed figure from the royal household or the Lord Chancellor's office. I'm talking about the publicly available

a) article from the Times now reprinted in full with link and quote from the D of CA

b) websites of the BRF and the Prince of Wales/Duchess of Cornwall which are of course also government websites.

These aren't my private sources they are open public ones. If you have some equivalent link, or BranchQ does, to the Lord Chancellor saying that legislation will be needed not just to remove the queenship but also to create her Princess Consort then please, do give it to me and I will issue a fulsome and crawling apology.

All the proof thus far publicly available says legislation needed to change her status as Queen. I don't see anything else from anyone else but I will acknowlegde it the second it's posted, I promise you!

Otherwise agree to disagree and say with me "May the Queen live forever, Amen!"

 

[Warren]

Reduce the argument to its basics:

• Can Camilla be stripped of her Queenly title? No, not without legislation (we are all agreed on this).

• Can a new title be created by Letters Patent? Yes, we know the Sovereign can create new titles.

Which leads to:

• Can such a newly-created title be "overlaid" on top of 'HM Queen Camilla' so that she "is known as" HRH Princess Consort? This is the part we should be discussing.

 

[Skydragon]

Reduce the argument to its basics:

• Can such a newly-created title be "overlaid" on top of 'HM Queen Camilla' so that she "is known as" HRH Princess Consort? This is the part we should be discussing.

Well as Lord/Lady whatever, you can choose to be known as anything, you just can't promote yourself. For all legal matters you would still have to be shown as Lord/Lady whatever, with the aka detailed.

I don't know whether the same rules apply to a British Queen.

 

[User0501]

Reduce the argument to its basics:

• Can Camilla be stripped of her Queenly title? No, not without legislation (we are all agreed on this).

• Can a new title be created by Letters Patent? Yes, we know the Sovereign can create new titles.

Which leads to:

• Can such a newly-created title be "overlaid" on top of 'HM Queen Camilla' so that she "is known as" HRH Princess Consort? This is the part we should be discussing.

Yes,a queen can hold or carry many titles,

 

[Frothy]

Warren: proving once again that brevity is the soul of wit.

 

[Jo of Palatine]

On the other hand there is nothing to stop you NOT using a title you are entitled to, in everyday life.

Yes, but there needed to be legislation to do that - just think of Tony Benn. From wikipedia: The Peerage Act 1963, allowing renunciation of peerages, was given the Royal Assent and became law shortly after 6 p.m. on July 31, 1963. Benn was the first peer to renounce his title, at 6.22 p.m. that day.

Okay, you may argue that being a member of praliament was not everyday life....

 

[Madame Royale]

You call her Princess Consort, I'll call her Queen and we can all run under a bus together.

.lol. Oh Sam....

 

[Skydragon]

Yes, but there needed to be legislation to do that - just think of Tony Benn. From wikipedia: The Peerage Act 1963, allowing renunciation of peerages, was given the Royal Assent and became law shortly after 6 p.m. on July 31, 1963. Benn was the first peer to renounce his title, at 6.22 p.m. that day.

Okay, you may argue that being a member of praliament was not everyday life....

The difference here Jo, was that Tony Benn wanted to renounce his peerage.

It wasn't a case of him just wanting to be known as, he was desperate to continue to stand in parliament, something he could not do as a peer of the realm.

If politics were not involved he could have been aka Bozo Benn.

 

[Jo of Palatine]

Avreenah, thank you!

Just about everybody accepts that Camilla will be known as Princess Consort when the Queen dies. The govt says so. Buck/Clarence House say so on their official websites. The BBC says so. The Times says so. Everybody says so!

That's not true. Constitutional experts discuss exactly this situation in legal journals. It's very probably true that legislation is needed to strip the title and rank of queen from Camilla, once her husband acceeds to the throne.

The constitutional question is: can the queen be a HRH? History shows that all wifes of kings (when they were still alive at the time of the accession) held the title of queen and used it. The case of queen Caroline shows that the king cannot strip his wife of this title and rank.

