Questions about British Styles and Titles 2: Sep 2022 - Aug 2023

[Tatiana Maria]

I've copied my reply to the British Nobility thread as that is where I've posted related news before:

Thanks, Lilyflo.

The present campaign began in 2013 under the name Hares are Running and was spurred by the Succession to the Crown Act 2013 which removed sex discrimination from the succession to the crown. Its previous lead campaigner was the Countess of Clancarty, whose husband's earldom is set to become extinct even though the couple has a daughter.

People related to the Royal Family who have signed their names to the petition for equal primogeniture are the then Lady Serena Linley (the ex-wife of the current Earl of Snowdon), Melanie Cable-Alexander (the mother of the 1st Earl of Snowdon's son Jasper Cable-Alexander), and the Marchioness of Milford Haven (the wife of a cousin of Prince Philip).

Charlotte Carew Pole, who renewed the campaign under the name of Daughters' Rights, was born as a middle-class commoner, so she is not in line to inherit any title herself with or without a change to equal primogeniture.

She was inspired to become an activist against male primogeniture because of the behavior of some of her husband's aristocratic relatives when she gave birth to a daughter:

Charlotte Carew Pole, founder of Daughters' Rights, a campaign against [male] primogeniture, describes her aristocratic family's reaction when her first child, a daughter, was born. Of course, they were happy to have the baby. But, she said, there were frequent comments about what a shame it was that the child couldn't inherit and how Charlotte and her husband "must try again." Can you imagine the heartbreak of seeing that reaction to the birth of your first child? Charlotte says she had not, until that moment, seen that people would actually feel "a girl might not be the right baby to have."

https://www.doublexeconomy.com/post...care-about-gender-exclusion-among-the-peerage
​

After seven miscarriages and two rounds of IVF Charlotte Carew Pole was “absolutely thrilled” when she gave birth to her daughter, Jemima. Yet the penny soon dropped that, for some, Jemima was not good enough.

“It was definitely a thing,” she said. “‘Congratulations, what a shame it wasn’t a boy’, or ‘How quickly can you have another?’” were some of the comments she received.

“There was a general expectation that I must keep pumping them out until a boy arrived. And all because I married a man who will inherit a title.”

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/ladies-first-in-tory-plan-to-abolish-primogeniture-3qznb7j5l​

 

[Mbruno]

I think the major people who were part of it were Lady Kinvara Balfour and probably Julian Fellowes. Charlotte Carew-Pole is a baronet’s daughter (part of the gentry) not necessarily nobility.

But baronetcies are also hereditary and descend by agnatic primogeniture.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

Mrs. Carew Pole is married to the son and heir of a baronet. She is not of aristocratic birth herself.

 

[Somebody]

I am confused. Is your comment "I don't see what has changed in essence." meant to respond to the Mail article, my post, or SirGyamfi1's post?

If it is a response to my post: So you are saying that if Buckingham Palace had been asked a question about male primogeniture in, say, 1923, they would have responded in the same way (refusal to comment)?

If it is a response to the Mail article: It is not the first time that the Mail and other newspapers have published articles about male primogeniture or specifically about Louise being bypassed for James. That is indeed not a "change". But the recent dukedom news has refocused attention on it.

My post was in response to the discussion now being held about Louise holding a lower style/title than her brother; in that regard nothing has changed between a few days ago and now: she was always styled as lady (first because it is the traditional style for the daughter of an earl and now because it is the traditional style for the daughter of a duke) and her brother was always styled with their father's subsidiary title. So, I don't understand why that suddenly has become an issue (other than attention) as in essence nothing has changed.

The part that has been 'unfair' to sons for ages is that younger sons of an earl are only 'honorables' while their sisters are ladies.

 

[SirGyamfi1]

Mrs. Carew Pole is married to the son and heir of a baronet. She is not of aristocratic birth herself.

They have a son now after all the stress so the baronetcy won’t die out yet.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

The Palace possibly didn't want to say anything that would spark headlines about male only primogeniture. It's not really a subject in the news because, apart from royal dukedoms and earldoms, nobody's really that bothered about who's the next Duke of A or Earl of B.

Thank you for understanding what I meant.

My post was in response to the discussion now being held about Louise holding a lower style/title than her brother; in that regard nothing has changed between a few days ago and now: she was always styled as lady (first because it is the traditional style for the daughter of an earl and now because it is the traditional style for the daughter of a duke) and her brother was always styled with their father's subsidiary title. So, I don't understand why that suddenly has become an issue (other than attention) as in essence nothing has changed.

