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

[RoyalHighness 2002]

Aren't The Prince of Wales and Duke of Sussex, TRH The Princes William and Harry now?

 

[Somebody]

Aren't The Prince of Wales and Duke of Sussex, TRH The Princes William and Harry now?

Yes, they are but use their own peerages instead of the title that derives from their father being king. Just like they've ceased using Prince William/Harry (Henry) of Wales since the received a peerage on their respective wedding days.

And just like their uncles and aunt who haven't been known as 'The Princess Anne' (but The Princess Royal), The Prince Andrew (but The Duke of York) and The Prince Edward (but The Earl of Wessex) for over 2 or 3 decades (depending on the date they received their respective titles).

 

[Iluvbertie]

Aren't The Prince of Wales and Duke of Sussex, TRH The Princes William and Harry now?

Yes but their peerage titles take precedence over their royal styles.

The only time the 'The' will be used will be when William is officially in Scotland where he will be 'The Prince William The Duke of Rothesay'. That is the official way in Scotland while everywhere else he will be The Prince of Wales or The Duke of Cornwall or The Earl of Chester (assuming that he is also created as Earl of Chester in the LPs creating him Prince of Wales as per tradition) when appropriate.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

Especially since the use the combination og The King and The Queen Consort. While ofcourse it is known that his regnal name is Charles III it would only make sense to call her queen Camilla if they would also use king Charles in their official communication.

Isn't it just simply for consistency? Charles normally is addressed as "the King" on BRF website or social media so Camilla is "the Queen Consort". It would be weird if it's "the King and Queen Camilla". If they use "King Charles III" then it will be "Queen Camilla"

Good point! Although the now-closed Clarence House social media accounts did close with a message saying "This account is no longer being updated. Please follow The @RoyalFamily for updates on His Majesty King Charles III and Her Majesty The Queen Consort."

I expect Kate to become "HM The Queen" when it is her turn, just as the previous consorts of Kings Edward VII, George V and George VI were during their husbands' respective reigns. It seems that the rules are always different for Camilla specifically and that is just how things are.

If the current usage of "HM The Queen Consort" persists until the end of Charles III's reign, I think it is likely to continue under William V. As we have seen time and time again, most people consider whatever the current system is to be "the tradition", no matter how ahistorical it is. Just look at how many people, including professional journalists who ought to have factchecked, have claimed that The Queen Consort is the "traditional" style of the king's wife, even though it has only been the case for the last 5 days. Or how many people say that Prince Louis will be made a duke when he gets married "according to tradition", even though the "tradition" of waiting until marriage to grant dukedoms to princes was only introduced 36 years ago with Prince Andrew.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

She has the same title and style the Queen Mother had when married to George VI, that Queen Mary had when married to George V, that Queen Alexandra had when married to Edward VII, so on and so forth.

The Queen Mother was titled simply The Queen when married to George VI (as were her predecessors). See wbenson's post:

"The Queen" was the standard, officially-used style for British queens consort in past reigns. The London Gazette's official account of the coronation in 1937, for example, lists Queen Elizabeth as "The Queen, in her royal robes, Her Majesty's train borne by the Mistress of the Robes" and then goes on to talk about how "the Queen there knelt down," "the Queen then rose," "the Queen also made her oblation," etc.

Here is the London Gazette's account of the coronation in 1937, if you would like to read it for yourself:

https://www.thegazette.co.uk/London/issue/34453/supplement/7073

 

[Sister Morphine]

The Queen Mother was titled simply The Queen when married to George VI (as were her predecessors).

Yes, I'm aware of that. I didn't say she wasn't. What I said was, we're seeing the word "consort" used a lot right now, frankly as overkill, to differentiate HM The Queen (Camilla) from HM The Queen (Elizabeth II). We've had a Queen Regnant for 70 years, so when you heard "The Queen", you thought of Elizabeth. Now there's a king who has a wife, and since it'll take a while to hear "The Queen" and think of Camilla, the word "consort" is being tacked on to the end so I guess people don't get confused.

Charles is the king, Camilla is the queen. Period. She shouldn't and doesn't have a lesser title than other women in her position have had. Nor should she ever. How her and Charles came to be married is a long time in the past and shouldn't be used as a cudgel now.

 

[muriel]

Yes, I'm aware of that. I didn't say she wasn't. What I said was, we're seeing the word "consort" used a lot right now, frankly as overkill, to differentiate HM The Queen (Camilla) from HM The Queen (Elizabeth II). We've had a Queen Regnant for 70 years, so when you heard "The Queen", you thought of Elizabeth. Now there's a king who has a wife, and since it'll take a while to hear "The Queen" and think of Camilla, the word "consort" is being tacked on to the end so I guess people don't get confused.

