King Charles and Queen Camilla

[Elspeth]

I said a Queen Consort cannot hold a lesser rank and title without consent from Parliament and the Crown Commonwealth. There is no other title for the wife of the King at the present time except being HM The Queen.

In order for Camilla to be HRH The Princess Consort (which is a lesser title and rank than being HM The Queen) in her own right, Parliament would have to pass legislation removing her legal rank as the wife of the King, making her a commoner and freeing The Sovereign to create her a Princess of the UK via letters patent.

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?

 

[Sister Morphine]

Indeed, any member of the royal family without a peerage (Prince William, Prince Harry, Princess Anne, etc) is a commoner.

The daughter of the Queen is a commoner? That's a new one on me. I also wasn't aware the future King is a commoner too.

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?

Why would you make a Queen a Princess? A Princess is below a Queen. So why give her a title below what she's entitled to by law?

To do that you are saying she is not worthy enough to be Queen and if you say that, you are saying they never should have gotten married. Which, seeing all the hubbub this has caused, they probably shouldn't have. I mean, this is all nonsense to me. She'll be Queen because that's what the wife of a King is. All this talk about making her something else reeks of not wanting to offend people who dislike her for being his mistress. She's not the mistress anymore, she's the wife.

 

[Elspeth]

Why would you make a Queen a Princess? A Princess is below a Queen. So why give her a title below what she's entitled to by law?

Personally I wouldn't. As I've said before, I think this whole business is idiotic. What I'm saying is that if, for whatever reason, it continues to be the case that Charles and Camilla want her to be called HRH the Princess Consort, he can create her a princess in her own right in addition to her being Queen by virtue of her marriage to him. They don't have to go through the legal process of having the Queen Consort stuff dropped in order to create her Princess Consort.

 

[wbenson]

The daughter of the Queen is a commoner? That's a new one on me. I also wasn't aware the future King is a commoner too.

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

 

[Sister Morphine]

Personally I wouldn't. As I've said before, I think this whole business is idiotic. What I'm saying is that if, for whatever reason, it continues to be the case that Charles and Camilla want her to be called HRH the Princess Consort, he can create her a princess in her own right in addition to her being Queen by virtue of her marriage to him. They don't have to go through the legal process of having the Queen Consort stuff dropped in order to create her Princess Consort.

Is there precedence for making a commoner wife a princess in her own right? I don't think Sarah, Diana or Sophie were when they married Andrew, Charles and Edward respectively. So for Charles to do that, he'd be going against precedence. Which is the same for if she was actually given the title Princess Consort.

If there's no precedence for it, I can't see Charles doing it. And according to everything I've read, even if he were wanting to do it, he can't with Parliament acting first.

 

[Sister Morphine]

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

Yes, the legal definition. However, they aren't "commoners" in the traditionally-used sense. I am a commoner in the traditionally-used sense, as are you.

 

[Madame Royale]

If there's no precedence for it, I can't see Charles doing it.

There was no precedent for Philip to include his name into the hereditary line before it was done either, but they did under the 'Order in Council' (however dubious in wording).

You say if its not there you can't see Charles doing it. Fair enough as your opinion, but, its not there and Charles has said it is intended that it will be. Whether you like to go by what is known or not is besides the point. At this stage (whether you or whoever agrees with the intention) it is the objective of TRH the Prince of Wales & Duchess of Cornwall that she shall, upon her husband's accession, assume a style and title befitting a Princess Consort and shall in all ways of address (defined between her legal status as Queen) be known as such.

Until the proposal is revoked or failed, no one can say it will not happen.

 

[Sister Morphine]

There was no precedent for Philip to include his name into the hereditary line before it was done either, but they did under the 'Order in Council' (however dubious in wording).

You say if its not there you can't see Charles doing it. Fair enough as your opinion, but, its not there and Charles has said it is intended that they shall. Whether you like to go by what is known or not is besides the point. At this stage (whether you or whoever agrees with the intention) it is the objective of TRH the Prince of Wales & Duchess of Cornwall that she shall, upon her husband's accession, assume a style and title befitting a Princess Consort and shall in all ways of address (defined between her legal status as Queen) be known as such.

Until the proposal is revoked or failed, no one can say it will not happen.

Much like BeatrixFan, I think the whole "intended" debacle was a mistake. They shouldn't have opened their big mouths about it in the first place and let things happen the way they will happen once the Queen is dead and buried. They're making it look like she shouldn't have married Charles, that there's something wrong in the marriage and they have to "appease" people by creating some nonsense title. This is all a big, flaming joke.

Also, she can't be a Princess Consort as long as she's a Queen. You can't have your cake and eat it too. Either she's one or she's the other. Parliament absolutely must strip her of the title "Queen" before Charles can give her ANY title, "Princess Consort" or "that woman I'm married to...yeah her". It doesn't matter. She must legally be nothing before Charles can legally make her something. What indication has any member of Parliament given that they would go along with this, that they would agree to go for it?

