Questions about British Styles and Titles 1: Ending 2022


If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Status
Not open for further replies.
Do you disagree? For example, is there reason to suggest that Edoardo Mapelli Mozzi's father, who has called himself Count Alessandro in British newspapers although he is legally untitled, has been forbidden from continuing to use that title?
Has the court ever used that title for him? Because we are currently talking about the British royal family that previously intended using a title that some suggested could freely be used if if she didn't have any rights to that title.

The British royal house already officially addresses people by what you refer to as "made-up titles". Buckingham Palace for some reason declined to use Count for Alessandro Mapelli Mozzi, but they have used other titles which are not backed by legislation, such as King for the former monarch of Greece.
They do indeed address foreign royalty by their original titles. While there is some analogy, this case is quite different as we are discussing a very prominent member of the British royal family within a country that still is a monarchy, who (in that scenario that isn't going to play out) would have another legal title.

So, I still think it would have been very unwise (and neither feasible nor legal to 'usurp' the title of Princess) if they would have used a title and style she would not hold - especially while the solution is rather simple: use a title you do hold or have the Sovereign create the title that for some reason you/they want (her) to hold.

Of course, we don't know what BP's plan was, probably they figured out that it wasn't as simple as they originally thought...

I am not sure the British royal family would find the "treat everybody consistently" argument compelling. They have not been models of consistency even in regards to well-established titles.
To that I wholeheartedly agree. Consistency is not their trademark.

However, I am quite sure they wouldn't be pleased (and would refuse to do so) if wives of peers require to be called 'Your Royal Highness Princess X' instead of the title they do carry (for example Your Grace The Duchess of Y) because of their marriage. Nor would they do so for any other person that claimed a title they did not possess (for example if someone would request to be called 'Your Grace the Duchess of London') because they live in London. If they would ever receive an invitation from Buckingham Palace, that would not be how they would be addressed.

I respect your point of view, but I think that would be too nuanced for the kind of controversy-stirring media coverage which I think you are alluding to. It is more likely in my eyes that such coverage would focus on the simpler issue of Camilla not being called queen. But as this is very speculative, we probably should agree to disagree.
Let's do that or why might keep going in circles :flowers:
 
Last edited:
This whole debate is going in circles. [.....] Camilla will be known as any other wife of a reigning King as been known. Anything else would require an LP. This is really very simple and straightforward.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
First off, she had an affair with Charles WAY before the marriage was over. One of many reasons the marriage ended, causing Diana much pain. Yes, I realize she wasn’t a saint. I realize that ideally Charles and Diana wouldn’t have gotten married.
I am not saying she’s not good enough to be his wife- I’m saying she MAY not be good enough to hold the title of Queen- there’s a difference between good wife, and good Queen IMO.
I’m really trying to understand all sides while I’m dealing with strong emotions.
Part of me says Diana is dead,Camilla is going to be the King’s wife, for the sake of the future, let her be Queen. The larger part says to reward her with Queen is wrong.

The marriage ended before 1986 and that is the year that Diana claimed Charles returned to Camilla. By that date there were already questions about Diana's fidelity as she had had a bodyguard sacked for being found in a 'compromising position' with her (I have heard she was in bed with him but also she was in a clinch on the lounge). Charles makes it clear that he didn't return to Camilla until after the marriage had 'irretrievable broken down both of us having tried'. The marriage was effectively over by late 1984 and definitely by 1986 even though they did nothing official about it until 1992.

You are saying she isn't good enough to be his wife if you are saying she isn't good enough to be his Queen as under UK laws, precedence and tradition they are the same thing - if she is good enough to be his wife then she is good enough to be his Queen.

It would be wrong, and probably illegal, in fact for her not to be Queen.

It would also require legislation (and I am now hearing not just in the UK, which has been known since 2005 but in all the realms) to formally strip her of the title of Queen and thus demote her to a lesser being than every other woman in the UK.

That would mean she would the HM The Queen for a month or so and then the parliament having a debate about the worthiness of one woman to be the same as every other woman in the country. It would probably be the end of the monarchy itself to have such a debate.
 
