King Charles and Queen Camilla

[Jo of Palatine]

One question that does spring to mind is what will we be if he becomes Charles III? I mean, at the moment we're Elizabethans. If he became Edward, we'd be Edwardians. If he became George, we'd be Georgians. So, what will we be if he sticks with Charles?

Charlie's Angels?

 

[BeatrixFan]

Now that I like.

 

[milla Ca]

With Charles III we will have a wonderful Queen too, so let us be Camillans!

 

[BeatrixFan]

Camillians. I like it. I'm just moving house and I've just had an artist friend of mine start work on painting a portrait of Camilla for the wall. In the mean time, I've got a huge blown-up portrait on the wall and when the removal men were unloading things, they asked me where I wanted it. Anyway, I was putting it up and this cockney removal man said, "She's a beauty aint she? You can do alot wiv a woman like that. I mean, I wouldnt cos she's Royal aint she. Yep, she's gonna make a good 'un that one". I thought it was rather special.

 

[User0501]

With Charles III we will have a wonderful Queen too, so let us be Camillans!

Name of an era is the name of the king not the queen.For an example,during George VI's reign it was the Georgian era.

 

[BeatrixFan]

She was making a joke.

 

[milla Ca]

Camillians. I like it. I'm just moving house and I've just had an artist friend of mine start work on painting a portrait of Camilla for the wall. In the mean time, I've got a huge blown-up portrait on the wall and when the removal men were unloading things, they asked me where I wanted it. Anyway, I was putting it up and this cockney removal man said, "She's a beauty aint she? You can do alot wiv a woman like that. I mean, I wouldnt cos she's Royal aint she. Yep, she's gonna make a good 'un that one". I thought it was rather special.

What a nice story BeatrixFan!
What kind of portrait of Camilla will you get on the wall?
And another question: Did you ever `meet` the Duchess or the Prince?
(I´m sorry, if you maybe think i´m too nosy... )

 

[hrhcp]

"King Charles and Queen Camilla"

... just doesn't quite have the right ring to it.

 

[Jo of Palatine]

Name of an era is the name of the king not the queen.For an example,during George VI's reign it was the Georgian era.

For another example, the current era is the Elizabethan one. Name of an era is the name of the king, eh? Please, could we all try not to voice opinions in a way that sounds pert?

 

[BeatrixFan]

What kind of portrait of Camilla will you get on the wall? And another question: Did you ever `meet` the Duchess or the Prince?

Well, I've asked for the official wedding portrait. I managed to get a huge pic of it and it's been studied by the artist who's going to paint Camilla for me. I'd like to think it's the first portrait painted but I could wrong. I've met the Prince of Wales once and the Duchess twice but the first time she still Mrs Parker-Bowles.

 

[User0501]

For another example, the current era is the Elizabethan one. Name of an era is the name of the king, eh? Please, could we all try not to voice opinions in a way that sounds pert?

What I meant was the name of the monarch not the name of the spouse of the monarch.

 

[Jo of Palatine]

What I meant was the name of the monarch not the name of the spouse of the monarch.

I know. But that was obviously a joke while your post appeared to be instructing the audience in a rather pert way that the lady who wrote the joke was at fault because she didn't get her information right. Which, in my very personal opinion, was not nice. I wish we would be more careful with what we write - and I not only include myself but put myself in a very prominent position as I know my faults only too well.

 

[Jo of Palatine]

"King Charles and Queen Camilla"

... just doesn't quite have the right ring to it.

What's your exact problem with it? Is "Camilla" not regal enough a name for the wife of a king? Or do you prefer king George to king Charles?

 

[Warren]

What I meant was the name of the monarch not the name of the spouse of the monarch.

Yes, thank you srivishnu, but we are not here to correct each other as if marking schoolchildrens' homework.

Most of us are here to communicate, share and enjoy. It is OK to relax and resist the temptation to constantly correct others. A sense of humour wouldn't go astray either.

 

[Empress]

For another example, the current era is the Elizabethan one. Name of an era is the name of the king, eh? Please, could we all try not to voice opinions in a way that sounds pert?

Well, she is technically right. It is always the name of the sovereign monarch, not the consort. Further more, in some documents, Queens who are queens in their own right are referred to as king, just as the queen takes the male form for the duchy of Lancaster. There she is the Duke of Lancaster as the sovereign.

So, technically, depending on where she is from, (i.e Spain, where they are referred to as the "kings") she could be right.

Hope I do not sound too much like a school teacher.. This is just information that I have, that I would want to have shared with me if I did not have it.

