King Charles and Queen Camilla

[Elspeth]

Well it can happen the way it works now:

Camilla is HRH The Princess of Wales by virtue of her marriage to HRH The Prince of Wales, but is known as HRH The Duchess of Cornwall.

In the future the same scenario can be followed:

Camilla is HM The Queen by virtue of her marriage to HM The King, but is known as HRH The Princess-Consort.

In that case no Act of Parliament is required.

The difference is that Camilla is HRH The Duchess of Cornwall by virtue of being marrried to HRH The Duke of Cornwall, so she's using one of the titles she already has anyway. As the wife of HM The King, she'd be HM The Queen Consort automatically, and because the monarch doesn't have other titles she wouldn't have anything else to choose from. She can call herself Bozo the Clown for all the difference it makes - in order to actually be HRH The Princess Consort, rather than just calling herself something which she isn't, there'd have to be an Act of Parliament.

 

[BeatrixFan]

It isn't normal Henri M. You can't have a King married a Duchess - it looks silly and it goes against all the rules for all the wrong reasons.

 

[Henri M.]

Camilla of Cornwall - Camilla of Lancaster

... and because the monarch doesn't have other titles she wouldn't have anything else to choose from.

The Prince of Wales has secondary titles like The Duke of Cornwall, The Duke of Rothesay and a few more.

His spouse, The Princess of Wales, is 'known as' The Duchess of Cornwall (or as The Duchess of Rothesay, in Scotland).

Also the Sovereign holds a secondary title: The Duke of Lancaster.
What the Duchy of Cornwall is for the Heir, that is the Duchy of Lancaster for the Sovereign.

Can The King's spouse, Queen Camilla, 'be known as' The Duchess of Lancaster?
After all the principle looks very much the same as the present situation (using a secondary title) and this would not require an Act of Parliament because Camilla WILL be Queen, but she will 'be known as' The Duchess of Lancaster.

Well, my fellow posters? Your opinion on the (im)possibility of this construction?

 

[Elspeth]

Actually Queen Elizabeth does have more titles.
The Sovereign's subsidiary title is The Duke/Duchess of Lancaster.

That isn't a title in the way that The Duke of Cornwall is a title. The Duchy of Lancaster is an entity, the Duke of Lancaster isn't. Even though the Queen is referred to as the Duke of Lancaster when in Lancashire, it's legally a nonesxistent title because it merged with the Crown back in the 15th century. The Queen Mother was never the Duchess of Lancaster.

 

[branchg]

Camilla cannot choose to hold a lesser rank and title that doesn't exist and is without precedent to an equal marriage to The King.

 

[branchg]

We in the States always got Diana's title (before and after divorce) wrong, She was Diana, Princess of Wales. The Princess prefix comes after. The whole Princess Di thing was incorrect to use.

She was HRH The Princess of Wales while married and Diana, Princess of Wales after the divorce. However, the Palace did confirm it was acceptable for people to call her "Princess Diana" since she was the mother of a future king. In other words, The Queen had no objection to it, even though it was never official.

Alice was never formally created Princess Alice either. She was simply allowed to style herself in this manner by The Queen.

 

[Henri M.]

Camilla cannot choose to hold a lesser rank and title that doesn't exist and is without precedent to an equal marriage to The King.

The Queen seems to disagree with you:

"Her Majesty The Queen, Duke of Lancaster, has approved the Regimental cap badge for the new Duke of Lancaster's Regiment (King's, Lancashire and Border)."

(Court Circular)

 

[Elspeth]

The title continues to be used. That doesn't mean that the dukedom itself actually exists. The dukedom merged with the crown several hundred years ago.

 

[Henri M.]

The Duchy of Lancaster - The Duke and Duchess of Lancaster

The Duchy seems very alive and kicking and does exist in reality,
see the link: http://www.duchyoflancaster.co.uk

Who owns the Duchy of Lancaster?
The estates and jurisdiction known as the Duchy of Lancaster have belonged to the reigning Sovereign as Duke of Lancaster since 1399.

Why is Her Majesty The Queen referred to as the Duke of Lancaster and not the Duchess of Lancaster?
Historically, Queen Victoria considered that the title 'Duke' was the proper title for the holder of a Dukedom whether man or woman, that of Duchess being a courtesy title for the consort of a Duke. Today, Her Majesty The Queen is sometimes referred to as the Duke of Lancaster. However, the use of the title is considered to be dependent upon the pleasure of the reigning monarch and is not used on official or formal documents or on occasions.(!!!)

Where does the Duchy income go?
The net income of the Duchy is paid to the reigning Sovereign as Duke of Lancaster. The annual accounts of the Duchy are submitted to Parliament.