However, I am quite sure they wouldn't be pleased (and would refuse to do so) if wives of peers require to be called 'Your Royal Highness Princess X' instead of the title they do carry (for example Your Grace The Duchess of Y) because of their marriage. Nor would they do so for any other person that claimed a title they did not possess (for example if someone would request to be called 'Your Grace the Duchess of London') because they live in London. If they would ever receive an invitation from Buckingham Palace, that would not be how they would be addressed.

I quite agree, the secretaries of Buckingham Palace would not address "any" London resident as Duchess of London simply because that person requested it. But I am also quite sure they would obey their own King's instructions on how to address his wife. It seems that is where we (agree to) disagree.

I do understand your view that it would be unwise. I was addressing the legality and feasibility, and not the wisdom of the scenario.


This whole debate is going in circles. [.....]Camilla will be known as any other wife of a reigning King as been known. Anything else would require an LP. This is really very simple and straightforward.

[.....] the statements made by Buckingham Palace and Clarence House are not (or at least not fictional).
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Thank you very much for sharing these articles, angieuk.


Rebecca English's article about the briefings she received from royal aides concerning the "Queen Consort" announcement is particularly interesting.

The ‘deal’ on the Duchess of Cornwall’s future title of Queen Consort – if indeed it can be called that – was done by the Queen and her private secretary, Sir Edward Young, along with Charles and his right-hand man, Clive Alderton. Not even Camilla herself was involved.

[...]

One source who was intimately involved in events at the time says now: ‘I know there are some who will say it was all a lie and there was some grand master plan to make the duchess Queen Consort all along.

‘But frankly everyone was so relieved to have got through the wedding without any public demonstrations or eggs being thrown that people were very happy to park the issue to one side and just see what happened.’

A few years after the couple’s marriage at Windsor Guildhall in April 2005, the words ‘intends to be known as’ were inserted into the Princess Consort phraseology in any pronouncement on the subject. And then in 2018 the issue was erased in its entirety from the Clarence House website, with officials (rather inexplicably) saying ‘people weren’t interested in it as an issue any more’.

[...]

It’s worth making clear that, according to every single one of my sources, the title of Queen Consort is not an honour the Duchess of Cornwall has ever pressed for, or even proffered an opinion on.

One long-term staffer says: ‘I can honestly say, hand on heart, in all the years I have known her she has never once raised this as an issue or asked, “How can we create the environment in which this can happen?”

‘If anyone raised it in her presence, because there had been a poll they thought she should be aware of, she was utterly sphinx-like. Inscrutable.

‘At a push she might raise an eyebrow and nod her head in acknowledgement. But you would never know what she thought about it. Never.’

Another agrees, adding: ‘I never discussed it with her once in all the time I worked for her. And I never heard it being discussed. It was “parked” as an issue until nearer the time [of Charles’s accession]. [...] ‘She follows the Duke of Edinburgh’s approach to the role, which is to be unselfish and supportive. This was always an issue for others to decide.’

[...]

‘For the prince, it is less about the role itself and more about respect,’ one source close to the prince tells me. ‘He feels she deserves to be treated as any other second wife. What other woman isn’t allowed to be called “Mrs X” and have the same rights and privileges as a first wife?

‘The truth is, to deny her of it would be punitive. And if you feel like that about the future Queen Consort, then what does it say about every other woman in the country? It feels out of the step with the time.’ Another friend of the prince adds: ‘He loves his wife, he adores her. He calls her his “mehbooba” – “my beloved” [in Urdu]. How could he be a true husband and endorse a situation when she was asked to be a second-class citizen?’ I am told by several impeccably placed sources that around 2017-2018, Charles and his team had made up their minds that Camilla should become Queen Consort.

‘It was absolutely a done deal as far as Clarence House were concerned,’ said one. Indeed, in 2019 they were on the verge of actually announcing it to coincide with the 50th anniversary of Charles becoming Prince of Wales.

But at the last minute they ‘bottled it’, feeling the occasion wasn’t entirely right as it was more about him than the Queen. ‘People were still nervous of how it would be received without her endorsement,’ they said.

So what has now changed? ‘There is no doubt over the past few months the Queen has not been shy of talking about the future,’ explains one senior courtier. [...] ‘This is the Queen looking forward and addressing an issue that she thinks really needs to be addressed. Nobody puts words in the Queen’s mouth.

