King Charles and Queen Camilla

[Jo of Palatine]

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.

I sometimes have the feeling that the discussion here does not get into the real problem: what happens to the monarchy if the plebs decides that the wife of the king should not be known as queen?

I say "plebs" as there is neither a democratic plebiscit nor the expressed wish of parliament nor government that the wife of the next king should not be known as his queen.

I understand that the announcement about the "Princess Consort" was made before the actual wedding, at a time when the public had no real idea of who the then Mrs. Camilla Parker Bowles was. It was clear that she had a remarkably negative image with enough people to eventually face problems as wife of The Prince of Wales. It was clear that part of the media was not willing to let be of their Diana-Camilla-Charles-triangle bestselling story. So what to do? The RF surely did not want to risk a major upheaval. And Camilla had yet to prove herself as a dignified memeber of the RF, as deserving the name and position of the next queen following Lady Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon and HM the Queen Elizabeth II. So I guess this announcement was a way to deal with the potential dangers of this marriage.

But - here in Germany we call something like that a "Absichtserklärung" (letter of intent - someone states that he plans to do something in the future). But if the situation changes he of course has the right to change his notions.

Did the situation change? I think so. Now people have come to know Camilla and those who have met her (including journalists) are convinced she is genuine and good for Britain. Thus, more and more people believe she will be a good queen. So why endanger the monarchy if there is not real need?

Because I sincerely believe that once the king has been forced (and that not by a democratic institution but by a public opinion easily manipulated by the media!) to reduce the wife of his own choice to a lesser rank, it can only come worse. Next step will be to throw all members of the Royal House (except the heirs of the direct line) out of the ranks of Royals. Lady Louise already is the beginning. We'll see Harry not getting a Royal dukedom and his kids being just Mr. and Miss Windsor... But once that happens, it's just a question of time till there will be no monarchy in Britain anymore.

That's the danger as I see it.

 

[Frothy]

I completely agree with you.

However, there is the continental precedent to consider. It is possible that the Dutch monarchy will be doing this the same time as the British one. That may make Princess Consort easier to swallow.

I am a traditionalist in every way when it comes to titles. I very much hope Camilla will use and not just legally be queen. To me, say what you like, Louise is not a real princess. What is the sound of one princess clapping alone in a forest, as it were? Or to put it another way, if it doesn't sound like a princess or - er - quack like a princess, it isn't a princess. 99 out of 100 British people do not think of Lady Louise as a princess. So whatever the legalities, effectively, she is not.

And if Camilla winds up being known as princess consort, effectively, she will not be queen, whatever her legal status.

 

[Jo of Palatine]

To me, say what you like, Louise is not a real princess. What is the sound of one princess clapping alone in a forest, as it were? Or to put it another way, if it doesn't sound like a princess or - er - quack like a princess, it isn't a princess. 99 out of 100 British people do not think of Lady Louise as a princess. So whatever the legalities, effectively, she is not.

Hm, why is Louise not a real princess? I mean everybody calls her cousins Beatrice and Eugenie princesses. But they are just daughters of a son of the current queen, exactly like Louise.

As for the Netherlands: the Netherlands have a tradition of three queens in a row now with only a prince consort at their side. For close to (or more, not sure now) a century they have not had a king with his wife, the queen. Thus, it's a different situation. The Brits have had quite some formidable queens in a row: Victoria I., Alexandra, Mary, Elizabeth and now Elizabeth II. So for them this change to a queenless monarchy would be much more difficult than for the Dutch and I'm always afraid that one opens Pandora's box if one changes such traditions. You'll never know where this will end.

The fact that even much more absolute monarchs did not mess around with titles when it came to their wifes, even if they hated them, should tell us something. True, Catherine of Aragon wasn't allowed to keep her title as queen after the dissolution of her marriage to the king but due to his view that his marriage to her had not been legally binding because she had been his brother's widow before, Catherine was known as the "Princess Dowager of Wales" officially.