 

[Marcus25]

I considered the announcement that Camilla wished to be known as The Princess Consort to be nothing more than a short term measure to calm public opinion at the time of the marriage. When the PoW succeeds there will doubtless be a wave of public sympathy for Charles and the Royal Family at the death of his mother & I doubt MP's will be demanding an urgent sitting to enact a law to regulate her status. Effectively this would be a law to create a morganatic marriage and this does not exist in British law. It would have to be a retrospective law (very unusual) as Camilla will already have become Queen the moment Charles became King.

At the time of the 1936 abdication crisis, it was discussed that Wallis Simpson should marry the King morganatically and receive the title Duchess of Lancaster with the style 'Highness' ranking after the 'Royal Highnesses' even Princess Alice, Countess of Athlone. It was put to the cabinet 'informally' by PM Baldwin and the Dominion Prime Ministers. It was rejected because English common law does not provide for this type of marriage. This was why after the abdication, when the HRH was withheld from The Duchess of W, many constitutional experts said it was unlawful. Of course the style HRH is not constitutional but considered within the gift of the monarch so the opposing view was that the King was in order to withhold it. She still however became a Duchess i.e. wife of a Duke. Whilst a constitutional 'grey area' might be acceptable for an ex-King no longer in the succession, it would be unacceptable for the reigning monarch and his wife.

Camilla will be Queen I am sure and the people/establishment will get used to it. One concession might be that she will choose not to be annointed/crowned as Queen Consort and this might satisfy the (already dwindling) numbers opposed to her. As for calling herself Princess Consort whilst technically being Queen it would be absurd. The title of Queen Consort is an established position to which many rights and honours are attached. It would create far more problems than it resolved!

 

[Elspeth]

The Duchy seems very alive and kicking and does exist in reality,
see the link: http://www.duchyoflancaster.co.uk

Who owns the Duchy of Lancaster?
The estates and jurisdiction known as the Duchy of Lancaster have belonged to the reigning Sovereign as Duke of Lancaster since 1399.

Why is Her Majesty The Queen referred to as the Duke of Lancaster and not the Duchess of Lancaster?
Historically, Queen Victoria considered that the title 'Duke' was the proper title for the holder of a Dukedom whether man or woman, that of Duchess being a courtesy title for the consort of a Duke. Today, Her Majesty The Queen is sometimes referred to as the Duke of Lancaster. However, the use of the title is considered to be dependent upon the pleasure of the reigning monarch and is not used on official or formal documents or on occasions.(!!!)

Where does the Duchy income go?
The net income of the Duchy is paid to the reigning Sovereign as Duke of Lancaster. The annual accounts of the Duchy are submitted to Parliament.

Do you want to show us where there has been a Duchess of Lancaster since the 15th century?

 

[BeatrixFan]

From "Lady Troubridge's Book of Etiquette 1929", On Precedence but with a focus on the matter in the hand;

The King always comes first but remember, His Majesty's lesser titles are ignored though still having great importance throughout the Empire. For example, The King is The Duke of Lancaster but he is not seated as a Duke, but as a King and if he were to be seated as a Duke, Her Majesty is not The Duchess of Lancaster and what a terrible fuss it would cause.

 

[branchg]

The dukedom merged with the Crown centuries ago and is simply a style used when The Sovereign is doing business in the duchy ("Her Majesty The Queen, The Duke of Lancaster"). It is used exclusively when referring to The Sovereign alone.

 

[Frothy]

The Duchy of Lancaster is real. Every queen consort has been Duchess of Lancaster, no?

And BranchQ, your earlier post mystified me: that Camilla would be created a Princess in her own right. That would not need to happen. If the King wishes her to be legally Princess Consort she will be. If an Act is needed, it will happen. Why anybody supposes an Act would never happen is beyond me. I believe we can expect Acts regarding royalty in this country in the intermediate future. There may be several. There will be one changing the disbarment of Catholics from the throne, one disestablishing the Monarch as head of the C of E (and that will be because of Charles wishing it so). The latter is the one that is most probable to happen, and you would not be able to change just one thing - if there is any legislation, the public will demand the Swedish/Dutch changes removing male precedence in the line.

In the day job, I am involved in politics and these things are expected.

The Duke of Windsor's marriage was semi-morganatic, wasn't it? B/C of the decision of the King (fount of honour)?

