King Charles and Queen Camilla

[Frothy]

Sister M, although this has been said a couple of times, it isn't true. Parliament didn't want him to have the title "King Consort", so he didn't. But we have had Kings Consort in both England and Scotland, one of Mary I, one of Mary Queen of Scots. Neither outranked their wives, who ruled their realms solely.

The titles for male consorts in England have been: King Consort, first just a style of HRH and some years into the marriage Prince Consort, Nothing (Anne's husband took no extra titles) and Prince of the UK. So there's no real rhyme or reason to it.

Precedent is often quite muddy and not cast in stone, I find.

 

[Sister Morphine]

Sister M, although this has been said a couple of times, it isn't true. Parliament didn't want him to have the title "King Consort", so he didn't. But we have had Kings Consort in both England and Scotland, one of Mary I, one of Mary Queen of Scots. Neither outranked their wives, who ruled their realms solely.

The titles for male consorts in England have been: King Consort, first just a style of HRH and some years into the marriage Prince Consort, Nothing (Anne's husband took no extra titles) and Prince of the UK. So there's no real rhyme or reason to it.

Precedent is often quite muddy and not cast in stone, I find.

I took my information straight from a source I had been reading about the subject. Victoria wanted him to have the title, BUT AS I STATED, it wasn't going to happen. I had said that already. I also said Kings TRADITIONALLY outrank Queens....meaning, there have been times when the usage of King Consort occurred. I know about Philip of Spain and Lord Darnley, I have read history books before.

 

[Frothy]

I was taking issue with the assertion that the title of King Consort means the Queen Regnant is outranked. The general view I believe is that the reason "King" Consort was frowned upon was that Albert was foreign. Certainly after Philip of Spain Parliament had cause to be worried there.

 

[Sister Morphine]

I was taking issue with the assertion that the title of King Consort means the Queen Regnant is outranked. The general view I believe is that the reason "King" Consort was frowned upon was that Albert was foreign. Certainly after Philip of Spain Parliament had cause to be worried there.

And I was saying that according to what I had been reading, one of the reasons why they wouldn't allow Albert to use the title King Consort was because Kings traditionally outrank Queens. The other reason was because Albert was a foreigner.

 

[Frothy]

Oh I see! Well, personally I would disagree with that assertion in your book then, the first one not the second one. The clear precedent in England and in Scotland had the Kings Consort very much as consorts not ruling Kings. The matter of foreigner however I had read of too.

I also read somewhere, of course it is just speculation, that the present Queen offered Philip "Prince Consort" but he didn't want it. It's interesting to me that both Philip and Albert were created Princes of the UK not on their marriages but quite a while after them. Perhaps that will also happen with Camilla?

 

[Frothy]

Of course it's worth saying here that of course the main difference between Albert/Camilla is that wives share their husband's rank but not the other way around. I completely agree with you, as you know, that Camilla should not be downgraded.

 

[Sister Morphine]

I also read somewhere, of course it is just speculation, that the present Queen offered Philip "Prince Consort" but he didn't want it. It's interesting to me that both Philip and Albert were created Princes of the UK not on their marriages but quite a while after them. Perhaps that will also happen with Camilla?

I too had read about Elizabeth and Philip and she never offered him Prince Consort. Winston Churchill suggested she call him that and she rejected that idea. She also rejected the idea of "Prince Royal". She wanted his title elevated, but didn't think either of those would work. So, she made him a Prince of the UK in his own right and inserted the definite article "The" before Prince Philip, which is usually only given to the children of the sovereign. So his title then became The Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh.

 

[Frothy]

Prince Royal? That would be a new one!

 

[ysbel]

No, I agree with much of what you say, although I regret that I think you are right. My main concern in the thread was to get away from a posting orthodoxy that was developing that Camilla would be styled as Queen and that's it and that's all, which flew in the face of all the official statements on record from the Government and the BRF, and which I think represents a dangerous complacency amomgst those who, like myself, very much admire Camilla.

Well I think that people's experience with published government statements particularly here in the U.S. gives us reason to doubt what government sources publish sometimes if its suspected to be a public relations ploy.

I think the main fact is that Charles is going to have a rough time in his first year as King regardless of the situation with Camilla. There will be the inevitable push for change given the change in British society since Elizabeth II came to the throne and from Charles' own value system. I don't think he is as forward thinking as he thinks he is and he may well be like Gorbachev in Moscow thinking he is going to change just a few things and then unwittingly starts a cataclysmic shift in the process.

Actually I think the first nail in the coffin was getting rid of hereditary peers in the House of Lords and giving the Lordships to career politicians. The whole basis of a hereditary monarchy is not based on one's individual worthiness for the position but inheritance which is sometimes deaf and blind to an individual's worth. Once you start saying that the old peers shouldn't be in the House of Lords just because their fathers were in it; its an easy enough jump to say why have Charles as King just because his mother was Queen or why have William as King just because Charles was.

With individual worthiness for the position comes individual will. What if William doesn't want the throne (and I suspect he doesn't). Should he have the right to abdicate like his great-great-uncle? In a modern society, we would say how unfair it is to force someone to take a lifetime oath to do something they don't want to do but if William doesn't want to do it, where does that place Harry?

