Tatiana Maria
Majesty
- Joined
- Oct 15, 2013
- Messages
- 6,769
- City
- St Petersburg
- Country
- United States
How the titles "normally" work? The British system of Royal and other titles has always been amended to the times.
Let's just start with "The Empress Matilda". From 1141 she was the first female regent in her own right of England (as "mistress of the English"), but as she already was known as "the Empress" she did not have a coronation to become queen. But she was never Empress Regnant, but Empress Consort of the Holy Roman Empire through her marriage with Emperor Heinrich V.
Later princesses were just known as "ladies", like later queens Mary I. and Elizabeth II. James I/VI.'s daughter was known as "Lady Elizabeth Stuart" after she was born as the king's daughter in Scotland in 1596, but finally she was known as the queen of Bohemia, even though her husband had only been a king for a winter. With the German descendants of her, following her grandson George I., German titles became part of the Royal title while George II. was the first Hanoveran prince to get the now "classic" combination of a dukedom (plus Marquisate), Earldom and Baronship in the peerage of England in 1705. But the German titles were kept as well, as was stated by German laws.
And so on...
Today, even though Andrew of York and Harry of Sussex are still "princes of the UK", their HRH-styles have been removed. But other than HRH Princess Katherine of Connaught, princesses Beatrice and Eugenie did not have to give up their Royal titles to marry British commoners. The granting and removing of Royal titles has always been a Royal privilege (hence William's son is Prince George while Harry's son Archie could only claim the title of "Lord" or "Earl" as son of a duke.) and while "granting" Camilla the title of Queen is the one thing that is not in Elizabeth II. power, what the Queen did for herson's "Darling wife" is the most she can do now. But claim that there are "rules" about Royal titles apart from the souvereigns will? Nope, I think.
Indeed, the British system has been amended many times (although in my view it has fallen behind the times in many respects), and the reminder that many conventions are newer than popularly believed is welcome.
However, the automaticity of a wife taking her husband's title, without needing to "earn" it (as Gawin and I were discussing), has been regarded in official quarters as a settled rule in the United Kingdom, as was confirmed in government correspondence and an announcement from the palace in 1923. (Please refer to the next post, as the forum will not permit me to post a link here.)
But claim that there are "rules" about Royal titles apart from the souvereigns will? Nope, I think.
Do you disagree, then, with the many posters here and elsewhere who have argued that legislation would be needed to displace Camilla from the status of queen?