Regards

 

[Frothy]

Branch

The Crown may not act contrary to constitutional precedent or law without being so advised by The Prime Minister. Parliament is Sovereign, not the King. The issue of Camilla's rank, title and style once Charles becomes King is automatic in law. Any deviation requires parliamentary review and consent.

If Parliament and the Crown Commonwealth agree, they can pass legislation stating Camilla will not hold the rank, title and precedence of Queen Consort. At that point, the King is free to issue letters patent creating her a Princess of the UK.

Problem solved!

This is simply wrong.

The King did not seek the PM's permission to raise his granddaughters to the ranks of Princesses. You are stating as fact what is actually denied by the facts. Charles' decision to have the queen styled as Princess Consort has already been agreed by the government, see posts passim.

Her style and title is certainly not automatic, otherwise she would be known as the Princess of Wales instead of merely being entitled to a style she never uses.

Government, Palace, and princely spokesmen all agree she will be known as HRH the Princess Consort. Legislation is not required. It would only be required to deny her the rank of queen. But a legal rank never used is a mere footnote. To all intents and purposes, Camilla is Duchess of Cornwall not Princess of Wales, whatever the legalities. Facts on the ground make her less than her predecessor because of the title she is known by.

And Skydragon, Tony Wedgewood Benn did not use a lower title; he gave up his rank altogether.

 

[BeatrixFan]

Frothy, the title Princess Consort has not been agreed by the Government. Such a decision cannot be decided by one Government - it has to be agreed on in Parliament and that hasn't happened. Until it does, Camilla will be Queen. I'm afraid legislation is required as the title "Princess Consort" does not exist and would need creating by Parliament.

Camilla is Princess of Wales however, she chooses to use the title of Duchess of Cornwall. She still legally holds the title Princess of Wales just as Tony Benn still holds his titles - he cannot legally give up his titles unless he informs Parliament that he has done so, and he has not.

Allow me to put it like this - if I am Duchess of Yellow and Countess of Green, I can use whichever title I choose. It is my right because I legally have both titles. But I couldn't suddenly use the title "Princess of Red" because it doesn't exist. I could only use it if Parliament allowed me to use it.

 

[branchg]

Frothy, it has been made very clear by the Government that legislation would be required in the UK and the Crown Commonwealth nations for Camilla to be known as HRH The Princess Consort. When The Queen dies and Charles becomes The Sovereign, Camilla automatically becomes HM The Queen in her own right as the wife of the King.

In 1936, Edward VIII asked Baldwin and the Cabinet to allow him to marry Wallis Simpson morganatically. As was made clear then, there is no legal basis for the wife of the King not being Queen Consort. Since the Government and Dominions were not prepared to accept Wallis as Queen, Edward abdicated rather than bring the Crown into conflict with the Government.

The same precedents apply and cannot be ignored for Camilla. There is no way she can be a Princess when she is legally Queen. If Parliament passes legislation removing her rank and title, the King is then free to create a lesser title for his wife.

 

[User0501]

Yes, thank you srivishnu, but we are not here to correct each other as if marking schoolchildrens' homework.

Most of us are here to communicate, share and enjoy. It is OK to relax and resist the temptation to constantly correct others. A sense of humour wouldn't go astray either.

You are welcome.

 

[Elspeth]

I think we're agreed that without legislation, Camilla won't actually be HRH the Princess Consort. But if she and Charles refer to her as such, even if she is legally Queen, who, realistically, is going to stop them?

(trying desperately to not mention Bozo the Clown again, after the trouble it caused last time... )

 

[Royal Fan]

I Think Camilla should and hopefully will be called Queen Consort they are legally married now after all.

 

[branchg]

I think we're agreed that without legislation, Camilla won't actually be HRH the Princess Consort. But if she and Charles refer to her as such, even if she is legally Queen, who, realistically, is going to stop them?

(trying desperately to not mention Bozo the Clown again, after the trouble it caused last time... )

As BeatrixFan pointed out, the title has to be created with letters patent issued by The King. Since Camilla would already hold superior rank and precedence as Her Majesty, there would have to be a mechanism provided for her to assume a lesser rank as Princess Consort.

She cannot be "known as" an inferior rank and title once she is Queen. The present situation is different because Camilla is a princess of the UK regardless of her titles in the peerage as the wife of Prince Charles. She can choose to be styled by any of them without affecting her rank and precedence as HRH.

 

[Skydragon]

And Skydragon, Tony Wedgewood Benn did not use a lower title; he gave up his rank altogether.

He had to fight for some time to be able to do so and finally the law was changed with the introduction of The Peerage Act 1963, allowing renunciation of peerages and was given the Royal Assent and became law on 31st July 1963.

It is not a case of just giving up a title, it required a change in the law and until then he was known as Anthony Benn, therefore choosing to use a lesser title.

