BeatrixFan, Elspeth and others,
the quote that Sister Morphine is quoting from is the exact same article I have been quoting from and yes it offers proof:
I shall now quote the lot of it.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,19769-1535536,00.html
Camilla Parker Bowles will automatically become Queen when the Prince of Wales succeeds to the throne unless there is a change in the law, the Government confirmed tonight.
NI_MPU('middle');The Department for Constitutional Affairs admitted legislation would be needed no matter what Camilla wished to call herself when Charles becomes King, to prevent this happening. [Frothy - ie to prevent her becoming Queen, not to make her PC in addition]
It is believed to be the first time that the Government has acknowledged this stance on the record.
Clarence House has previously insisted that the Government agreed with its view, taken from legal advice, that it was only a convention for the wife of the King to be known as Queen. The Prince's aides did admit, when the royal engagement was announced, that legislation might be needed to tidy the issue up later on.
Mrs Parker Bowles will be known as the Duchess of Cornwall after her marriage at Windsor on April 8 and intends to take the title Princess Consort when the Prince accedes the throne.
A Department for Constitutional Affairs spokeswoman confirmed that legislation would be needed for Camilla not to become Queen automatically on Charles's succession.
"I think traditionally that's probably the case because in all similar circumstances in the past in past royal marriages that is what has happened," said the spokeswoman.
"But I think she is not going to be referred to as Queen, she will be referred to as the Princess Consort." 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."
Tony Blair's official spokesman said: "The position at the moment is limited to what the title would be on her marriage. In terms of any future events, let's wait until future events arise."
On the question of whether Mrs Parker Bowles would automatically become Queen in the absence of legislation, the spokesman added: "I'm not disputing what you have said." [Frothy - but legislation, again, needed only to strip her of being Queen, not for PC to be added]
A Clarence House spokesman said tonight: "With any legal situation there are always different views.
"If the Government said legislation would be needed it wouldn't be a problem. It can easily be done in the Civil List Act. "This is something which is a long way in the future, we hope."
Earlier the Government confirmed that the marriage will not be "morganatic", which means that the couple's decision not to call her Queen Camilla will have no legal standing. [Frothy - this bit scares me - does this mean Charles is in fact prepared to have legislation on the books taking even the legal status of Queen from Camilla? Sounds like it ]
continues
Christopher Leslie, Constitutional Affairs Minister, confirmed the status of the marriage in a written Commons reply to Labour backbencher Andrew Mackinlay.
The Thurrock MP asked whether "the proposed marriage of HRH the Prince of Wales to Camilla Parker Bowles is morganatic". Mr Leslie replied: "No."
NI_MPU('middle');Mr Mackinlay said: "This is absolutely unequivocal, that she automatically becomes Queen when he becomes King."
Mrs Parker Bowles will be known as the Duchess of Cornwall after her marriage and Princess Consort when the Prince of Wales succeeds to the throne.
Mr Mackinlay said that legislation would be needed in 17 parliaments around the world, where the British monarch is head of state, for the change to be made.
"I’m perfectly happy for the Prince of Wales to marry whoever he likes, but altering the constitution is Parliament’s business and this does require an alteration to the constitution," he said. "It shouldn’t be done for one man and one man alone.
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."
So there we are. The Department of Constitutional Affairs admits, as was also said in the Panorama programme posted by BeatrixFan, as we have all agreed
ad nauseam on this thread, that for Camilla to be anything other than Queen legislation will be required.
But as another poster points out a page or so back, legislation is not needed to
create titles. As BeatrixFan so crossly said "End of." Legislation is
never needed to
create a title. Nothing but letters patent are needed to create a title.
Therefore as long as it is commonly accepted - and all authorities accept it - that Camilla is legally Queen, the King may also create her a Princess in her own right and she can then use that lesser title. She is Queen in his right due to her marriage.
Queens may and do bear other titles in their own right, usually inherited ones they brought to the marriage, eg Eleanor of Acquitaine, Archduchess of Acquitaine.
In fact the Panorama bolsters my case on this. It shows MPs debating and constitutional experts agreeing only that legislation is needed to take away the title of Queen. Not to make her Princess Consort. Jonathan Dimbleby says that she will definitely be Queen but still be known as Princess Consort - which is exactly what the Palace and Clarence House says on their websites today, and what is commonly understood to be the case on the UK.
So there you have it. 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.
In the UK, we don't use legislation to create titles.
BranchQ, I would be interested in the source or proof for your post that the Queen may not hold an additional and lesser title in her own right?