Charles is the king, Camilla is the queen. Period. She shouldn't and doesn't have a lesser title than other women in her position have had. Nor should she ever. How her and Charles came to be married is a long time in the past and shouldn't be used as a cudgel now.

I agree, I suspect in time she will come to be referred to as Queen Camilla, and the whole notion of Queen Consort will gradually slip away. The title and style remain the same as that of Queen Elizabeth the Queen Mother when she was consort to King George VI.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

For now, The Queen Consort is the official style used by Buckingham Palace, and is based on the expressed "wish" of the late Queen, so it seems respectful for the press and the public to follow their example.

Apparently someone in the Royal Household was actually asked if "HM The Queen" would be eventually used instead of "HM The Queen Consort" and the answer was allegedly along the lines of "we will see".

Yes, it was:

https://inews.co.uk/news/question-for-future-whether-camilla-queen-or-queen-consort-palace-1848485

As the wife of the King, Camilla is technically Her Majesty The Queen and entitled to be known as “The Queen”, but briefings and statements from Buckingham Palace have referred to her as “Queen Consort”.

A spokesman for the King did not rule out a shift when asked whether Camilla would forever be known as Queen Consort, or whether she could become known simply as the Queen.

“The King and Queen Consort are focused on getting through those next 10 days,” the spokesman said.

“I think those who saw the Queen Consort yesterday movingly meeting people outside Buckingham Palace know how moved she is at the moment and that’s her focus so that will be a question for the future.”​

Since even his explicitly stated "intention" for Camilla to be known as Princess Consort was eventually withdrawn, my personal assumption is that the expression "question for the future" is tantamount to the King having firm plans to make the shift. If I am correct, I hope he will act on it relatively soon and not begin another years-long "will he or won't he" guessing game regarding his wife's style.

According to Raven Saunt in the Telegraph, the "Consort" will be dropped when Camilla is crowned. But as the article inaccurately states that Camilla is following the style of Queen Elizabeth's mother, grandmother, etc., I am not sure how reliable it is.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/royal-family/0/camilla-queen-consort-meaning-new-royal-title-charles/

Having previously been given the Queen's blessing, Camilla will be crowned side-by-side with her husband, with the couple henceforth called the “King and Queen”.​

 

[Sister Morphine]

I'm not religious, but maybe for those that are, you could answer this question; would it be considered odd/hypocritical/unprecedented for a woman not married in the Church of England to be crowned by the Church of England? Charles and Camilla weren't married by the CoE, but they will ostensibly be crowned by the CoE during the coronation next year.

 

[CyrilVladisla]

From The Queen & Her Court by Jerrold M. Packard:
Another fine point in dealing with royal titles concerns the use of the article "the". A prince or princess who is a child of the monarch ("Prince or Princess of the Blood Royal") rates its use in their formal title. Furthermore, it must be capitalized. Thus, "The Princess Anne".

 

[Mbruno]

Good point! Although the now-closed Clarence House social media accounts did close with a message saying "This account is no longer being updated. Please follow The @RoyalFamily for updates on His Majesty King Charles III and Her Majesty The Queen Consort."



If the current usage of "HM The Queen Consort" persists until the end of Charles III's reign, I think it is likely to continue under William V. As we have seen time and time again, most people consider whatever the current system is to be "the tradition", no matter how ahistorical it is. Just look at how many people, including professional journalists who ought to have factchecked, have claimed that The Queen Consort is the "traditional" style of the king's wife, even though it has only been the case for the last 5 days. Or how many people say that Prince Louis will be made a duke when he gets married "according to tradition", even though the "tradition" of waiting until marriage to grant dukedoms to princes was only introduced 36 years ago with Prince Andrew.

Well, "The Duchess of Cornwall" didn't last for the new Princess of Wales, did it? I don't expect "The Queen Consort" to last either into the next reign.

But, as you said, the Palace has neither ruled in, nor ruled out the possibility that Camilla may eventually become only "The Queen". So we will have to wait and see.

 

[Somebody]

Well, "The Duchess of Cornwall" didn't last for the new Princess of Wales, did it? I don't expect "The Queen Consort" to last either into the next reign.

But, as you said, the Palace has neither ruled in, nor ruled out the possibility that Camilla may eventually become only "The Queen". So we will have to wait and see.

I don't understand the comparison. There was never an expectation expressed by the court that Catherine would be known as 'The Duchess of Cornwall', she was very briefly 'The Duchess of Cornwall and Cambridge' but as she became the Princess of Wales within 24 hours, that is the name she will be known by.