The fundamental thing is that the title will change. It doesn't matter if she is legally Queen or POW. Just as it doesn't matter if Louise is legally a Princess. Right here on TRF we see the horrible effect of messing with titles. What is this thread called? Not "Princess of Wales Current Events". Who can recall when a wife used a different title from her husband? What does it remotely matter if the Princess Consort is legally entitled to 'Majesty' but every person she ever meets, her staff, and every newspaper report ever written about her calls her 'Royal Highness' and 'Princess'? She will be the Princess Consort and referred to, including on this Forum in the thread titles as 'The Princess Consort'. People in Britain think of her as Duchess of Cornwall. The damage is done.

The only thing that can stop this nightmare scenario is if Charles fights his corner for his woman.

The British public would respect him and be touched by his love and manliness if he would stand up for his wife.

 

[BeatrixFan]

1) The Duchy of Lancaster is real although some people dispute the Queen's right to the title "Duke of Lancaster". Consorts have never been "Duchess of Lancaster" and female sovereigns have styled theirselves "Duke of Lancaster" - there has never been a Duchess of Lancaster.

2) An Act of Parliament is needed to make Camilla "Princess Consort" because it is not a title that exists and although the King can create new titles, in this situation, it's Parliament and not the King who need to do the work.

3) The Duke of Windsor's marriage was not semi-morganatic as morganatic marriage is illegal for British subjects. The King decided not to grant Wallis the HRH however, now it seems that this wasn't exactly kosher.

 

[branchg]

An Act of Parliament is required because legally Camilla is Queen Consort when Charles becomes King. She cannot hold a rank and title like HRH The Princess Consort without legislation because she would be HM The Queen, which is obviously superior to being a princess of the UK. The marriage cannot be morganatic.

The Duke and Duchess of Windsor were married equally, however, Wallis was denied the rank of HRH via letters patent. Technically, this made their marriage morganatic since Wallis was granted the rank of a Duchess with the style of Her Grace, which was unprecedented for a wife of a prince of the UK.

The Sovereign can grant or withhold any style, title or rank for members of the royal family, but this does not apply to a King or Queen Consort. The succession and title of the monarch is governed by Parliament and the Crown Commonwealth countries.

 

[Frothy]

Branch,

What I am questioning is the apparent - and absolutely foundless - orthodoxy on TRF that there would not be an Act of Parliament on the title.

If Charles still wants one and Camilla wants one, there will be one. In fact, I will go further. Having announced that Camilla will be known as PC and not HMtheQ, the presumption is that whatever needs to happen will happen and it is galactically unlikely that it would not happen. The British public has been told by the Palace, and expects, that Camilla is to be known as Princess Consort. You cannot suddenly say to them 'We messed up, she'll actually be known as the Queen'.

She should be known as Princess of Wales. When - in our history - has any wife been known by one of her husband's lesser titles?

Answer: never. So the idea that an Act, if needed, would not happen is sheer fantasy. The announcement has gone out from Buck House. The precedent is set. TRF has no "Princess of Wales" threads on the forum.

There is only one way to stop it, and that is that Charles stand up for the rights of his wife.

But within the next twenty years - I'd guess ten - you will have a lot of legislation passed on the royal family. I would bet on that. There's nothing magical about passing an Act. We do it every week or so.

 

[Iluvbertie]

Branch,

What I am questioning is the apparent - and absolutely foundless - orthodoxy on TRF that there would not be an Act of Parliament on the title.

If Charles still wants one and Camilla wants one, there will be one. In fact, I will go further. Having announced that Camilla will be known as PC and not HMtheQ, the presumption is that whatever needs to happen will happen and it is galactically unlikely that it would not happen. The British public has been told by the Palace, and expects, that Camilla is to be known as Princess Consort. You cannot suddenly say to them 'We messed up, she'll actually be known as the Queen'.

You are forgetting the fact that this matter was raised in Parliament and the government has already admitted that she will be Queen (this happened before the wedding) - and that only an Act of Parliament can stop her being Queen.


The next question is - when will that Act of Parliament be passed. Surely not during the reign of the present Queen. So after Charles becomes King Parliament is then recalled or if sitting has to go through the process of passing legislation to take away from someone a title they have already had.

Camilla will be Queen.

The real question is for how long she will have that title.


Do you really think that Parliament will pass the legislation after Charles becomes King? I don't.

I don't believe that the British Parliament or people are that vindictive to take away from a woman the title of Queen just because of who she is.


If she is not good enough to be the Queen then Parliament should have advised the Queen not to give her consent to the marriage in my opinion.


As she is the wife of the heir to the throne and people are warming to her I believe that the idea of Princess Consort will just fade into the background, especially if the present Queen lives another ten years or so and people really see how good Camilla is for Charles, William and Harry marry and their are new people in the family.