 

[Elspeth]

She cannot be "known as" an inferior rank and title once she is Queen. The present situation is different because Camilla is a princess of the UK regardless of her titles in the peerage as the wife of Prince Charles. She can choose to be styled by any of them without affecting her rank and precedence as HRH.

Why not? British law doesn't stop people being known by names other than their own as long as there's no criminal intent involved. So she's Queen Camilla, and she and King Charles put the word out that in view of recent history and the circumstances surrounding their marriage, HM the Queen would like to be addressed and known as HRH The Princess Consort. Who's going to slam them in the Tower for it?

OK, I know and you know that it isn't going to happen that way. I'm just wondering why you're so adamant that it would be impossible. As far as I know, there's nothing in British law to stop people being known by names that aren't actually theirs.

 

[BeatrixFan]

It would be impossible Elspeth. Once you've been Queen, it makes absolutely no sense to be known as an inferior rank and remember - once she's crowned Queen Consort which will happen fairly soon after Charles becomes King, she is Queen Consort for the rest of her life. Now we know that in Britain it takes ages for a law change and I truly believe that they either wont bother or wont have the time to change it before Camilla is crowned.

 

[Royal Fan]

Wonder how soon itll be when Charles takes the Throne and how long will they wait between the passing of EII to the Coronation of C III (hope that makes sense)

 

[Elspeth]

It would be impossible Elspeth. Once you've been Queen, it makes absolutely no sense to be known as an inferior rank and remember - once she's crowned Queen Consort which will happen fairly soon after Charles becomes King, she is Queen Consort for the rest of her life. Now we know that in Britain it takes ages for a law change and I truly believe that they either wont bother or wont have the time to change it before Camilla is crowned.

Usually the coronation doesn't happen until about a year after the accession. If she decided she was going to be known as the Princess Consort, then obviously she wouldn't take part in the coronation except as a spectator. If they plan to go through with a joint coronation, then obviously she's going to have to acknowledge the Queen title right from the start. I just wonder what this "it is intended that she be known as Princess Consort" stuff is about on the royal websites, if there's no question that she'll (a) be Queen and (b) be known as such from the start. There were more ambiguous ways of wording it than "It is intended."

 

[Elspeth]

Wonder how soon itll be when Charles takes the Throne and how long will they wait between the passing of EII to the Coronation of C III (hope that makes sense)

There's usually at least a year between the accession and the coronation, at least that's been the case over the past century. It seems they try to have coronations in the late spring or summer, so if the Queen dies in winter, it's possible there'll be more than a year. Of course, with Charles being rather elderly himself, they may decide to hurry it up just in case.

 

[Frothy]

Elspeth

think we're agreed that without legislation, Camilla won't actually be HRH the Princess Consort. But if she and Charles refer to her as such, even if she is legally Queen, who, realistically, is going to stop them?

(trying desperately to not mention Bozo the Clown again, after the trouble it caused last time... )

Best regards to Bozo - - but we're not agreed on that at all.

It is 100% wrong to state that without legisation Camillia won't actually be HRH the PC.

Without legislation, she will be the Queen.

But legislation is not needed to create a queen consort a princess in her own right; nor is it needed for a queen consort to use a lesser, but sua juris, title of her own.

It was considered in the case of Queen Caroline as referenced earlier.

Also as referenced, the government, Buckingham Palace and Clarence House all state she will be PC, and the government spokeswoman has said legislation would only be needed to deny her her rank as queen.

Nothing more than letters patent would be required to create her an own-right Princess of the UK cf: Prince Philip, Prince Albert, various uk princesses.

 

[Frothy]

Branchq, you said

Frothy, it has been made very clear by the Government that legislation would be required in the UK and the Crown Commonwealth nations for Camilla to be known as HRH The Princess Consort. When The Queen dies and Charles becomes The Sovereign, Camilla automatically becomes HM The Queen in her own right as the wife of the King.

Contradicting you, the government spokeswoman actually said the opposite:

A Department for Constitutional Affairs spokeswoman confirmed that legislation would be needed for Camilla not to become Queen automatically on Charles's succession.

"I think traditionally that's probably the case because in all similar circumstances in the past in past royal marriages that is what has happened," said the spokeswoman.

"But I think she is not going to be referred to as Queen, she will be referred to as the Princess Consort." Asked about the position of other countries where the Prince of Wales would become head of state on his succession, the spokeswoman replied: "I think you are right in thinking it would require legislation for her not to be Queen."

It is only agreed that legislation would be required to deny her the rank of queen. No legislation would be needed for her to be created a Princess in her own right and to use that title instead.