The use of 'The Duchess of Cornwall' for the previous Princess of Wales -which was announced by the court- did last for over 15 years...

 

[Moran]

Given the fact that people seem organically unable to realize that "Kate Middleton, Duchess of Cambridge" in all variations EXCEPT the right form never existed in the first place... I don't give the Queen Consort thing this much of a shelf life. A few months after the coronation, if this long. People go for the things that are simple and more effortless for them and I don't see them bothering with an entire word for long. Especially when she IS The Queen.

 

[Meee]

Since it’s a fact that there will be more Queen Regnants in the future than there have been in the past, I did think that all Consorts should be Prince/Princess. As it was the Queen’s wish that Camilla be Queen, perhaps there could be King Consorts in the future. Now that King and Queen are equal, I don’t think a Queen’s consort should continue to be called Prince while a King’s consort is called The Queen.

 

[Meee]

Well, "The Duchess of Cornwall" didn't last for the new Princess of Wales, did it? I don't expect "The Queen Consort" to last either into the next reign.

But, as you said, the Palace has neither ruled in, nor ruled out the possibility that Camilla may eventually become only "The Queen". So we will have to wait and see.

I thought that the Duke and Duchess of Cornwall and Cambridge was a mouthful and assumed that was why Charles III conferred the title so quickly. I had initially expected him to do it shortly after his coronation.

 

[Mbruno]

I don't understand the comparison. There was never an expectation expressed by the court that Catherine would be known as 'The Duchess of Cornwall', she was very briefly 'The Duchess of Cornwall and Cambridge' but as she became the Princess of Wales within 24 hours, that is the name she will be known by.

The use of 'The Duchess of Cornwall' for the previous Princess of Wales -which was announced by the court- did last for over 15 years...

I was replying to the comment that if the style "HM The Queen Consort" lasted for the entire tenure of Camilla as queen, then it would be continued for Catherine in the next reign.


By the same logic, as the style "HRH The Duchess of Cornwall" lasted fpr the entire tenure of Camilla as consort of the Prince of Wales, then the same style should have been carried out to Catherine. It was not, which suggests that special styles used by Camilla, and Camilla only, do not appear to be setting precedents for future women in the same position, or at least we cannot conclude they will.

 

[ronald biver]

Why do some members of TRF persistent call Queen Camilla, Officially Camilla full title is Queen Consort, when I mentioned this last time, I get told off by one member of TRF.

 

[Saragli]

Why do some members of TRF persistent call Queen Camilla, Officially Camilla full title is Queen Consort, when I mentioned this last time, I get told off by one member of TRF.

Their Majesties, The King and the Queen Consort or King Charles III and Queen Camilla are all correct.

 

[Sister Morphine]

Why do some members of TRF persistent call Queen Camilla, Officially Camilla full title is Queen Consort, when I mentioned this last time, I get told off by one member of TRF.

1. I highly doubt you were "told off" by anyone here. The moderators frown upon that kind of behavior, and the post would have been edited or deleted.

2. Queen Camilla is what she is. The wife of the king is the queen. Period. She's a consort in the sense that she's not Queen Regnant like her mother-in-law was, but her title is HM Queen Camilla. Just like every other consort to a King Regnant in history. She does not have nor should she ever have a lesser title than any other woman who was married to the king.

 

[Meee]

I was replying to the comment that if the style "HM The Queen Consort" lasted for the entire tenure of Camilla as queen, then it would be continued for Catherine in the next reign.


By the same logic, as the style "HRH The Duchess of Cornwall" lasted fpr the entire tenure of Camilla as consort of the Prince of Wales, then the same style should have been carried out to Catherine. It was not, which suggests that special styles used by Camilla, and Camilla only, do not appear to be setting precedents for future women in the same position, or at least we cannot conclude they will.

Absolutely.

The precedent is for the wife of the heir to be Princess of Wales. Camilla became entitled to that title upon her marriage to Charles, but expressed that she would not use it out of respect for Diana, and took one of his lesser titles instead. That title immediately and automatically became William’s when he became heir, while the Wales title did not, so Catherine was briefly Duchess of Cornwall. She of course could have opted not to use the Princess of Wales title, but I suspect William would prefer that she used his mother’s title.

I hope that The Queen Consort does stay - after having The Queen for all my life I’m not ready for simply The Queen, even if that’s technically what she is. It’s also a middle ground between what was said at the marriage and going all the way.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

Edit: Moved my comment about the dukedom of Edinburgh to Wessex Titles.