I see. Hopefully the discussion has now made clear that it didn't just "suddenly become an issue": there has been a campaign against male primogeniture ongoing for the past decade, and Louise's situation has been reported on before. This was simply the first time - to my knowledge - that Buckingham Palace was directly asked for comment.

The part that has been 'unfair' to sons for ages is that younger sons of an earl are only 'honorables' while their sisters are ladies.

Yes indeed; also, even when a peerage is inheritable by women, heiresses generally cannot use the same courtesy styles as a male heir.

 

[Meee]

I don't see what has changed in essence. James was using one of his father's subsidiary titles (as his heir) and still is using one of his father's subsidiary titles (just a different one, now his father is a dyke, so his previous title is now the subsidiary title).

Louise was styled as a Lady as daughter of an earl and now still is styled as a lady as the daughter of a duke. If Louise and James would have had a younger brother (let's call him Thomas), his style would have changed from The Honarable Thomas M-W to Lord Thomas M-W.,

Nothing has changed, but it looks to the general public who don’t follow these things too closely that they have. James is now known as Earl of Wessex, the title his father was using this time last week. The significance of the ‘The’ which indicates that Edward was/is The Earl, and that James isn’t the Earl yet won’t be widely understood. James looks like he’s been promoted, while Louise hasn’t and the optics are that the monarchy is sexist again. It would probably look more equal if Louise used her HRH - and some probably thought she would when her father became a Duke, as the Duke of York’s daughters are Princesses.

James looks like he is an Earl, due to the never before seen situation where the subsidiary title he’s known by is the actual title he’ll inherit.

 

[Iluvbertie]

Nothing has changed, but it looks to the general public who don’t follow these things too closely that they have. James is now known as Earl of Wessex, the title his father was using this time last week. The significance of the ‘The’ which indicates that Edward was/is The Earl, and that James isn’t the Earl yet won’t be widely understood. James looks like he’s been promoted, while Louise hasn’t and the optics are that the monarchy is sexist again. It would probably look more equal if Louise used her HRH - and some probably thought she would when her father became a Duke, as the Duke of York’s daughters are Princesses.

James looks like he is an Earl, due to the never before seen situation where the subsidiary title he’s known by is the actual title he’ll inherit.

It isn't 'never before seen situation' as it happens all the time. It is a lack of understanding of how these things work rather than it being a unique situation.

Not long ago the present Earl Snowdon was known as Viscount Linley. Now he is the Earl and his son is Viscount Linley.

 

[Prinsara]

It isn't 'never before seen situation' as it happens all the time. It is a lack of understanding of how these things work rather than it being a unique situation.

Not long ago the present Earl Snowdon was known as Viscount Linley. Now he is the Earl and his son is Viscount Linley.

But James won't be known as anything in the future other than THE Earl of Wessex, with a 'The' added. That's quite unique, because I don't think there's ever been anyone whose senior title is a life peerage.

I also doubt too many people generally or outside this board care what Louise and James are called, simply because Edward himself said his existence and relationship with the King are misidentified all the time. It stands to reason people are not aware of his kids.

 

[Opals]

A totally hypothetical question, what would Louise and James's titles be if they used the prince and princess.

I assume Louise would be Her Royal Highness Princess Louise of Edinburgh but I'm less sure about her brother. Would it be His Royal Highness Earl of Wessex Prince James of Edinburgh?

Again just a hypothetical

 

[Prinsara]

A totally hypothetical question, what would Louise and James's titles be if they used the prince and princess.

I assume Louise would be Her Royal Highness Princess Louise of Edinburgh but I'm less sure about her brother. Would it be His Royal Highness Earl of Wessex Prince James of Edinburgh?

Again just a hypothetical

Just Prince James. "Earl of Wessex" is his courtesy title from his father, and being royal outranks it. If he (or Louise) were bestowed a title in their own right, that would be a different story — HRH the Whatever of Wherever.

 

[Iluvbertie]

A totally hypothetical question, what would Louise and James's titles be if they used the prince and princess.

I assume Louise would be Her Royal Highness Princess Louise of Edinburgh but I'm less sure about her brother. Would it be His Royal Highness Earl of Wessex Prince James of Edinburgh?

Again just a hypothetical

Like Beatrice and Eugenie, pre-marriage and Prince Michael today:

HRH Princess Louise of Edinburgh
HRH Prince James of Edinburgh..