But within the next twenty years - I'd guess ten - you will have a lot of legislation passed on the royal family. I would bet on that. There's nothing magical about passing an Act. We do it every week or so.

Pass legislation every week but not to do with the Royal Family.

There are all sorts of constitutional issues when passing legislation - giving women equal rights to the throne will raise its head again when William's wife is pregnant - as it did when Diana was pregnant with William but once he was born it was put on the back-burner.

The issue of Catholic marriage will also only really be considered if William wanted to marry a Catholic.

Unless or until these issues need to be dealt with the British parliament probably want deal with them.

The issue with Camilla is that unless the legislation is passed in the present reign, and if it was going to be passed it should have been done before the wedding, then it will mean stripping her of a title not just denying her one.

At a time when legislation, according to you and others, legislation is being passed to give equality to some who don't know have it with regard to the throne you are suggesting that Parliament deny one woman the right to take her husband's title denying her the right given to every other woman in the kingdom.


Using Duchess of Cornwall could even be argued as using the senior title in the sense it is the title Charles has had for longer - i.e. since his mother's accession. It is his title through inheritance not through conferral.

 

[BeatrixFan]

I agree with what you're saying Frothy but in Britain, Parliament has a different role. It can't pass an act like the one that would be needed without the King requesting them to pass it. And the King can't request it until he is King. And when he's King, Camilla will automatically be Queen. So it would mean removing a title and why should Charles give that right to Parliament when they could use it against the Royal Family in the future?

The Monarchy is built on over a thousand years of tradition. To begin changing things for media personalities now would not only be silly but it would betray the memories of those monarchs before us.

Parliament can't reform the Royal Family without the people requesting it and they can only do that by the ballot box. No political party is going to fight a one party cause on the Royal Family and if they did, they probably wouldn't get in. It's a very very complicated system we have and for every one person who would change something in Britain, there are three who would put it back to how it was. The Catholic issue, Camilla's title - with the world as it is, I can't see these things being the priorities of any Government and let's face it, for 20/30 years under King Charles (if that) is it worth making a precedent or playing around with things?

 

[juliana]

Beatrix, I agree with your posts.
What I would wonder however is that will Charles actually have Camilla at the coronation ceremony and be crowned next to him as was his grandmother and grandfather King George VI and Queen Elizabeth? Is the statement about the Princess Consort a reflection of that? If UK ever goes down the primogeniture route then maybe the spouses will always be a Prince/Princess Consort. That would be my preference.

 

[Frothy]

Just to clear it up, I agree she will legally be queen just as she is presently, legally, Princess of Wales.

What I am saying is that both those facts are irrelevant.

What matters is what she is known as.

"Duchess of Cornwall pictures part 30" or whatever.

It is no more ludicrous to suppose that the wife of the King will be known as Princess Consort than to suppose that the wife of the Prince of Wales would be known as the Duchess of Cornwall. In the public's eye, there is already something amiss with this marriage. It is already semi-morganatic because of the fact that the DofC does not use the normal title. Something is already rotten in the state of Britain!


It has already been announced by Buck House that she will be known as HRH the Princess Consort, and if everybody calls her that, then in reality she'll be that. Whatever legally she might be will be of the least consequence.

If legislation is required to say she will be known as PC, although still legally Q, it will happen.

It won't seem so odd to have a King and a Princess Consort as the Netherlands are already to do this. Two major Euro monarchies doing it at once.

If she is not good enough to be the Queen then Parliament should have advised the Queen not to give her consent to the marriage in my opinion.

She's apparently not good enough to be Princess of Wales! (I know she is legally). She's known by a lesser title. A first in our history and a most unwelcome first. It was a disastrous mistake and should never have happened.

What I am trying to point out is that Charles' attitude towards religion, and the fact of his marriage to a woman he could not marry in a C of E ceremony, has made it extremely probable that there will be legislation disestablishing the monarch as head of the C of E. And the further point is that once you open the can of royal worms, you can't stop there. When this law comes up, people will demand the change of male rights (as a politician and a monarchist I will certainly be arguing for equal-birth primogeniture). It is an ideal time for the latter as Charles, William, and Harry would be the first three in line anyway and no Victoria-Carl Philip style disinheriting would take place. If the monarch is not to be head of the C of E, the Cathoic ban could go, and so forth and so on. While you are relieving Charles of the headship of the C of E, you can easily say 'and the queen will be known as HRH the Princess Consort" and the thing is done.

And much of the blame for 'messing with success' must go to Charles. He is coming up with stupid titles like Lady Louise and Princess Consort and Duchess of Cornwall. He needs to step up to the plate and say his wife will be known as Queen upon his succession.