‘And she believes that you can’t do this sort of role without support, which requires sacrifice. It’s a partnership and the title should go with it.’ Last month, the Queen made Camilla a Royal Lady of the Order of the Garter, the highest order of chivalry in England, in the New Year Honours. The writing was on the wall.

And after discussing the matter with Charles and her advisers again, she decided to use her Accession Day address to make her ‘sincere wish’ clear.

Other members of the Royal Family – including Diana’s sons – were told of her decision in advance. William is sanguine. It’s a decision above his head and he loves his father and wants him to be happy. Harry’s response can only be guessed at – maybe we will read about it in his book later this year?


If the comments from the sources close to the Prince of Wales (for example, "How could he be a true husband and endorse a situation when she was asked to be a second-class citizen?") are a true reflection of his feelings, then that is extremely odd, as the only person who has ever attempted to deny his wife "the same rights and privileges as a first wife" is the Prince of Wales himself.
 
The British royal house already officially addresses people by what you refer to as "made-up titles". Buckingham Palace for some reason declined to use Count for Alessandro Mapelli Mozzi, but they have used other titles which are not backed by legislation, such as King for the former monarch of Greece.

In the case of the former monarch of Greece, I think they are being consistent with a tradition observed by many royal courts in Europe, not only the British court, to refer to deposed monarchs as "King [forename]" and " Majesty" , but not as "The King of [country X]", which would be diplomatically and politically problematic.
 
Do you disagree? For example, is there reason to suggest that Edoardo Mapelli Mozzi's father, who has called himself Count Alessandro in British newspapers although he is legally untitled, has been forbidden from continuing to use that title?




The British royal house already officially addresses people by what you refer to as "made-up titles". Buckingham Palace for some reason declined to use Count for Alessandro Mapelli Mozzi, but they have used other titles which are not backed by legislation, such as King for the former monarch of Greece.

I am not sure the British royal family would find the "treat everybody consistently" argument compelling. They have not been models of consistency even in regards to well-established titles.

.


AFAIK the Republic of Italy does not officially acknowledge former noble titles (valid when Italy was a monarchy) but allows for them to be used in everyday life, social situations, business etc. So as long as Count Alessandro uses his title in a social situation, it is okay in Italy. But as his son is a British subject now - again AFAIK - he cannot use his foreign title in the Uk. His father, as Italian, can do so legally, but the British need not acknowledge it.
 
An interesting comment in a newspaper today with regards people interpreting the Queens comments re Queen Consort as somehow downgrading Camillas role.
I quote Queen Consort is the job description not the title .
 
she would have to be queen consort.. she cant be queen regnant. The issue was, was she going to be queen or not? HMQ has basically said that yes, she will/should be queen rather than princess
 
she would have to be queen consort.. she cant be queen regnant. The issue was, was she going to be queen or not? HMQ has basically said that yes, she will/should be queen rather than princess

I think the point the writer was making that as we have seen in this forum for the last 3 days there was an impression in some areas that by saying Queen Consort HM was downgrading Camillas title. If anything she was upgrading. As you point out the original statement all those years ago was Princess Consort , which was a change from the normal, HM has now upgraded to the usual title for the wife of a King .
I will now withdraw from this conversation.
I am fed up going round in circles.
 


The article by Robert Hardman answers the debate about whether Queen Elizabeth wishes for the Duchess of Cornwall to be styled Queen Camilla, The Queen Consort, or The Queen when the duchess becomes queen consort: The mixed messages and confusion from Queen Elizabeth and the Palace are seemingly by design, because the Palace refuses to answer the question of what title Camilla will be formally known by when she takes the position of queen consort:


However, there still remain certain unknown aspects to this affirmation of the duchess as future Queen Consort.

To read some of the responses to the Queen’s announcement, many people have assumed that the Queen wants Camilla to be styled and addressed as ‘the Queen Consort’. Yet ‘Queen Consort’ is a job description, not a form of address. It is like ‘Monarch’. All recent Queen Consorts have been called either ‘the Queen’ or ‘Queen’ plus their Christian name.