The case of the male consorts of British queens show that there is no fixed way to deal with that situation - each queen did it her way. It is possible to let the prince keep his own Royal title instead of giving him a British title (Georg of Denmark, husband of Queen Anne, though he had a British title prior to his marriage in addition but received none on his marriage), he can be created a duke and /or Prince of the UK (Prince Philip), he can even be made king consort (Philip of Spain, husband of Queen Mary Tudor). As there is no written constitution and there is no precedence, the question is: can the king create the queen a princess? Is this within his rights? Or does he need legislation for that? And what does that mean for the next queen-to-be? That's the question and it is not yet decided, IMHO - as legal experts are still writing about it.

 

[branchg]

Can such a newly-created title be "overlaid" on top of 'HM Queen Camilla' so that she "is known as" HRH Princess Consort? This is the part we should be discussing.

She cannot hold the style and rank of Royal Highness as Her Majesty because the precedent and position is lower than being Queen, again implying a morganatic marriage where none exists.

Did Queen Elizabeth II retain her birthstyle of HRH Princess Elizabeth upon ascension to the throne? No, it merged with the Crown.

Did Queen Elizabeth the Queen Mother retain her rank and style of HRH The Princess Albert, The Duchess of York when George VI became King? No, because she no longer was the wife of HRH The Duke of York, but the wife of The King.

There is simply no constitutional mechanism for a Queen Consort to hold a lesser rank while still retaining her place and position as HM. It would be a morganatic marriage, which has never existed for The Sovereign.

 

[Jo of Palatine]

Here I found an article which gives a bit more information (from AFP, 22.3.2005 - so the info could be outdated).

[FONT=verdana,tahoma,arial,helvetica] However, the Department of Constitutional Affairs confirmed on Monday that Parker Bowles would be queen once Charles takes the throne.[/FONT]
[FONT=verdana,tahoma,arial,helvetica]
[/FONT]
[FONT=verdana,tahoma,arial,helvetica]"Technically, she will be queen" [/FONT]
[FONT=verdana,tahoma,arial,helvetica] "Technically, she will be queen," department spokesperson Zoe Campbell told AFP. [/FONT]
[FONT=verdana,tahoma,arial,helvetica] The news followed a written House of Commons question to the department by Andrew Mackinlay, a lawmaker for the ruling Labour Party, who asked whether the April 8 marriage would be "morganatic." [/FONT]
[FONT=verdana,tahoma,arial,helvetica] He was using an arcane term referring to cases in which someone of royal or noble birth marries someone of lower rank and does not share any titles. [/FONT]
[FONT=verdana,tahoma,arial,helvetica] Constitutional Affairs Minister Christopher Leslie gave a simple reply: "No". [/FONT]
[FONT=verdana,tahoma,arial,helvetica] "This is absolutely unequivocal that she automatically becomes queen when he becomes king," Mackinlay said on Monday.[/FONT]
[FONT=verdana,tahoma,arial,helvetica]
[/FONT]
[FONT=verdana,tahoma,arial,helvetica]No formal constitution [/FONT]
[FONT=verdana,tahoma,arial,helvetica] The Department of Constitutional Affairs stressed, however, that much of the argument was academic, given the fact that Britain has no formal constitution, just a series of laws and conventions that have evolved over the centuries. [/FONT]
[FONT=verdana,tahoma,arial,helvetica] There was no single law stating that someone with Parker Bowles's future position "will be known as queen", Campbell said. [/FONT]
[FONT=verdana,tahoma,arial,helvetica] "When you say constitutional and legal norms, a lot of it is down to convention rather than legislation, which is why she can be referred to as whatever she likes without having to change the law," she said. "She can be referred to as the Duchess of Cornwall or Princess Consort without any change to the law." [/FONT]
[FONT=verdana,tahoma,arial,helvetica] There were no moves to change the law to prevent Parker Bowles being queen, Campbell added.[/FONT]
[FONT=verdana,tahoma,arial,helvetica]
[/FONT]
[FONT=verdana,tahoma,arial,helvetica]Royal convention [/FONT]
[FONT=verdana,tahoma,arial,helvetica] It is royal convention that decrees that the wife of a king is known as queen, while husbands of female monarchs such as Elizabeth's spouse Prince Philip, do not become king. [/FONT]
[FONT=verdana,tahoma,arial,helvetica] This centrality of convention meant that it was simply "not true" to say Parker Bowles would eventually be queen, Prince Charles's office insisted later on Monday. [/FONT]
[FONT=verdana,tahoma,arial,helvetica] "Our position has always been that you become queen only by convention, not by statute, not by law," a spokesperson for Clarence House said. [/FONT]
[FONT=verdana,tahoma,arial,helvetica] "Our understanding is that the government agrees with our position," he said. [/FONT]