 

[Elspeth]

Is there precedence for making a commoner wife a princess in her own right? I don't think Sarah, Diana or Sophie were when they married Andrew, Charles and Edward respectively. So for Charles to do that, he'd be going against precedence. Which is the same for if she was actually given the title Princess Consort.

If there's no precedence for it, I can't see Charles doing it. And according to everything I've read, even if he were wanting to do it, he can't with Parliament acting first.

As long as the royal websites are still saying that she'll be Princess Consort when Charles becomes king, apparently he is wanting to do it. Or the royal websites are lying to us, which is possible.

As far as I can see, the only time Parliament would have to act is to remove her HM. That seems unlikely. The question is whether she can hold the HRH as well as the HM, not instead of it.

 

[Sister Morphine]

As far as I can see, the only time Parliament would have to act is to remove her HM. That seems unlikely. The question is whether she can hold the HRH as well as the HM, not instead of it.

See, that's the sticking point I keep addressing. I can't see it possible to be a lower rank and a higher rank at the same time. That's like trying to be the President and the Vice President at the same time.

 

[Frothy]

I said a Queen Consort cannot hold a lesser rank and title without consent from Parliament and the Crown Commonwealth. There is no other title for the wife of the King at the present time except being HM The Queen.

In order for Camilla to be HRH The Princess Consort (which is a lesser title and rank than being HM The Queen) in her own right, Parliament would have to pass legislation removing her legal rank as the wife of the King,

Branch, I know this is your opinion, but it's factually false as proved by history and precedent.

The Queen can and may and has held "lesser ranks and titles" than that of Queen Consort and has used them.

Eleanor, Grand Duchess of Acquitaine in her own right, retained and used her own-right title throughout her marriage to Henry. That is a fact.

Parliament absolutely must strip her of the title "Queen" before Charles can give her ANY title, "Princess Consort" or "that woman I'm married to...yeah her". It doesn't matter. She must legally be nothing before Charles can legally make her something.

Look Sister M, why do you keep saying this? On what grounds do you assert she cannot legally be both when the Department of Constitutional Affairs says she can be both without a change in the law? That her title of Queen does not need to be stripped for her to hold an additional own-right title?

Elizabeth of York was a Princess and Queen, Eleanor was (and used) Grand Duchess of Acquitaine and Queen, and so forth.

 

[Frothy]

Sister Morphine, from earlier in the thread:

"When you say constitutional and legal norms, a lot of it is down to convention rather than legislation, which is why she can be referred to as whatever she likes without having to change the law," she said. "She can be referred to as the Duchess of Cornwall or Princess Consort without any change to the law."
[FONT=verdana,tahoma,arial,helvetica]There were no moves to change the law to prevent Parker Bowles being queen, Campbell added.[/FONT]

So while you are saying Parliament absolutely "must" strip her of queen to make her Princess Consort, here is the relevant Parliamentary spokeswoman telling us the exact opposite.

 

[Elspeth]

See, that's the sticking point I keep addressing. I can't see it possible to be a lower rank and a higher rank at the same time. That's like trying to be the President and the Vice President at the same time.

Prince Charles at the moment is a Duke and a Baron at the same time.

 

[Warren]

I said a Queen Consort cannot hold a lesser rank and title without consent from Parliament and the Crown Commonwealth.
In order for Camilla to be HRH The Princess Consort (which is a lesser title and rank than being HM The Queen) in her own right, Parliament would have to pass legislation removing her legal rank as the wife of the King, making her a commoner and freeing The Sovereign to create her a Princess of the UK via letters patent.

A small(ish) point, but Camilla's rank, now and in the future, is based on that of her husband. Whatever she is called, she is still the wife of the Prince of Wales and will in all likelihood be the wife of the King. Therefore she shares his rank. This whole business about titles and "being known as" will have no effect on her ranking in "society" or any Order of Precedence. The wife of the Sovereign, however she will be termed, titled or addressed, is still the wife of the Sovereign. Britain is not Austria-Hungary, and a 'non-Queen' Camilla won't be expected to sit at a lower table at dinner.

We should be careful of muddying the already murky waters and try to address the relevant issue: can Queen Camilla bear an "overlay" title or form of address?

 

[Sister Morphine]

We should be careful of muddying the already murky waters and try to address the relevant issue: can Queen Camilla bear an "overlay" title or form of address?

I say no. If she is legally the Queen, by right of being married to the King, why should she put a lesser title (and Princess is lesser than Queen) over that one? Why would she sign her name "Camilla R" but be referred to as HRH? Or would she not sign her name "Camilla R"? I mean, if she's going to be known as something other than what she is, would it be fraud to affix your name to something using a name that is not your legal form of address?