Anne of Cleves was granted the title of "The King's Most Honored Sister" after the anullment of her marriage and ranked as the second lady in the realm after Henry's new queen, but with precedence before Mary and Elizabeth, the king's daughters. IIRC she even had the precedence over Elizabeth when she attended the coronation of queen Mary On her burial site in Westminster Abbey it still says "Anne of Cleves, queen of England". Queen Caroline was not crowned, but she was the queen and called that way in all documents.

I see it as dangerous to the future of the monarchy if Charles should allow to lessen the position of his wife after he becomes king.

 

[branchg]

It would be a total farce if Camilla was to legally be HM The Queen but styled by a title and rank inferior to her rightful status. The marriage would be morganatic and an unprecedented slap in the face to The King and his Consort.

It would also raise the question of what happened in 1936 with Edward VIII. If Charles could marry Camilla before becoming King and have her share all of his titles, styles and rank, then why can she not be Queen? He might as well abdicate like his great-uncle did.

This is a ridiculous notion and I cannot imagine any Prime Minister or Parliament agreeing to allow The King to issue letters patent stripping his wife of her constitutional right to be HM.

 

[branchg]

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.

The only way to be HRH The Princess Consort is for The Sovereign to issue letters patent creating it. Once Charles ascends the throne, his wife constitutionally is HM Queen Camilla for the rest of her life. It is impossible for her to hold the rank and title of HRH Princess of the UK if she is already Queen.

The only way to accomplish this would be for Parliament to pass legislation stating the wife of The King will not have the right to automatically share his rank, which will be determined by the will of The Sovereign as fount of honour instead. Since this constitutes a change to the style and title of the monarchy, it needs the consent of the 16 Crown Commonwealth nations as well.

So, it is one and the same.

 

[branchg]

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.

She is Queen Camilla for the rest of her life the moment her husband becomes The Sovereign, which happens immediately after the death of The Queen. She doesn't need to be crowned at all.

 

[Royal Fan]

So Consorts dont get crowned

 

[Elspeth]

So Consorts dont get crowned

Female consorts do; male ones don't.

 

[BeatrixFan]

I was talking spiritually branchg. Of course, legally she will become Queen immediately when the Queen passes on - I've said that many times. But from a coronation point of view, once she makes that oath - she's Queen Consort till she goes.

 

[Jo of Palatine]

I was talking spiritually branchg. Of course, legally she will become Queen immediately when the Queen passes on - I've said that many times. But from a coronation point of view, once she makes that oath - she's Queen Consort till she goes.

I hope they will simply go through with the coronation for both of them and that's that then. While there are of course still some people who don't want to see her as queen, I guess the majority either wants it, is not really interested in the exact proceedings but supports the monarchy (and thus that the wife of the king is the queen) or is indifferent.

There is a very important mileage between being against Camilla as a person and wanting to change the traditions of the monarchy. The Anti-Camilla movement (if it still exists as a movement at all) should never forget that to toy with the monarchy means to risk the end of it. And who really wnats that?

 

[Jo of Palatine]

It would be a total farce if Camilla was to legally be HM The Queen but styled by a title and rank inferior to her rightful status.

snip part of message

This is a ridiculous notion and I cannot imagine any Prime Minister or Parliament agreeing to allow The King to issue letters patent stripping his wife of her constitutional right to be HM.

Especially as this must happen in the direct aftermath of the queen's passing away. I mean, how would that look like? What kind of image would new king Charles show to his new subjects? Instead of mourning the beloved queen he takes the time to reduce the wife he himself choose and married in her rightful status? Who would dare ask that of him? It really is ridiculous, there's no other word for it.

 

[branchg]

In my view, if they really were opposed to Camilla becoming Queen Consort, then Charles should never have been allowed to marry her in the first place. If he continued to insist, then he should have renounced his place in the line of succession in favor of William.

This is political nonsense and the monarchy has to be above all that.

 

[Jo of Palatine]

In my view, if they really were opposed to Camilla becoming Queen Consort, then Charles should never have been allowed to marry her in the first place. If he continued to insist, then he should have renounced his place in the line of succession in favor of William.

This is political nonsense and the monarchy has to be above all that.