The current Duke of Gloucester was HRH Prince Richard of Gloucester until he succeeded to his father's dukedom and the current Duke of Kent was HRH Prince Edward of Kent until his father's death.

James would be the same - HRH Prince James of Edinburgh until Edward dies when he would become HRH The Earl of Wessex.

Louise would be HRH Princess Louise of Edinburgh until she marries when, following the precedent of Beatrice, Eugenie and Alexandra she would replace the 'of Edinburgh' with Mrs xxxxx.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

After publishing the coronation invitation, which referred to "Their Majesties King Charles III and Queen Camilla", the palace briefed the media that on the day of their coronation on May 6, her formal title will be changed from The Queen Consort to Queen Camilla.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...le-official-Coronation-portrait-released.html

Asked about the title – when the accompanying press release itself still referred to Camilla as the Queen Consort – a senior royal aide confirmed: ‘It made sense to refer to her Majesty as The Queen Consort in the early months of His Majesty’s reign, to distinguish from Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II.

‘Queen Camilla is the appropriate title to set against King Charles on the invitation. The Coronation is an appropriate time to start using “Queen Camilla” in an official capacity. All former Queen Consorts have been known as Queen plus their first name.’

It is understood that Buckingham Palace will amend its website to reflect the change next month.
​

https://www.thesun.co.uk/fabulous/2...consort-title-king-charles-coronation-invite/

The Palace said Queen Consort is Camilla’s “rank” while Queen will be her title.

She will officially be called Queen Camilla in all royal documents from the day of the Coronation. The royal website will be updated after she is crowned.
​

Though the palace aide claims that "All former Queen Consorts have been known as Queen plus their first name", the official title of at least the most recent queens consort was simply The Queen, without using a first name, during the lifetime of their husbands. So I suppose the next guessing game and protest from traditionalists will be about changing Queen Camilla to The Queen.

Also, it is common to say "queen consorts" in casual conversation, but the fact that a royal palace aide presenting a formal briefing did not use the grammatically correct pluralization (Queens Consort, not Queen Consorts) leads to me wonder how much royal palace aides actually know about royal titles.

Incidentally, it is interesting that people who are vocally opposed to reverting to ancient conventions and allowing princesses consort to be (again) known by their own first name (Princess Marie-Christine instead of Princess Michael) seemingly have no issue with queens consort continuing to be known by their own first name.

 

[Mbruno]

After publishing the coronation invitation, which referred to "Their Majesties King Charles III and Queen Camilla", the palace briefed the media that on the day of their coronation on May 6, her formal title will be changed from The Queen Consort to Queen Camilla.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...le-official-Coronation-portrait-released.html

Asked about the title – when the accompanying press release itself still referred to Camilla as the Queen Consort – a senior royal aide confirmed: ‘It made sense to refer to her Majesty as The Queen Consort in the early months of His Majesty’s reign, to distinguish from Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II.

‘Queen Camilla is the appropriate title to set against King Charles on the invitation. The Coronation is an appropriate time to start using “Queen Camilla” in an official capacity. All former Queen Consorts have been known as Queen plus their first name.’

It is understood that Buckingham Palace will amend its website to reflect the change next month.
​

https://www.thesun.co.uk/fabulous/2...consort-title-king-charles-coronation-invite/

The Palace said Queen Consort is Camilla’s “rank” while Queen will be her title.

She will officially be called Queen Camilla in all royal documents from the day of the Coronation. The royal website will be updated after she is crowned.
​

Though the palace aide claims that "All former Queen Consorts have been known as Queen plus their first name", the official title of at least the most recent queens consort was simply The Queen, without using a first name, during the lifetime of their husbands. So I suppose the next guessing game and protest from traditionalists will be about changing Queen Camilla to The Queen.

Also, it is common to say "queen consorts" in casual conversation, but the fact that a royal palace aide presenting a formal briefing did not use the grammatically correct pluralization (Queens Consort, not Queen Consorts) leads to me wonder how much royal palace aides actually know about royal titles.

Incidentally, it is interesting that people who are vocally opposed to reverting to ancient conventions and allowing princesses consort to be (again) known by their own first name (Princess Marie-Christine instead of Princess Michael) seemingly have no issue with queens consort continuing to be known by their own first name.

Exactly. Queen [First Name] was a style normally used by Queens Dowager rather than Queens Consort. But the Palace has been inconsistent for a long time when it comes to styles, precedence and protocol.