And if none of them want to assume the throne, then where does that place the monarchy? Individual will and rights wasn't a highly prized commodity when kings were invented.

Yes, possibility for lots of changes.

I was even thinking of starting a new thread called "Coming Reform in the British Royal Family" maybe you could and we could cover all the changes there.

I will lay imaginary internet cash that you will see

a) a limiting of the title HRH and Prince to far more direct heirs
b) cognatic primogeniture
c) a trimming of the civil list
d) disestablishment of the Church of England and also the King as its Head
e) established provisions for divorces, in advance

That's an idea. Let me discuss it with my co-mods although we could use this thread for the discussion too. This thread was started with the premise of what would happen when Charles comes to the throne and changes to the monarchy are high candidates for the list.

 

[Iluvbertie]

c) a trimming of the civil list

Who would you have on the Civil List?

Currently there are only TWO recipients - the monarch and their spouse.

If you trim it - it will be to one person.

Remember it is to cover the costs of running the office of Head of State - staff etc and not for personal use.

If you trim the total then the work that the Head of State does would have to be cut back as they want be getting enough money to cover the costs or are you suggesting that the Head of State puts their hand in their own pockets to cover the costs of doing the job of Head of State - do you pay the costs associated with doing your job? I certainly don't.

 

[Roslyn]

Make Camilla a princess in her own right, right now. That way she'll be HRH Princess Camilla, The Duchess of Cornwall. This way, if for some ridiculous reason the RF wants to go ahead with this Princess Consort nonsense, you're AT LEAST making some action relatively close to what Victoria did with Albert.

I don't think this is likely. It would amount to giving the baggage-carrying two-year wed Camilla a highly desirable prize Diana wasn't given after 15 years of marriage and Royal service and the production of the "heir and the spare". It would re-open lightly healed wounds and upset even moderate Diana fans. The fanatics would be baying for blood.

 

[Sister Morphine]

I don't think this is likely. It would amount to giving the baggage-carrying two-year wed Camilla a highly desirable prize Diana wasn't given after 15 years of marriage and Royal service and the production of the "heir and the spare". It would re-open lightly healed wounds and upset even moderate Diana fans. The fanatics would be baying for blood.

I wasn't entirely serious, mind you. I was just trying to think of what could be done that might in some way, however miniscule, make giving her the title Princess Consort sound somewhat reasonable. Albert was already a prince when he was given the title Prince Consort, whereas Camillia is not a princess.

 

[branchg]

Make Camilla a princess in her own right, right now. That way she'll be HRH Princess Camilla, The Duchess of Cornwall. This way, if for some ridiculous reason the RF wants to go ahead with this Princess Consort nonsense, you're AT LEAST making some action relatively close to what Victoria did with Albert.

That would make more sense to me. If The Queen issues letters patent now, creating her a Princess of the UK in her own right, they could say this is a first step in changing the style and title of the monarchy. Parliament could then begin debate on other changes and eventually pass legislation.

But you can't do that once she is legally Queen Consort without creating some very strange precedents, so why wait?

 

[branchg]

I too had read about Elizabeth and Philip and she never offered him Prince Consort. Winston Churchill suggested she call him that and she rejected that idea. She also rejected the idea of "Prince Royal". She wanted his title elevated, but didn't think either of those would work. So, she made him a Prince of the UK in his own right and inserted the definite article "The" before Prince Philip, which is usually only given to the children of the sovereign. So his title then became The Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh.

Hugo Vickers states in his biography of Princess Andrew of Greece that Philip didn't care about being a Prince of the UK and was content to remain HRH The Duke of Edinburgh. The Queen evidently did it more out of pressure from Lord Mountbatten than Philip himself.

 

[Elspeth]

Well, there's a surprise. Good old Mountbatten.

 

[Royal Fan]

Wonder How long till POW Takes the Throne at the soonest id say 2008 at the Latest id say 2018 (these are all harmless guesses not meant to offend)

 

[Roslyn]

Wonder How long till POW Takes the Throne at the soonest id say 2008 at the Latest id say 2018 (these are all harmless guesses not meant to offend)

Ooh! That's a tricky one. I think I'll just say that it is quite possible that we are in for up to 30 or even more years of very elderly monarchs followed by a King aged in his late 50s at the commencement of his reign.

 

[Jo of Palatine]

The other reason was because Albert was a foreigner.

I guess parliament saw the career Albert's uncle Leopold had made, first the influential husband of the heiress to the throne, princess Charlotte of Wales (who died in childbed), then he took the chance to become king of the Belgians. I believe they saw Albert as equally influential on his wife as Leopold had been on his and thought it probably to be dangerous to give him the title King Consort, as he was already muddling in the British politics of that time, just as Leopold had been.

 

[ysbel]

We're closing this thread for a little cleanup. No worries, no one has been naughty; this conversation brought out the need to have a general discussion thread on the future of the British monarchy.

To discuss the future of the British monarchy after Elizabeth II, you can post to this thread: The Monarchy After Elizabeth II.

Thank you.
British forum moderators