 

[Jo of Palatine]

I quote from the above cited article:

[FONT=verdana,tahoma,arial,helvetica] "Our position has always been that you become queen only by convention, not by statute, not by law," a spokesperson for Clarence House said.

It seems this (is? has been? was?) the opinion of The RF: that there is no law about that the qife of the king is the queen.

But is that true?


[/FONT]

 

[branchg]

As there is no written constitution and there is no precedence, the question is: can the king create the queen a princess? Is this within his rights? Or does he need legislation for that? And what does that mean for the next queen-to-be? That's the question and it is not yet decided, IMHO - as legal experts are still writing about it.

As the fount of honour and source of all enoblement, The Sovereign can create any title or rank for a commoner or member of the royal family. What The Sovereign cannot do is strip the rank and title of a Queen Consort and grant her a lower one.

That requires parliamentary intervention through legislation. Once passed, The King could then issue letters patent creating Camilla Mountbatten-Windsor a Princess of the UK with the rank of HRH.

 

[branchg]

I quote from the above cited article:

[FONT=verdana,tahoma,arial,helvetica]"Our position has always been that you become queen only by convention, not by statute, not by law," a spokesperson for Clarence House said.

It seems this (is? has been? was?) the opinion of The RF: that there is no law about that the qife of the king is the queen.

But is that true?


[/FONT]

Total baloney. The precedents of 1936 makes this a total fallacy, if not outright deception. If true, than Edward VIII could have married Wallis and made her HRH The Duchess of Lancaster as Churchill suggested.

It's nonsense.

 

[Jo of Palatine]

There is simply no constitutional mechanism for a Queen Consort to hold a lesser rank while still retaining her place and position as HM.

But king William III. retained all his Dutch titles and offices (such as that of the Prince of Orange and the Statholder) while he was king of England and Scotland. That's what the official webpage of the Dutch Royal family says.

Where does it say that the king cannot be a peer? If so, then the queen regnant cannot be a peeress either. Can a queen consort? Is a princess a peeress?

 

[Jo of Palatine]

Total baloney. The precedents of 1936 makes this a total fallacy, if not outright deception. If true, than Edward VIII could have married Wallis and made her HRH The Duchess of Lancaster as Churchill suggested.

It's nonsense.

Yes, it looks that way. But if that was the way Clarence House wanted to go - then they cannot do it now. And there have been no other explanations from Clarence House since. Only that it is "intended"...

 

[Frothy]

So does this not resolve the issue?

"When you say constitutional and legal norms, a lot of it is down to convention rather than legislation, which is why she can be referred to as whatever she likes without having to change the law," she said. "She can be referred to as the Duchess of Cornwall or Princess Consort without any change to the law."

Branchq, again, if precedent meant anything Camilla would not even be Charles's wife today b/c of the "Royals can't marry civilly' precedents.

Your earlier post refers to all titles held in the right of the husband. As Queen she can't be Duchess of Cornwall.

But there is no reason why she should not be an HRH in her own right, a new title, and use that instead.

Edit to add: this would mimic the situation as I understand it in Holland where the wife of the King/husband of the Queen will be created a Prince/ss of the Netherlands in their own right.

The 'own right' would make it not morganatic.

 

[Frothy]

The PoW was wrong to think that she would not automatically become queen however. The Times article post-dates this. She will be queen but referred to as Princess Consort.

 

[BeatrixFan]

Then what's the point in having a monarchy at all?