Legal technicalities aside, it looks like that the King has reneged on his "intentions" twice: first on his intention that his wife would be known as the Princess Consort and now on his intention (agreed with his late mother) that his wife would be known as the Queen Consort.

 

[Denville]

Exactly. Queen [First Name] was a style normally used by Queens Dowager rather than Queens Consort. But the Palace has been inconsistent for a long time when it comes to styles, precedence and protocol.

Legal technicalities aside, it looks like that the King has reneged on his "intentions" twice: first on his intention that his wife would be known as the Princess Consort and now on his intention (agreed with his late mother) that his wife would be known as the Queen Consort.

It was always obvious that the Princess Consort title was a fallback position, not a free choice And as for queen consort, that is exactly what Camilla is. but like all Queens consort, she will be knonw as QUeen Camilla, just as the QM was known as Queen Elizabeth.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

Exactly. Queen [First Name] was a style normally used by Queens Dowager rather than Queens Consort. But the Palace has been inconsistent for a long time when it comes to styles, precedence and protocol.

Legal technicalities aside, it looks like that the King has reneged on his "intentions" twice: first on his intention that his wife would be known as the Princess Consort and now on his intention (agreed with his late mother) that his wife would be known as the Queen Consort.

For what it is worth, here is the palace's defense of the latter renege:

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/royal-f...en-consort-dropped-palace-coronation-invites/

The term Queen Consort was first floated in February 2022, when Queen Elizabeth II used a Platinum Jubilee message to the nation to announce her “sincere wish” that Camilla use the title when her son became King.

The intervention was considered a critical show of support, ensuring a seamless transition when she died seven months later.

However, palace aides insisted that the late Queen made that statement in opposition to the title of Princess Consort, which had also been floated as an option.
​

ETA: Of course, "floated as an option" is misleading as Prince Charles' statement of 2005 referred to it as an "intention", not an "option".

just as the QM was known as Queen Elizabeth.

No, the mother of Elizabeth II was known officially as The Queen, not Queen Elizabeth, during her husband's lifetime.

 

[Denville]

so Camilla should just be knonnw as the queen.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

I think that female married-ins should retain their given names which is the case in Denmark (and Sweden) but not the case in the UK.

[...]

Hopefully Charles or William will change the rule and allow married-ins, if indeed they are even given royal titles, to be Prince/ss X, Duchess X, Princess X, Duchess of Y. Although it should be noted that the UK was ahead of the curve when it came to female monarchs and marriage to commoners.

I agree, but I think it is even further overdue for women in the royal family to at least be offered the option of retaining their own forename and/or surname after marrying a man with a lesser or no title.

For example, if Princess Charlotte of Wales marries Mr. John Smith, she should not be forced to take on the style of Princess Charlotte, Mrs. John Smith, but should also be given the options of becoming Princess Charlotte, Mrs. Smith or simply remaining Princess Charlotte of Wales.

Likewise, if Miss Sienna Mapelli Mozzi marries Mr. John Smith, it should not be compulsory for her to become Mrs. John Smith. She should be given the additional options of Mrs./Ms. Sienna Smith or Ms. Sienna Mapelli Mozzi.

I would of course want the same options to be accessible regardless of gender, but that would be more controversial. But the changes I have suggested above have already been ingrained into British society (how many Britons outside of the Royal Household still refer to Carole Middleton as Mrs. Michael Middleton?) and the Royal Family would simply be catching up.

 

[Lilyflo]

I would of course want the same options to be accessible regardless of gender, but that would be more controversial. But the changes I have suggested above have already been ingrained into British society (how many Britons outside of the Royal Household still refer to Carole Middleton as Mrs. Michael Middleton?) and the Royal Family would simply be catching up.

It still exists but it's gradually dying out. Many of mother's generation (90s) still use 'Mrs Man's Name' unless widowed but fewer of my generation address a woman like that (some of my cousins still do). However, I notice when both husband and wife are addressed, it's often still Mr and Mrs Man's Name, particularly on invitations. I've never permitted anyone to address me in that way as I find it archaic and insulting to women.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

It still exists but it's gradually dying out. Many of mother's generation (90s) still use 'Mrs Man's Name' unless widowed but fewer of my generation address a woman like that (some of my cousins still do). However, I notice when both husband and wife are addressed, it's often still Mr and Mrs Man's Name, particularly on invitations. I've never permitted anyone to address me in that way as I find it archaic and insulting to women.

Thank you for the information.