At the coronation of George VI, his wife was formally styled ‘Queen Elizabeth’ in all the ceremonial, on the invitations and in the order of service. Ditto Queen Mary and Queen Alexandra. No one called them ‘the Queen Consort’.

So, surely, the duchess will be known as ‘Queen Camilla’? That is what custom, convention and precedent would dictate.

Surprisingly, perhaps, royal staff were unable to confirm that yesterday. ‘We’re not going into that at this stage,’ says one.
For now, the Palace is content to have dealt with the issue of status. The issue of labelling, however, is still not yet fully and finally resolved.​

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/...ws-vital-monarch-happy-confident-consort.html

Mr. Hardman seems to be mistaken about how the wife of George VI was formally styled in "all the ceremonial" at their coronation. In this ceremonial she is styled as "the Queen": https://www.thegazette.co.uk/London/issue/34453/supplement/7031
 
Last edited:
The article by Robert Hardman answers the debate about whether Queen Elizabeth wishes for the Duchess of Cornwall to be styled Queen Camilla, The Queen Consort, or The Queen when the duchess becomes queen consort: The mixed messages and confusion from Queen Elizabeth and the Palace are seemingly by design, because the Palace refuses to answer the question of what title Camilla will be formally known by when she takes the position of queen consort:


However, there still remain certain unknown aspects to this affirmation of the duchess as future Queen Consort.

To read some of the responses to the Queen’s announcement, many people have assumed that the Queen wants Camilla to be styled and addressed as ‘the Queen Consort’. Yet ‘Queen Consort’ is a job description, not a form of address. It is like ‘Monarch’. All recent Queen Consorts have been called either ‘the Queen’ or ‘Queen’ plus their Christian name.

At the coronation of George VI, his wife was formally styled ‘Queen Elizabeth’ in all the ceremonial, on the invitations and in the order of service. Ditto Queen Mary and Queen Alexandra. No one called them ‘the Queen Consort’.

So, surely, the duchess will be known as ‘Queen Camilla’? That is what custom, convention and precedent would dictate.

Surprisingly, perhaps, royal staff were unable to confirm that yesterday. ‘We’re not going into that at this stage,’ says one.
For now, the Palace is content to have dealt with the issue of status. The issue of labelling, however, is still not yet fully and finally resolved.​

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/...ws-vital-monarch-happy-confident-consort.html

Mr. Hardman seems to be mistaken about how the wife of George VI was formally styled in "all the ceremonial" at their coronation. In this ceremonial she is styled as "the Queen": https://www.thegazette.co.uk/London/issue/34453/supplement/7031

One person that I would really listen to and heed is Robert Hardman. I have most all of his books and from reading those, I've come to realize this man is well informed on things. He really does his research when writing his books and is a straight up information kind of guy and I like that. ?
 
In official documents there can only ever be one "The Queen" - the wife of the current king or the Queen Regnant. All others are ex-queens and can use the title HM, queen (first name). I believe it was just for the informal way to refer to a living queen that made the way Queen Elizabeth the Queen Mother was called necessary: so it could be made clear which of the queens was meant, Elizabeth II. or her mother.
 
One good reason is that, in actuality, it'd be *elevating* Camilla to a place that no Queen consort has ever been elevated to before. To legally be "Princess Consort", Parliament would have to act to strip her of being "Queen" and then she would be created HRH, The Princess Consort which would make her a Princess of the United Kingdom in her own right without taking a title from her husband. This is what happened with Prince Philip. At his marriage to the then Princess Elizabeth, he was The Duke of Edinburgh (created by King George VI). His wife created him a prince of the UK 10 years after the marriage. So... to create Camilla a Princess consort in her own right is actually *elevating* her status to where she doesn't need Charles' titles and styles at all. :D

n 1957, Philip, then known only as the Duke of Edinburgh, officially became a Prince after Queen Elizabeth bestowed the title upon him. The decision was famously depicted in the Netflix hit series The Crown—coming after a dispute about Philip's importance and standing within his own home.

It's all in how titles and styles work within the monarchy of the UK. It is *not* based on personality, character (or character defects) or the popular opinion of the the masses at the time. All decisions are made in how it fits within the workings of the monarchy and it's institution and honors are awarded by service to Crown and country. Not on anything that has gone before, is going on or could happen in their private lives sometime down the road.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
A number of posts have been deleted as being off topic, circular, and in some cases speculative.