 

[Frothy]

Certain things have been agreed and established by all of us

1. Camilla will definitely be Queen
2. Legislation would be needed to change her status
3. The government says there are no plans for any legislation to strip her of her right as Queen
4. The BRF and the Government currently state that whilst she will legally be Queen she will be known as Princess Consort

The differences are that BranchQ and some other posters think that they have no right to assert point 4 and that she would need to be stripped of Queen to be Princess Consort. I am waiting to see what their reasoning is for this when the government says it isn't so. I understand Branch thinks the precedent of 1936 is binding but since the government says otherwise I don't really see why. The Charles-Camilla marriage is breaking precedent all over the place, including its celebration in a registry office and the use of disparate titles by the bride and groom.

However, I would ask Branch what he thinks of my example of say Eleanor of Acquitaine as a Queen who held and used a lesser title she held in her own right (birthright) whilst Queen of England, and was jealous of her rights in Acquitaine?

 

[Warren]

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?

 

[Sister Morphine]

Eleanor of Acquitaine and The Duchess of Cornwall are not in the same situation. In Eleanor's case she held rights to the Duchy of Acquitaine by birth, and was Queen Consort of both France and England. Camilla holds no rights by birth, and takes all her titles from her husband. She is what she is because Charles is the Duke of Cornwall, among other things.


As for Point #4, to be known by a lesser title means it must be conferred upon you first. You can't just call yourself Duke of Nowhereland if the Sovereign hasn't given you the title Duke of Nowhereland. She can't have that title conferred upon her, so long as she is still legally Queen Consort. And it's all well and good that the government says she'll be called Princess Consort....the point is, unless Parliament agrees to strip her of her title, it'll be highly unlikely that it will get done.

 

[Sister Morphine]

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?

They probably didn't think it through at all. They were either trying to appease the Diana fans who don't want Charles's mistress crowned as Queen or they were talking without reading through the procedure first. Both seem likely, sadly.

And if she's not going to be known as Queen, she shouldn't bother showing up at Westminster Abbey in the first place. I said it earlier......if they were going to jump through all these hoops to keep her from being styled and referred to as HM The Queen, why let them get married?

 

[Frothy]

Sister M, it's certainly true that Eleanor held her title by birth. The point is she disproves the assertion that the Queen of England can be known only by that title.

It's also quite true that you can't be known as Princess Consort without having the title first conferred upon you.

What is not true is that the title of Queen would need to be stripped before that of Princess Consort in her own right cf: Albert could be conferred.

Although this has been asserted a couple of times, a government spokeswoman has specifically denied it, as quoted above by me.

Again I must ask what is the basis for your statement here

She can't have that title conferred upon her, so long as she is still legally Queen Consort.

When that is denied by the government here?

"When you say constitutional and legal norms, a lot of it is down to convention rather than legislation, which is why she can be referred to as whatever she likes without having to change the law," she said. "She can be referred to as the Duchess of Cornwall or Princess Consort without any change to the law."
[FONT=verdana,tahoma,arial,helvetica]There were no moves to change the law to prevent Parker Bowles being queen, Campbell added.[/FONT]

I totally agree with your other points! It is a mess and it is silly. Drop "princess consort" please and go back to Queen.

 

[ysbel]

I think they took the Princess Consort from the Prince Consort title that some husbands of Queen Regnants have.

Its possible, there are some suggestions that Maxima will not be Queen of the Netherlands but will not be Queen when Willem-Alexander ascends the throne but will have some sort of lower consort title.

It may be another sign of scaling down the monarchy which I think is rather a shame.

 

[Frothy]

I completely agree. Whilst I admire and respect Prince Charles, I think what he has done here in the matter of Camilla's titles is a disaster for the monarchy and therefore the country.

Once you mess with it, wholesale destruction will take place.

 

[Sister Morphine]

Frothy.......Why do I keep saying that? Well.....according to the article I read and posted portions of here, Parliament would need to strip Camilla of the Queen title before she can use whatever other title Charles feels like giving her. That's where I got it from. Unless of course the people quoted in the article were absolute liars.

Camilla Parker Bowles will become Queen unless Parliament legislates to strip her of the right to the title, it was confirmed yesterday. The admission by the Department for Constitutional Affairs contradicts repeated assertions by Clarence House that she will be known only as Princess Consort on her husband’s succession, and not Queen.

Further on in the article it states:

A spokeswoman for the Department for Constitutional Affairs, headed by Lord Falconer of Thoroton, the Lord Chancellor, said that an Act of Parliament would be required.

And again:

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.”