I will add that the palace's recent press release on ceremonial roles at the coronation service addressed the Prime Minister's wife as Mrs Akshata Murty, not Mrs Rishi Sunak. It is not the first time they have made an exception to their "Mrs Man's Name" policy, and I still do not understand why they are willing to make exceptions in some cases yet refuse to do so in others.

 

[Lilyflo]

Thank you for the information.

I will add that the palace's recent press release on ceremonial roles at the coronation service addressed the Prime Minister's wife as Mrs Akshata Murty, not Mrs Rishi Sunak. It is not the first time they have made an exception to their "Mrs Man's Name" policy, and I still do not understand why they are willing to make exceptions in some cases yet refuse to do so in others.

Do they refuse? Although the default is the traditional way, I would think they'd address people in the manner of their choice. For example, one of our MPs is Emily Thornberry, married to Sir Christopher Nugee, and I can't ever imagine BP referring to her as Lady Nugee because she has expressed her intention to be known as Emily Thornberry. There are other female politicians who haven't adopted their husband's surnames and I don't think BP would ever refer to them with their husband's surname, let alone as Mrs Man's Name.

 

[Prinsara]

I think people who are not part of the BRF or immediately BRF-adjacent are probably viewed differently by BP.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

Do they refuse? Although the default is the traditional way, I would think they'd address people in the manner of their choice.

I'm aware you have seen this report before, Lilyflo, but for others who have not, this is one documented case where Queen Elizabeth II's representative explicitly refused to address a female guest as Ms Own Forename and insisted on addressing her as Mrs Husband's Forename:

A reader sent Sidelines this reply to a request for an application form: "Her Majesty's Representative at Ascot does not acknowledge the title Ms ... a married woman applying for herself should indicate her husband's forename."

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2000/apr/18/gender.uk1​

I have no insider knowledge, but I suspect that in most cases the Palace does not proactively ask married women how they wish to be addressed, and most women do not press the issue, whatever their preferences.

In the cases of Mrs. Michael Tindall, Princess Beatrice, Mrs. Edoardo Mapelli Mozzi, and Princess Eugenie, Mrs. Jack Brooksbank: These women were born into the royal family and will have been raised to understand that the monarch is the authority on how they are addressed and that they would be expected to drop their maiden names and take on their husbands' first and last names once married.

But that does not necessarily mean they would choose to be addressed in that manner if they were given a free choice. Princess Eugenie, as documented on the last few pages of the "Jack Brooksbank: Is there a Title in his future?" thread, continued to style herself Princess Eugenie of York in her public correspondence and charitable work for over two years after she married. She and Princess Beatrice have now (mostly) dropped the "of York", but both of them style themselves as simply Princess Beatrice and Princess Eugenie in their activities outside the Palace, and never add the "Mrs. Jack Brooksbank" or "Mrs. Edoardo Mapelli Mozzi". I think that is a good indication that this form of address would not be their first choice if they were offered a choice.

 

[Lilyflo]

I'd forgotten about that report and I think you're probably right about the princesses.

 

[Iluvbertie]

Within days of his accession Charles III issued a Royal Warrant that gave Camilla's title as Queen Consort.

He has now issued a new Royal Warrant that from the coronation she is to be Queen without the Consort.

https://royalcentral.co.uk/uk/a-roy...rop-consort-from-queen-camillas-title-189125/

I assume that the CC will also start to use The Queen for her title rather than The Queen Consort (it doesn't use Queen xxxx but The Queen regardless of whether a Regnant or a Consort).

 

[Tatiana Maria]

Within days of his accession Charles III issued a Royal Warrant that gave Camilla's title as Queen Consort.

He has now issued a new Royal Warrant that from the coronation she is to be Queen without the Consort.

https://royalcentral.co.uk/uk/a-roy...rop-consort-from-queen-camillas-title-189125/

I assume that the CC will also start to use The Queen for her title rather than The Queen Consort (it doesn't use Queen xxxx but The Queen regardless of whether a Regnant or a Consort).

Royal Central is citing a notice from Lambeth Palace regarding a royal warrant altering how Camilla is referred to in the Church of England prayers for the Royal Family. Do you have the link to the Lambeth Palace announcement?

Both the quoted warrant and the earlier palace briefing about the upcoming change of title on May 6 state that the new title will be Queen Camilla, instead of The Queen (at least for the time being).

Lambeth Palace published a notice that, on May 3rd 2023, King Charles issued a Royal Warrant stating that from Coronation Day itself, Her Majesty should be named as Queen Camilla in prayers said for or referring to the Royal Family. For the last eight months, all references have been to ‘Camilla, the Queen Consort’.