Yes, you're right.

 

[Jo of Palatine]

please don't be upset if I post something about the political situation in Britain but I believe this could have an impact on "king Charles and queen Camilla".

I never thought for a moment that Charles had an easy way leading to his marriage to Camilla when it comes to HM's government: the last real glimpse of a successful Tony Blair was his calling the late Diana "The people's princess" - he quite deteriorated a bit since then, IMHO. So how could he appear a supporter of Charles and Camilla without loosing his face? I'm not sure but I could well believe that the fact that Camilla should never become "queen" (of hearts or Great Britain) but always stay the "king's princess" or "Princess Consort" was an idea of the government, not the Royal Family.

So I believed that as long as Tony Blair of the "people's princess" fame was controlling the power, there would be no chance for a real recognition of Camilla as the future queen. Too much a risk for any politician who does not think in aions but elections.

Now there's two new men: Gordon Brown or David Cameron.
David Cameron is 39 or so I read. Thus, he was just a teenager when Diana married Charles. A young teenie at that. I don't think he feels any emotional attachment towards the late Diana. I could be wrong, of course. But it just doesn't seem to be plausible that a man of his age and aim (and political party) should work against the established couple of Charles and Camilla. If the public does not support a anti-position towards them (he is a politician in the rise, after all), but they obviously don't.

And Gordon Brown? Hmmm, he has an interest in getting support in the establishment as well.

So finally there might be a chance for Charles to get the recognition for Camilla he surely wants and which she deserves.

Just a point of view form Germany, of course.

 

[BeatrixFan]

Jo - spot on and I've tried to say it before and have been told I was reading too much into things. Cameron is pro-Charles because they share interests with regard to the environment and Cameron has said how much he admires Charles. Brown is a well known Republican and could be difficult but if he does become PM, he wont be PM for long and the Queen will soon put him in his place.

 

[Jo of Palatine]

I've tried to say it before and have been told I was reading too much into things.

Reading too much into things? When it comes to politics and loosing a face in public? I'Ve been a journalist for more than 20 years and if there is anything that may make politicians move or keep their position, it's their opinion on how the public would view something...

And it makes sense with Tony Blair: he used the public outcry after Diana's death so much for his own aims that there has been no chance of a review of his position at all. Ánd it is within the Labour party's political aims to reduce the Royal family and the monarchy to a smaller scale than they currently inhabit....

 

[BeatrixFan]

Indeed. This Labour lot have been quite Conservative so they haven't posed a threat to the Royal Family - the Tories never do. But Gordon Brown is likely to lead things away from New Labour and back to old Labour - however, he has got the problem of being Scottish so he's playing a big, "Britishness" card and in one speech, he listed the Queen as an important symbol of Britishness so one never knows.

 

[Avalon]

Giving your views and opinions is perfectly fine but let's not turn this discussion into a political one.

 

[branchg]

Blair didn't want the issue to become a hot potato before the general election. So they fudged around until MP's starting digging deeper to find out what Camilla's status would really be upon marriage. It certainly was not made clear initially.

Personally, I don't think Blair really cared one way or another unless he thought Labour would lose seats because of his approval of the marriage.

 

[milla Ca]

In your discussion about Camillas´ title when Charles will be king, you shouldn´t forget the time factor.
The Queen seems to be with 80years in the best of health, so hopefully she will reign for a couple of years. And i think, the time is playing for Charles and Camilla.
The polls are changing since their marriage, more and more people are thinking positive about Camilla as a person and about her work as a Duchess. The press sometimes wants to show the old pic of an unpopular Camilla, but more people think in a different way (i hope).
Maybe there will be more than one elected Prime Minister, till the question of a Queen Camilla will be of current interest. So it is hard to talk about the political opinion when it will be time for the new King and Queen.
I know that one day we will have an exellent King (as Charles III or with another name ?) and i´m more and more optimistic that we will have a Queen Camilla at his side!

 

[branchg]

The Queen is in excellent health and could reign another 15 years. By the time Charles comes to the throne, there should be no issue with Camilla being Queen Consort and his reign would be relatively short anyway.