So you have evidence saying one thing, I have evidence saying the opposite. It doesn't make you right and me wrong or me right and you wrong. What it makes is a huge mess that they are to blame for because they should have been a lot clearer about this. Either that or they should have done some research before opening their mouths.

 

[Sister Morphine]

I can't remember who brought up Prince Albert and the Prince Consort title, but that doesn't apply here. Kings outrank Queens. That's how it works. So Queen Victoria's husband couldn't have a title that outranked her, even if she's the sovereign by birthright and would be outranked in theory, by no one.

No one outranks the King, so it makes zero sense to give his consort a feminized form of a title given to a man married to a Queen regnant.

 

[Iluvbertie]

I suspect that in about three or four years time they will quietly remove that section from the website if they feel that people are accepting Camilla more.

If there is an outcry they will say that they are simply updating the website and that it will reappear but if there isn't a big to do then it will stay that way.

At the latest that will happen, I believe, will be during 2012, during the Queen's 60th Jubilee, assuming that she makes it that far.

 

[Warren]

I think we are arguing over something on which we all agree. The quotes above all refer to stripping Camilla of the title and position of Queen. Obviously that can only happen by Act of Parliament, and we accept that no Government would introduce such legislation.

The crux of the matter is whether, while retaining her formal and automatic position as Queen Consort, Camilla can be given the additional title (or form of address) of Princess Consort by which she may choose to be known.

Part of the problem with the debate in this thread is that quoted sources are being used to argue against misinterpreted statements.

 

[joan]

Hi,
I've been lurking here for quite a while now and really enjoying this ... and similiar .... threads. I don't profess to be knowledgeable by any means on Constitutional or RF matters, but one thing keeps niggling in my brain while reading through this thread.

Could it be that this "Princess Consort" title is in fact a signal of things to come in the future? After all, Charles seems to be the sort of man who wants to change the monarchy, so perhaps all consorts in the future will now be known by either Princess or Prince Consort. Perhaps the RF also intend for William's wife to be known as Princess Consort when her turn comes and Camilla is merely the frontrunner for many generations to be known as such?

In one way Prince Philip could be seen as the first of many in this role. I'm assuming that he is currently known as the Prince Consort? Not sure about this though.

Just my humble thoughts. Great site BTW .... I'm really enjoying it

Joan

 

[Sister Morphine]

Hi,
I've been lurking here for quite a while now and really enjoying this ... and similiar .... threads. I don't profess to be knowledgeable by any means on Constitutional or RF matters, but one thing keeps niggling in my brain while reading through this thread.

Could it be that this "Princess Consort" title is in fact a signal of things to come in the future? After all, Charles seems to be the sort of man who wants to change the monarchy, so perhaps all consorts in the future will now be known by either Princess or Prince Consort. Perhaps the RF also intend for William's wife to be known as Princess Consort when her turn comes and Camilla is merely the frontrunner for many generations to be known as such?

In one way Prince Philip could be seen as the first of many in this role. I'm assuming that he is currently known as the Prince Consort? Not sure about this though.

Just my humble thoughts. Great site BTW .... I'm really enjoying it

Joan

Welcome Joan! Prince Philip is not known as the Prince Consort. Winston Churchill suggested that the Queen give him that title, but she did not. She wanted his title elevated but didn't want Prince Consort or "Prince Royal". Instead, she gave him the title The Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh. The "The" is usually only reserved for children of the sovereign.


As for thinning out the monarchy, giving Camilla the title "Princess Consort" isn't necessarily the indicator of that. If they really wanted to thin down the monarchy, they'd do what Norway does and only give the title HRH to the children of the monarch, the eldest child's spouse and that couple's first child. The second child of Haakon and Mette-Marit is only known as Prince Sverre Magnus, where as his older sister is HRH Princess Ingrid Alexandra.

This whole "Princess Consort" business is [what seems to me] a ploy to soothe ruffled feathers of the people who don't think Charles's mistress should be Queen.

 

[Warren]

Hi fellow Sydney-sider Joan, and welcome to the posting-side of the Forums.

Prince Philip is not 'Prince Consort", the most recent was Prince Albert, the husband of Queen Victoria.

The convention is that the wife of a British King is automatically Queen from the moment the King succeeds to the Throne. The current debate concerns not only the appropriateness of a downgrading to 'Princess Consort', but the mechanism as to how such a title or form of address may be achieved.

 

[joan]

Hi and thanks for the welcomes. Yes, I realise that the current ... and traditional .... title is for the female consort of the King is Queen, but what I'm suggesting is that perhaps Charles is intending for this tradition to change and that all female consorts in the future shall no longer be known as Queen? Perhaps Camilla is to be the first of these? People will say that 1000 years of tradition will say otherwise of course, but Charles strikes me as a man who wants change. Perhaps this is one of them? Just a thought
Joan