This is not the place to discuss the state of Charles or Diana's marriage, Camilla's character, Andrew's legal troubles, or indeed anything but British Styles and Titles. Further posts that digress too far from that will also be deleted. Stick to the topic, please.
 
This is a moot point to start with. The moment Charles becomes king, all the titles he holds at the present moment (including Duke of Edinburgh) revert to the Crown. There's no way that the consort of a monarch could use a title previously held as the heir to the throne because, frankly, he doesn't hold it anymore. ?


At the moment, if Camilla preferred, she could call herself "THe Duchess of Edinburgh" because her husband is the Duke. He inherited the dukedom on his father's death, so he is the second Duke of Edinburgh. If Charles died before assuming the throne, his widow could call herself Camilla, Duchess of Edinburgh though her highest title would "be" Camilla, Princess of Wales (for historically the Dowager-title was reserved for the widow who was also the mother of the next peer, but that may have changed?)


When your husband has so many titles, you could chose any as they are all yours to use, but traditionally you'd use the highest one.



When Charles becomes king, some of his titles will "merge with the Crown" and he can recreate them, others, like "Duke of Cornwall" will be inherited by William. Charles can recreate Prince of Wales for William and Duke of Edinburgh for Edward. But then Edward will be the first duke of the new creation, not the third after Philip and Charles.
 
At the moment, if Camilla preferred, she could call herself "THe Duchess of Edinburgh" because her husband is the Duke. He inherited the dukedom on his father's death, so he is the second Duke of Edinburgh. If Charles died before assuming the throne, his widow could call herself Camilla, Duchess of Edinburgh though her highest title would "be" Camilla, Princess of Wales (for historically the Dowager-title was reserved for the widow who was also the mother of the next peer, but that may have changed?)


When your husband has so many titles, you could chose any as they are all yours to use, but traditionally you'd use the highest one.



When Charles becomes king, some of his titles will "merge with the Crown" and he can recreate them, others, like "Duke of Cornwall" will be inherited by William. Charles can recreate Prince of Wales for William and Duke of Edinburgh for Edward. But then Edward will be the first duke of the new creation, not the third after Philip and Charles.

Exactly. The post I was responding to though was questioning why Camilla couldn't use the title Duchess of Edinburgh as the consort of the King. ?
 
If she was going to be Duchess of anything rather than Queen, surely she'd be Duchess of Lancaster. Moot point anyway, but it would be Lancaster rather than Edinburgh - Lancaster's the title that goes with the actual position of monarc.
 
If she was going to be Duchess of anything rather than Queen, surely she'd be Duchess of Lancaster. Moot point anyway, but it would be Lancaster rather than Edinburgh - Lancaster's the title that goes with the actual position of monarc.

It is. It is why the Queen holds the title of "Duke of Lancaster" and not "Duchess of Lancaster". It's a duchy connected to the monarch regardless of the sex of said monarch. ?
 
Exactly. The post I was responding to though was questioning why Camilla couldn't use the title Duchess of Edinburgh as the consort of the King. ?


She could if Charles decided to create her as the Duchess in her own right, just like former Queen Consorts kept their own titles as "princess of Denmark" or "princess of Teck", but didn't use them. As soon as Charles becomes king, he has no other title than that, so Camilla cannot use such a title. But of course Charles "could" create her a princess/duchess in her own right and then she could use that title. She would still "be" queen but she would have another title and could use that. But her son would inherit that title and who want that?



But IMHO that would be too reminiscencing of the time Charles II. created his lovers as duchesses for the sake of their Royal bastards...
 
Last edited:
She could if Charles decided to create her as the Duchess in her own right, just like former Queen Consorts kept their own titles as "princess of Denmark" or "princess of Teck", but didn't use them. As soon as Charles becomes king, he has no other title than that, so Camilla cannot use such a title. But of course Charles "could" create her a princess/duchess in her own right and then she could use that title. She would still "be" queen but she would have another title and could use that. But her son would inherit that title and who want that?



But IMHO that would be too reminiscencing of the time Charles II. created his lovers as duchesses for the sake of their Royal bastards...