I am 100% sure Britain would respect his guts and their love if he were to do it.

 

[branchg]

I don't think there will be an issue when Charles becomes King. Polls are already showing over 50% of the British public think Camilla should become Queen and Parliament will be very reluctant to pass legislation on this matter.

At the end of the day, there is no logical reason why she shouldn't be Queen and forcing her to assume a lesser rank and title is pretty harsh.

 

[BeatrixFan]

It was a disastrous mistake and should never have happened.

Here Here Frothy. Never was a truer word spoken.

 

[juliana]

I actually had respect for Camilla and Charles who I assumed made the choice of Duchess of Cornwall title. I thought they were in fact acknowledging the memory and title Diana and her sons -The Wales and wished to leave the title with her. The whole debacle between the 3 of them was a monstrosity from all perspectives, so it seemed a nice gesture to me. The Duchess of Cornwall title is not that problematic- Charles and Camilla are both known as the Duke and Duchess of Rothsay when in Scotland.

It would be sensible to be proactive and change some of the legislation to allow for primogeniture and to establish the consort title, as perhaps The Netherlands may do, when Beatrix is no longer Queen.

I thought I read a poll in an article in The Scotsman a couple of months ago which showed that though Camilla is becoming more popular more than 50% do not want her to be queen. Here is the link- found it.
http://scotlandonsunday.scotsman.com/opinion.cfm?id=544442006

 

[branchg]

Even if Charles had married a different woman altogether, it would have been very likely she also would have taken her style as Duchess of Cornwall and Rothesay. Diana was Princess of Wales for 15 years and the mother of a future king, so it would have very difficult for the public to accept anyone becoming the new Princess of Wales when Charles remarried.

 

[Tim Yates]

King Charles III
Queen Camilla
The Duke of Edinburgh
The Prince of Wales
The Prince Henry

Camilla, the Duchess of Cornwall decides not to become the queen consort.
She accepts to become the Princess consort after Prince Charles will be crowned as the king. Compares to Princess Lalla Salma Bennani, the king of Morocco. So, The Duchess of Cornwall will become The Princess Camilla.

 

[BeatrixFan]

Tim, this has been done to death. Read back a few pages and you'll see that Camilla can't become Princess Consort without first becoming Queen. So she will be Queen.

 

[Tim Yates]

Tim, this has been done to death. Read back a few pages and you'll see that Camilla can't become Princess Consort without first becoming Queen. So she will be Queen.

The Prince of Wales and The Duchess of Cornwall married at the Guildhall in Windsor on 9th April 2005 in a civil ceremony. Afterwards, there was a Service of Prayer and Dedication in St George’s Chapel, Windsor Castle, over which the Archbishop of Canterbury presided.
It is intended that The Duchess of Cornwall should use the title HRH The Princess Consort when The Prince of Wales accedes to The Throne.

http://www.princeofwales.gov.uk/about/doc/duchess_cornwall_01.html

 

[Tim Yates]

The Prince of Wales and The Duchess of Cornwall married at the Guildhall in Windsor on 9th April 2005 in a civil ceremony. Afterwards, there was a Service of Prayer and Dedication in St George’s Chapel, Windsor Castle, over which the Archbishop of Canterbury presided.
It is intended that The Duchess of Cornwall should use the title HRH The Princess Consort when The Prince of Wales accedes to The Throne.

http://www.princeofwales.gov.uk/about/doc/duchess_cornwall_01.html

The Prince of Wales is the eldest son of The Queen and The Duke of Edinburgh. He was born on 14 November, 1948 and christened Charles Philip Arthur George on 15 December that year in the Music Room at Buckingham Palace.
The Prince of Wales married Mrs Camilla Parker Bowles on 9 April 2005 at a civil ceremony at the Guildhall in Windsor, followed by a service of prayer and dedication in St. George's Chapel, Windsor Castle.
After the wedding, Mrs Parker Bowles became known as HRH The Duchess of Cornwall. When The Prince of Wales accedes to the throne, she will be known as HRH The Princess Consort.
http://www.royal.gov.uk/output/page3974.asp

 

[BeatrixFan]

Yes dear, I know what happened. I was there. It has since been admitted by all concerned that there is no LEGAL way that Camilla can become Princess Consort. When the Queen dies, Charles automatically becomes "King Charles" and Camilla automatically becomes "Queen Camilla". Parliament would then have to pass an act to take that title away from her, something that just won't happen. You can quote all the Clarence House announcements you like - the Princess Consort thing was intended to shut the Diana loons up.