The Warrant states that ”with effect from 6 May 2023, in every prayer for the Royal Family contained in any form of service authorised for use in the Church of England, instead of the words ‘Camilla, the Queen Consort’, the words ‘Queen Camilla’ should be inserted.​

For those who missed it, here is the information from the earlier palace briefing again:

After publishing the coronation invitation, which referred to "Their Majesties King Charles III and Queen Camilla", the palace briefed the media that on the day of their coronation on May 6, her formal title will be changed from The Queen Consort to Queen Camilla.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...le-official-Coronation-portrait-released.html

Asked about the title – when the accompanying press release itself still referred to Camilla as the Queen Consort – a senior royal aide confirmed: ‘It made sense to refer to her Majesty as The Queen Consort in the early months of His Majesty’s reign, to distinguish from Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II.

‘Queen Camilla is the appropriate title to set against King Charles on the invitation. The Coronation is an appropriate time to start using “Queen Camilla” in an official capacity. All former Queen Consorts have been known as Queen plus their first name.’

It is understood that Buckingham Palace will amend its website to reflect the change next month.
​

https://www.thesun.co.uk/fabulous/2...consort-title-king-charles-coronation-invite/

The Palace said Queen Consort is Camilla’s “rank” while Queen will be her title.

She will officially be called Queen Camilla in all royal documents from the day of the Coronation. The royal website will be updated after she is crowned.
​

Though the palace aide claims that "All former Queen Consorts have been known as Queen plus their first name", the official title of at least the most recent queens consort was simply The Queen, without using a first name, during the lifetime of their husbands. So I suppose the next guessing game and protest from traditionalists will be about changing Queen Camilla to The Queen.

Also, it is common to say "queen consorts" in casual conversation, but the fact that a royal palace aide presenting a formal briefing did not use the grammatically correct pluralization (Queens Consort, not Queen Consorts) leads to me wonder how much royal palace aides actually know about royal titles.

Incidentally, it is interesting that people who are vocally opposed to reverting to ancient conventions and allowing princesses consort to be (again) known by their own first name (Princess Marie-Christine instead of Princess Michael) seemingly have no issue with queens consort continuing to be known by their own first name.

 

[Gawin]

Royal Central is citing a notice from Lambeth Palace regarding a royal warrant altering how Camilla is referred to in the Church of England prayers for the Royal Family. Do you have the link to the Lambeth Palace announcement?

Michael Rhodes posted a copy of the Lambeth Palace announcement on Twitter:

https://twitter.com/x/status/1654116935553159170

 

[wbenson]

Re. the post-coronation style, the assembled parade has rehearsed giving "three cheers for His Majesty the King and Her Majesty the Queen" after they return. I don't have a photograph, but the information card included with the Royal Collection's commemorative china also refers to "the supportive partnership between The King and Queen." And the coronation service uses "the Queen" extensively.

Who knows, though. Nothing about this issue over the last eight months has been communicated very well. Changing the prayers twice was especially clunky, so much so that I wonder if it was more of a U-turn than a coherent plan.

 

[wbenson]

We've reached the end of the road finally, after eighteen years of speculation. The header on the royal family website now says, simply, "The Queen," and the biography starts out "Her Majesty The Queen (formerly HRH The Duchess of Cornwall)."

 

[Tatiana Maria]

Re. the post-coronation style, the assembled parade has rehearsed giving "three cheers for His Majesty the King and Her Majesty the Queen" after they return. I don't have a photograph, but the information card included with the Royal Collection's commemorative china also refers to "the supportive partnership between The King and Queen." And the coronation service uses "the Queen" extensively.

Who knows, though. Nothing about this issue over the last eight months has been communicated very well. Changing the prayers twice was especially clunky, so much so that I wonder if it was more of a U-turn than a coherent plan.

We've reached the end of the road finally, after eighteen years of speculation. The header on the royal family website now says, simply, "The Queen," and the biography starts out "Her Majesty The Queen (formerly HRH The Duchess of Cornwall)."

Intriguing. The royal aide who briefed the media in April expressly stated that she would become "Queen Camilla" on coronation day, so either the aide was misinformed, the aide was instructed to give out misinformation, or there was indeed a U-turn by the king within the last month. I wonder which it was.

At least adopting "The Queen" straightaway will spare us further complaints and speculations about Queen Camilla being "promoted" to The Queen.