Doesn't it stand though now that in order for Charles to create Camilla as a royal peer of the UK in her own right such as The Duchess of Edinburgh, it would have to have the stamp of approval of Parliament? If I'm remembering right, hereditary peerages have been on a steep decline and the royal peerages created upon marriages are a unicorn of a different rainbow over creating someone a peer that wasn't born royal.
 
I suppose he could create her whatever the Parliament agrees to but it will be, in any case, a visual representation of the fact that she's "otherfied". That she should be different from both her royal wives peers and every other woman in the UK who can take her husband's name if she so desires.
 
Exactly. The post I was responding to though was questioning why Camilla couldn't use the title Duchess of Edinburgh as the consort of the King. ?


Because when Charles is King he is no longer Duke of Edinbrugh as this Title has then merged with the Crown.
 
Because when Charles is King he is no longer Duke of Edinbrugh as this Title has then merged with the Crown.

That's exactly what I said. :D
 
AFAIK the Republic of Italy does not officially acknowledge former noble titles (valid when Italy was a monarchy) but allows for them to be used in everyday life, social situations, business etc. So as long as Count Alessandro uses his title in a social situation, it is okay in Italy. But as his son is a British subject now - again AFAIK - he cannot use his foreign title in the Uk. His father, as Italian, can do so legally, but the British need not acknowledge it.

It is the same in the UK in regard to foreign titles/former titles. Alessandro has used Count in social situations and the media in the UK with no backlash.

https://announcements.telegraph.co.uk/engagements/145764/mr-t.-yeomans-and-miss-n.-mapelli-mozzi

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/...rice-Contessa-marrying-family-posher-own.html



In a hugely significant statement, the Queen's message was also acknowledged by Archbishop of Canterbury Justin Welby, head of the Church of England, who said: "I warmly welcome Her Majesty's wish that HRH The Duchess of Cornwall will take on the title of Queen Consort when, in the fullness of time, HRH The Prince of Wales becomes King."

He added: "Along with the rest of the Church of England, and millions more around the world, I pray for Her Majesty, for Prince Charles and the Duchess of Cornwall, and for all the Royal Family."

In 2005, there was deep controversy within the Church about the suitability of a church wedding for the Prince and the then-Camilla Parker-Bowles: both of whom were divorced, and had admitted an adulterous relationship.

In the event, the couple had a civil ceremony, followed by a blessing at St George's Chapel at Windsor Castle, with "prayer and dedication" led by Dr Rowan Williams.


https://www.telegraph.co.uk/royal-f...s-honoured-darling-wife-camilla-should-queen/
 
Doesn't it stand though now that in order for Charles to create Camilla as a royal peer of the UK in her own right such as The Duchess of Edinburgh, it would have to have the stamp of approval of Parliament? If I'm remembering right, hereditary peerages have been on a steep decline and the royal peerages created upon marriages are a unicorn of a different rainbow over creating someone a peer that wasn't born royal.

Unlike in other countries (e.g. Belgium, the Netherlands, Spain), ennoblements do not require ministerial countersignature in the United Kingdom. However, peerages outside the Royal Family are only created by convention on the advice of the British government. On the other hand, I would assume that the Queen (or the King) may create peerages for members of the Royal Family on her (or his) own discretion. In any case, no parliamentary "stamp of approval" is required.
 
I am told by several impeccably placed sources that around 2017-2018, Charles and his team had made up their minds that Camilla should become Queen Consort.

‘It was absolutely a done deal as far as Clarence House were concerned,’ said one. Indeed, in 2019 they were on the verge of actually announcing it to coincide with the 50th anniversary of Charles becoming Prince of Wales.


A ping reminds me this time 4 years ago, @Hannah_Furness and I were gently quizzing the Duchess of Cornwall on whether she would ever be Queen, at a @WIJ_UK event. We got it out of Her Royal Highness eventually but she swore us to strictly off- the-record secrecy #QueenCamilla

Yet as late as last year Clarence House continued to say on the record, when questioned, that the Prince of Wales's "intention" was for his wife to be known as Princess Consort.
 
Presumably they did not want to announxe it until the queen gave it a seal of approval
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom