King Charles and Queen Camilla

[branchg]

Why would they? Why can the King not, as the fount of honour, create HM the Queen Consort a Princess of the United Kingdom in her own right, to be known as HRH the Princess Consort?

Because in the British system, a Queen Consort takes precedence and rank ahead of the princesses of the blood, princesses by marriage and the peerage. If she shares her husband's rank as Her Majesty and Queen, it is impossible for her to hold a lower rank at the same time.

 

[branchg]

Queens Consort are legally commoners, as they are neither the Sovereign nor a peer. Indeed, any member of the royal family without a peerage (Prince William, Prince Harry, Princess Anne, etc) is a commoner. As has been said before by several, the only person on whom a peerage, style, or title cannot be conferred is the fount of honour his or herself. Thus, Queen Camilla could be made a Princess in her own right, and be granted the right to be styled "Princess Consort."

Wrong. The Sovereign is fount of honour and source of all enoblement as the Crown. Following The Sovereign is the Consort (i.e. The Prince Philip, granted place and precedence next to Her Majesty via parliamentary consent and letters patent, or, HM Queen Elizabeth by right of her husband's succession to the throne as King), then the princes and princesses of the blood within the line of succession, their spouses, children, etc. Then the peerage.

Being a Duke, Marquess, Earl is a lesser honour for Princes and Princesses of the UK, but grants male-line descendants of The Sovereign a peerage and style to use after the grandson of The Sovereign dies and his heir loses royal rank.

 

[branchg]

The Princess Royal isn't a peer, nor is Prince William, so they are still commoners under the legal definition.

They are not commoners as they hold and enjoy the rank and title of HRH Prince/Princess of the UK as the daughter and male-line grandson of The Sovereign, which is superior to any rank or titles held through the peerage.

 

[BeatrixFan]

They certainly aren't commoners as branchg says. They're anything but.

 

[branchg]

Here's another question: If Camilla is to be crowned Queen at the Coronation of Charles III, how can she not be called or addressed as such? What would be the point of her being crowned? If she is not to be crowned at all, a disturbing precedent will have been set, and all based on that initial statement of the "intention to be known as Princess Consort".

I wonder if anyone at Clarence House thought through the ramifications before that statement was released?

That's my whole point. Is Camilla going to be crowned as Queen at the Coronation, but addressed as HRH The Princess Consort? Or will it be like Prince Philip, first to pay homage to the new Sovereign, but that's it? So, she'll be wearing the Consort's crown on her head, but called Your Royal Highness?

It's ridiculous.

 

[Frothy]

Because in the British system, a Queen Consort takes precedence and rank ahead of the princesses of the blood, princesses by marriage and the peerage. If she shares her husband's rank as Her Majesty and Queen, it is impossible for her to hold a lower rank at the same time.

This is simply not the case. Precedence and rank merely muddy the issue; Camilla's rank and precedence would not be affected by this. Precedence, like Philip's, can be very simply defined by the Crown, which is why Philip has precedence over his sons.

Would you please adduce some proof that she cannot hold a lower rank at the same time. Whilst you keep asserting this, you have never proved it. I have given you the example of Eleanor of Acquitaine who held and used her inferior, but own-right, rank as Duchess of Acquitaine whilst being Queen of England. What you say is simply untrue. Elizabeth of York was still a Princess of England in her own right when Queen of England through marriage.

The present Queen is Duchess of Edinburgh. She of course never uses the title but it is not a peerage title that merged with the Crown upon her accession, but a title she holds as the wife of a peer.

Camilla's rank and precedence will be that of the first lady in the land and Queen. But if she holds an own-right title, she can use that said title without her rank or precedence being affected.

The Government has said so, and I would really like to see some proof from you that a Queen Consort cannot hold another rank in her own right in addition to her Queenship.

Also, whilst I'm not sure of the exact position as to "commoners or not", your replies to WBenson do not answer his/her points; whether a Prince/ss or Queen consort outranks or has precedence over any peer in the land does not in and of itself mean that they themselves are not commoners. It's a matter of rank and precedence, which is separate.

Edit to add, Branchg, I apologise for getting your name wrong all these times, I read the "g" at the end of your name as a "q"!

 

[ysbel]

That's my whole point. Is Camilla going to be crowned as Queen at the Coronation, but addressed as HRH The Princess Consort?

That seems rather silly. I see what you all are saying about Camilla taking a lesser title to appease the fans of Diana but I think its more than that.

The other royal families are downsizing and Britain, albeit late, is making some steps in that direction.

1. the giving of a lesser title to the wife of an heir/monarch is already happening with Maxima of the Netherlands. She is not Princess of Orange, not even by law and there is serious discussion that she will not be Queen when Willem-Alexander assumes the throne

2. lesser titles for minor royals who formerly would have been granted HRH. In Britain it happened with Lady Louise and in Norway it has happened with Sverre Magnus who will be the younger child of the reigning monarch.

Another change, not necessarily downsizing, as mentioned is the switch from male primogeniture to pure primogenture. This has occurred with Norway, Sweden, the Netherlands and Belgium. And Her Majesty the Queen Elizabeth II has already indicated to the Prime Minister that she would not be opposed if he introduced similar legislature in the British Parliament. He hasn't because of other political issues.

Charles has already indicated he wants to make some changes: he wants to take the title Defender of Faiths, he wants to be crowned in his Naval Uniform rather than the traditional ceremonial robes, he apparently is in support of the children of the younger sons of the sovereign not receiving royal titles. So I think Charles is looking for change too.

So I think there are bigger winds of change than just a reaction to what some people would say about Camilla being Queen because of Diana.

 

[Frothy]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_titles_and_honours_of_Queen_Elizabeth_II

Titles

• English: Elizabeth the Second, by the Grace of God, of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and of Her other Realms and Territories Queen, Head of the Commonwealth, Defender of the Faith (1953-present)

Latin: Elizabeth II, Dei Gratia Britanniarum Regnorumque Suorum Ceterorum Regina, Consortionis Populorum Princeps, Fidei Defensor (1953-present)

• English: Elizabeth the Second, by the Grace of God, of Great Britain, Ireland and the British Dominions beyond the Seas Queen, Defender of the Faith (1952-1953)

Latin: Elizabeth II, Dei Gratia Magnae Britanniae, Hiberniae et terrarum transmarinarum quae in ditione sunt Britannica Regina, Fidei Defensor (1952-1953)

• Duchess of Edinburgh, Countess of Merioneth and Baroness Greenwich (November 22 1947-present)

 

[BeatrixFan]

The other royal families are downsizing and Britain, albeit late, is making some steps in that direction.

Well we're not other countries and we're quite happy with our Royal Family as it is. And even if we do downsize, you don't downsize the consort to the King. That's just absurd.

 

[ysbel]

Well we're not other countries and we're quite happy with our Royal Family as it is. And even if we do downsize, you don't downsize the consort to the King. That's just absurd.

I wonder if people are happy with the Royal Family just as it is, BeatrixFan. I'm a traditionalist but some recent changes in titles,etc. coming from the BRF really leaves me in confusion what they plan to do.

You can't deny that Charles is a forward thinker who has already indicated that he wants to change things a bit. Whether he gets what he wants I think is less important than the fact that he is open to change to begin with.

I don't necessarily see that as a good thing, just an observation.

 

[BeatrixFan]

Changes in titles? In what way? Charles is a forward thinker but remember, we're naturally going to lose members of the Royal Family and it'll be much smaller when the Kent and Gloucester lines die out. But thats not the point - whatever you downsize, you can't downsize the King and Queen.

 

[ysbel]

Already the bestowing of the Earl of Wessex title on Edward is a step in that direction and like I said, the Dutch are talking about not giving the title of Queen to Maxima so I don't think the situation in England is an isolated incident.

Its too much of a coincidence that 2 wives of 2 heirs of the throne are discussed as possibilities of not being Queen.

 

[branchg]

A change or "downsizing" of the monarchy is an altogether different subject and could certainly be done at some future date, including passing legislation NOW to change the constitutional precedent of a Queen Consort sharing the rank of The King to being styled by the will of the Sovereign instead.

Whether the decision to style Edward and Sophie's children as peers, rather than their legal titles of HRH Prince/Princess of the UK is a step in that direction or merely reflects their own personal decision is another matter.

My point in all of this is merely they need to make decisions consistent with the law and precedent, rather than trying to slip things in and hope no one figures it out.

 

[ysbel]

A change or "downsizing" of the monarchy is an altogether different subject and could certainly be done at some future date, including passing legislation NOW to change the constitutional precedent of a Queen Consort sharing the rank of The King to being styled by the will of the Sovereign instead.

Whether the decision to style Edward and Sophie's children as peers, rather than their legal titles of HRH Prince/Princess of the UK is a step in that direction or merely reflects their own personal decision is another matter.

My point in all of this is merely they need to make decisions consistent with the law and precedent, rather than trying to slip things in and hope no one figures it out.

That's a good point branchg. A lot of what we see in changes is random and not very well thought out. But without an overarching plan and individual changes made here and there with no explanation of what is actually behind them causes more confusion and I think trouble down the road.

I would however say that granting Edward the Earl of Wessex title is a step towards downsizing the monarchy because a thinktank which included Prince Philip made the suggestion that children of younger sons of the sovereign not be granted royal titles and Charles apparently agrees with them. It caused a row between Andrew and Charles earlier because Andrew firmly is set against Beatrice and Eugenie losing their titles.

 

[branchg]

The present Queen is Duchess of Edinburgh. She of course never uses the title but it is not a peerage title that merged with the Crown upon her accession, but a title she holds as the wife of a peer.

Camilla's rank and precedence will be that of the first lady in the land and Queen. But if she holds an own-right title, she can use that said title without her rank or precedence being affected.

The Government has said so, and I would really like to see some proof from you that a Queen Consort cannot hold another rank in her own right in addition to her Queenship.

The Queen is The Sovereign and fount of honour. She cannot hold any other titles other than those granted by constitutional precedent and custom as Head of State, the Commonwealth, etc. The Sovereign cannot be a peer, but has other styles such as "Defender of the Faith", "Duke of Lancaster", etc.

In Elizabeth's case, she is the wife of the The Duke of Edinburgh, but no longer holds the title or style of Duchess of Edinburgh because she is The Sovereign. As fount of honour, she is no longer the wife of a peer, but HM The Queen.

The Government has made clear Camilla can be known as HRH The Princess Consort if Parliament and the Crown Commonwealth grant their consent. Other experts have stated this will not happen without legislation being passed, so we have to wait and see.

I don't think it will.

 

[branchg]

I would however say that granting Edward the Earl of Wessex title is a step towards downsizing the monarchy because a thinktank which included Prince Philip made the suggestion that children of younger sons of the sovereign not be granted royal titles and Charles apparently agrees with them. It caused a row between Andrew and Charles earlier because Andrew firmly is set against Beatrice and Eugenie losing their titles.

It was decided to grant Edward an Earldom with the understanding that he will eventually become The Duke of Edinburgh after the death of his parents. So, given that point, it hardly seems like the monarchy is being "downsized" since he will eventually hold numerous peerages in addition to his rank and title of HRH Prince of the UK.

Louise remains HRH Princess Louise of Wessex unless The Queen issues a Royal Warrant allowing her to relinquish it or new letters patent changing her grandfather's 1917 letters patent governing the titles and styles of the royal family. So far, that hasn't happened and we don't know what Charles will do when he becomes King.

So, I don't see any real changes at this time. It's just a smokescreen.

 

[Elspeth]

For cryin' out loud, why ELSE would they do this, if not for he and Camilla's prior relationship?

Maybe because Camilla doesn't want the HM The Queen title? Wasn't part of the whole argument against the possibility of their marriage in the first place that it was thought that she didn't want to get into the business of official duties and public life? Perhaps this Princess Consort stuff is some sort of compromise which she insisted on before she agreed to marry Charles.

 

[Frothy]

The Queen is The Sovereign and fount of honour. She cannot hold any other titles other than those granted by constitutional precedent and custom as Head of State, the Commonwealth, etc. The Sovereign cannot be a peer, but has other styles such as "Defender of the Faith", "Duke of Lancaster", etc.

In Elizabeth's case, she is the wife of the The Duke of Edinburgh, but no longer holds the title or style of Duchess of Edinburgh because she is The Sovereign. As fount of honour, she is no longer the wife of a peer, but HM The Queen.

Although this is stated very definitively, that's not so. As you have the Wiki article, can you cite some proof to back up this assertion. Also, can you please cite some proof for your repeated assertions that the Queen Consort cannot hold and use any lesser own-right titles since I have offered you firstly, examples of Queens Consort who have done just that, and b) statements from the government that Camilla can and will.

The Government has made clear Camilla can be known as HRH The Princess Consort if Parliament and the Crown Commonwealth grant their consent.

In fact, the Government has never said any such thing - about Parliament and the Crown Commonwealth granting their consent. On the contrary, the government has said Camilla can be Queen, and known as Princess Consort simultaneously, without any change in the law.

If you have some proof, link or source for this statement that the Government has suggested Parliament and the Crown Commonwealth need to grant consent, please adduce it.

Right now you do post these things but I have yet to see any proof/links/sources, do you have some?

 

[Elspeth]

Because in the British system, a Queen Consort takes precedence and rank ahead of the princesses of the blood, princesses by marriage and the peerage. If she shares her husband's rank as Her Majesty and Queen, it is impossible for her to hold a lower rank at the same time.

If he confers the rank of Princess of the United Kingdom on her in her own right, with the rider that HRH the Princess Consort has precedence after the King, then she ranks ahead of all the other princesses as both HM the Queen Consort and HRH the Princess Consort.

I think most of us are agreed that it'd be an idiotic thing to do, but I'm not aware that it'd be impossible. Especially after the way the "impossible" was done to Edward VIII by somehow claiming that a son of George V lost his HRH on abdication. If they can perform that little bit of sleight of hand, this one ought to be trivial.

I suppose we can all hope they come to their senses before this issue is anything more than just hypothetical, but we'll see. Maybe they're waiting to see if Charles predeceases the Queen or if Camilla predeceases or divorces Charles, in which case it all becomes moot anyway and they wouldn't have to do anything. The timing is going to be interesting, the older the Queen gets, but who knows what may happen.

 

[selrahc4]

In Elizabeth's case, she is the wife of the The Duke of Edinburgh, but no longer holds the title or style of Duchess of Edinburgh

The official monarchy website disagrees with you.

http://www.royal.gov.uk/output/page1925.asp

"In 1947, King George VI bestowed titles upon his daughter and future son-in-law to mark their wedding. They both became members of the Order of the Garter. Lieutenant Philip Mountbatten, RN, as he had been known in the marriage announcement, became a Royal Highness, and, in ascending order, Baron Greenwich, Earl of Merioneth and Duke of Edinburgh. His future wife would be known as Her Royal Highness The Princess Elizabeth, Duchess of Edinburgh. The couple were often referred to as the Edinburghs up to the death of King George VI in February 1952.
The Queen still holds the title, but it is no longer used."

 

[branchg]

If she abdicates, then yes...she would be HRH The Princess Elizabeth, Duchess of Edinburgh again. But, we're talking about the fact The Queen is The Queen and cannot hold another title as The Sovereign!

 

[selrahc4]

If she abdicates, then yes...she would be HRH The Princess Elizabeth, Duchess of Edinburgh again. But, we're talking about the fact The Queen is The Queen and cannot hold another title as The Sovereign!

So you don't believe what was stated at the monarchy website. I don't know how much clearer it could be. Perhaps the confusion is in the difference between "holding" and "using".

 

[branchg]

If he confers the rank of Princess of the United Kingdom on her in her own right, with the rider that HRH the Princess Consort has precedence after the King, then she ranks ahead of all the other princesses as both HM the Queen Consort and HRH the Princess Consort.

Which makes no sense. If she's the wife of the King, she is Queen and not a princess of the UK. Does she hold equal rank to the King or doesn't she? A princess with the rank of HRH (not born as such) is the wife of a prince of the UK. She's not Queen.

 

[branchg]

So you don't believe what was stated at the monarchy website. I don't know how much clearer it could be. Perhaps the confusion is in the difference between "holding" and "using".

I'm talking about the fact that once you become The Sovereign or Queen Consort, no other rank or title applies. You're HM The Queen and that's it. That's the whole point of the British system of precedence and related honours, titles and ranks. The Crown is fount of honour and source of all enoblement.

If they want to start changing the traditions, precedents and laws, they can do so by changing it. Not by making it up as you go along.

Let's just abolish the whole thing and have a republic instead.

 

[BeatrixFan]

Exactly my sentiment. We need a written constitution that makes it clear what the rules are. You can't change things because of one woman and let's be honest, that's whats being suggested here.

 

[Frothy]

Thank you Selrah. That is very clear proof.

Branchg, why do you state these things so definitively yet offer no proof for them, even when clear as daylight official evidence is brought forward showing you are mistaken?

What is the basis for your assertion that Queens consort cannot hold other titles when they have done in the past, and have used them?

Princess Elizabeth of York was a born Princess and a married Queen. She still held her title. Eleanor of Acquitaine held and used her title. And the Royal Family (as well as Wikipedia) say that the Queen still holds, still posesses, the title of Duchess of Edinburgh yet does not use it.

All these things contradict you, can you please bring forth some counter-proof other than flat statements that Queens (consort or regnant) cannot hold other titles?

The Queen also holds the title of Duke of Normandy, as another example, in the Channel Islands.

The Queen is The Queen and cannot hold another title as The Sovereign!

vs.

The Queen still holds the title

 

[branchg]

The Royal Family's Official Website also states Camilla intends to be known as The Princess Consort when her husband becomes King, which contradicts what members of Parliament and constitutional experts have stated is possible without legislation being passed.

The Queen, as Sovereign, holds many other styles, both historic and, in the case of her peerage, through her marriage. My point is she can only be known as HM The Queen or a similar title as Head of State. Once she became Queen, all other ranks and titles become irrelevant.

So, I rest my case.

 

[selrahc4]

The Queen, as Sovereign, holds many other styles, both historic and, in the case of her peerage, through her marriage. My point is she can only be known as HM The Queen or a similar title as Head of State. Once she became Queen, all other ranks and titles become irrelevant.

So, I rest my case.

This would be true of any peerage titles held by her in her own right, prior to becoming monarch. It obviously does not apply to a title held as the wife of someone holding a peerage in his own right, evidenced by the statement at the official website.

 

[Frothy]

Branchg, but that wasn't your point as stated. I originally put it to you that the Queen was also the Duchess of Edinburgh and you corrected me:

No, she is not. All titles and ranks of her birth status and related peerages merged with the Crown.

The only other style The Queen carries is Duke of Lancaster while in the Duchy on official business. And even that is merely a convention of courtesy since she cannot be anything but The Sovereign.

Just one page ago you said

In Elizabeth's case, she is the wife of the The Duke of Edinburgh, but no longer holds the title or style of Duchess of Edinburgh because she is The Sovereign. As fount of honour, she is no longer the wife of a peer, but HM The Queen.

and earlier you said

Yes, you are correct Edinburgh did not merge with the Crown. However, it is no longer a style, title or rank held by Elizabeth as she is The Sovereign and cannot be a peer.

You were very explicit - not that she does not use the title, but that she no longer holds it at all. And as Selrah has proved, you are factually wrong on that one. "The Queen still holds the title".

I repeat my request for you to prove or source your assertions that Queens consort also cannot hold and use own-right titles and to address the examples given to you of Queens consort who have in fact used such lesser titles, eg Eleanor?

The Royal Family's Official Website also states Camilla intends to be known as The Princess Consort when her husband becomes King, which contradicts what members of Parliament and constitutional experts have stated is possible without legislation being passed.

Please cite some member of Parliament or some constitutional expert who states that Camilla cannot be Queen and also Princess Consort simultaneously, and why this should trump the two separate statements by the Government repeatedly quoted in this thread that Camilla can be both simultaneously without legislation being passed?

I really do understand that you are absolutely convinced of this! But honestly since what you post contradicts all sorts of official sources, don't you think you need something to back it up....?

 

[wbenson]

They are not commoners as they hold and enjoy the rank and title of HRH Prince/Princess of the UK as the daughter and male-line grandson of The Sovereign, which is superior to any rank or titles held through the peerage.

Rank and title do not stop them from being commoners. Only the Sovereign and Peers are not commoners.