 

[iowabelle]

branchg, you have solved the problem! I never considered a 95-year-old Queen (although I should have, since she seems to be blessed with her mother's good health).

 

[Royal Fan]

wonder how big HIS coronation will be as opposed to his mothers in 1953.

 

[sirhon11234]

The Queen's reign

The Queen is in excellent health and could reign another 15 years. By the time Charles comes to the throne, there should be no issue with Camilla being Queen Consort and his reign would be relatively short anyway.

Or Her Majesty could reign for another twenty years!!

 

[Jo of Palatine]

I just read an article claiming that the English word for queen derives from the Anglo-Saxon "cwen". That I had known before. But what I did not know is that around 800 an Anglo-Saxon king was accidentally poisoned by his wife, his "regina", as they used to say then and in reaction the next king decided that no wife should again hold the title "regina" to the king's "rex". He introduced the word "cwen" for the king's wife, which means - "consort" or "companion".

I had a hearty laugh when I learned of this, because if "queen" and "consort" is one and the same linguistically, then why is there such a fight over Camilla's future title?

 

[Skydragon]

I just read an article claiming that the English word for queen derives from the Anglo-Saxon "cwen". That I had known before. But what I did not know is that around 800 an Anglo-Saxon king was accidentally poisoned by his wife, his "regina", as they used to say then and in reaction the next king decided that no wife should again hold the title "regina" to the king's "rex". He introduced the word "cwen" for the king's wife, which means - "consort" or "companion".

Thanks for that Jo.

 

[HRH Kerry]

My opinion is if Camilla is winning over the masses then what is the problem with her being known as Queen Camilla once Charles' reign starts? Or is that too simple of a question to ask? Is it the public opinion (UK's) that matters? Please educate me.

 

[BeatrixFan]

Well, Charles's coronation won't be that smaller than his mother's but the guests will be representing different things. There'll certainly be more political and religious dignitaries and those who represented the Empire in 1953 will simply represent the Commonwealth. So I don't think we'll see a smaller coronation - maybe it'll be bigger given the new countries we have which come with their own new representatives.

It's only the opinion of the British people that matters. Nobody else. Why should it worry anyone else? If they don't like the way we do things, they can always create Royal Houses of their own and dictate to them.

 

[Oppie]

I guess it depends on what you mean my smaller. I am sure that they have the max. amount of people that can fit into Westminister so there will probably be the same amount of people as Queen Elizabeth. Who is invitied might change. The ceremony hasn't changed much since it started so they might be able to make it shorter but it will be more or less the same. However, with the Queen ceremony there was nothing for Philip, since Camilla might also be crowned or have some part in the ceremony Charles coronation might end up being even longer. In addition William and Harry will be old enough to also participate and IIRC the Royal Family might be a lot bigger. My guess is that it is going to be bigger than the Queen's unless they alter the program drastically.

ETA: The Queen ceremony included three royal dukes (Edinburgh, Gloucester and Kent)
Charles will have - Cornwall (William) X (Harry) York (Andrew) Wessex or Edinburgh (Edward) Glouester (Richard) Kent (Edward) and I would guess Prince Michael of Kent. Of those only The Duke of Kent took part in the 1952 coronation, although I think that Prince Michael attened, The Duke of GLoucester brother was also there (Prince William) but I don't know if he was (he would have been 8 at the time)

 

[theprincess]

If he chooses to abdicate, he'll have to already be King. Are you talking about if he decides to remove himself from the line of succession while he's still Prince of Wales? I assume there'd be a way to do it, but I don't think there's any precedent.

Yes I was thinking that he removes himself from sucession while the queen is still alive. Perhaps with the Queen's approval/guidence. This is all very unlikely, I know. Just thinking about 'what if...''. I don't know to much about this subject and what the precedent for this is. I just know that public polls seem to favour William becoming the next king, and there is the issue of whether Camilla will ever be given the title of 'Queen'. I believe it has been said that she will not use this title, even if Charlas becomes King.