From The Queen & Her Court by Jerrold M. Packard:
Another fine point in dealing with royal titles concerns the use of the article "the". A prince or princess who is a child of the monarch ("Prince or Princess of the Blood Royal") rates its use in their formal title. Furthermore, it must be capitalized. Thus, "The Princess Anne".

Yes, but that was a fairly recent development under Elizabeth II. As one can observe from the London Gazette, it used to be that all princes and princesses used the article "the", and it was not always capitalized.

 

[US Royal Watcher]

I think a lot of people are referring to her as the "Queen Consort" as a distinction from the late Queen. As time passes, she will be referred to as Queen Camilla, like the Queen Mother was during her husband's reign.

 

[ronald biver]

I think a lot of people are referring to her as the "Queen Consort" as a distinction from the late Queen. As time passes, she will be referred to as Queen Camilla, like the Queen Mother was during her husband's reign.

Different people will always have different opinion about the title, I did watch BBC broadcast and different newspapers from 3 different countries some say queen Camilla & some say queen consort Camilla, anyway, thanks for your explanation about this subject.

 

[Curryong]

I’ve noticed references in the media (and not just foreign media) to ‘Princess Kate’ over the last few days, which is completely incorrect.

 

[Prinsara]

I’ve noticed references in the media (and not just foreign media) to ‘Princess Kate’ over the last few days, which is completely incorrect.

Her mother in-law was "Princess Diana" to the entire globe. Were you expecting something different?

It will be a shibboleth to tell the royalwatchers from the rest of us, like always.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

The Belgian media referred to "Princess Léa" even during the years when her official style was "Princess Alexandre of Belgium".

Outside of Belgium, royal watchers refer to "Princess Elisabetta of Belgium" even though her official style (for now, at least) is "Princess Elisabetta", or when a surname is needed, "Princess Elisabetta Rosboch von Wolkenstein".

All of this does not seem to bother anyone (other than me, perhaps ). For the sake of consistency, perhaps royal watchers can become similarly tolerant of "Princess Kate".

 

[Tatiana Maria]

Why do some members of TRF persistent call Queen Camilla, Officially Camilla full title is Queen Consort, when I mentioned this last time, I get told off by one member of TRF.

Their Majesties, The King and the Queen Consort or King Charles III and Queen Camilla are all correct.

I think a lot of people are referring to her as the "Queen Consort" as a distinction from the late Queen. As time passes, she will be referred to as Queen Camilla, like the Queen Mother was during her husband's reign.

1. I highly doubt you were "told off" by anyone here. The moderators frown upon that kind of behavior, and the post would have been edited or deleted.

2. Queen Camilla is what she is. The wife of the king is the queen. Period. She's a consort in the sense that she's not Queen Regnant like her mother-in-law was, but her title is HM Queen Camilla. Just like every other consort to a King Regnant in history. She does not have nor should she ever have a lesser title than any other woman who was married to the king.

Again, Buckingham Palace has consistently titled the new queen as (Her Majesty) The Queen Consort in all of its official announcements as well as her official biography since the King's accession.

All those who remain skeptical can see for themselves at the official website of the British monarchy:

https://www.royal.uk/

So while the public is free to refer to her as Queen Camilla, the Queen, plain Camilla or whatever they please, ronald biver's statement that her official title (for the moment) is Queen Consort is completely correct. If anybody did "tell off" ronald for that statement, then that person was not only impolite but ignorant of the facts.

 

[Denville]

Her mother in-law was "Princess Diana" to the entire globe. Were you expecting something different?

It will be a shibboleth to tell the royalwatchers from the rest of us, like always.

Diana probably was called Pss Diana because before her marriage she had been known as Lady Diana.. But Sarah F was never called Princess Sarah by the media. She was Fergie or Sarah.

 

[yukari]

The Belgian media referred to "Princess Léa" even during the years when her official style was "Princess Alexandre of Belgium".

Outside of Belgium, royal watchers refer to "Princess Elisabetta of Belgium" even though her official style (for now, at least) is "Princess Elisabetta", or when a surname is needed, "Princess Elisabetta Rosboch von Wolkenstein".

All of this does not seem to bother anyone (other than me, perhaps ). For the sake of consistency, perhaps royal watchers can become similarly tolerant of "Princess Kate".

Well, I've already seen " Princess Catherine" in the Telegraph, so it won't surprise me if "Princess Kate" start to make regular appearances in DM or Daily Express. And considering "Princess Kate" has less characters than "Kate Middleton", many might will use it more on social media (because of character limit)

 

[Sister Morphine]

Calling her "Princess Kate/Catherine" is frankly, less insulting than continuing to call her Kate Middleton, so maybe that's not a battle worth fighting. At least in the former, it at least acknowledges she's married.