King Charles and Queen Camilla

[Sister Morphine]

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

I cannot see Charles throwing 1,000 years of tradition out the privy window because of Camilla. That is just way too radical and frankly, bizarre. They want to call Camilla "Princess Consort" because of the way they came be married and the fact they fooled around while married. If that's the reason why they want to do it, why would they thrust that reason on the next possible Queen Consort and punish her because of something someone else did?


Let's say William marries Kate. Provided they don't split, she'd be the next Queen. Why should she be called Princess Consort because her father-in-law and his second wife fooled around together while they were married to different people?

 

[joan]

But that's exactly my point .... it has nothing to do with Camilla, simply the fact that Charles intends to change the whole "title thing" with future consorts .... Camilla just happens to be the first
Joan

 

[joan]

Why would you assume that Camilla will be known as Princess Consort because of her history with the whole Diana / Charles situation? Has anyone said that's why she wants to be known by that title? Maybe it's got nothing to do with it. I have a feeling that Charles will thrown a lot of traditions out of the "privy window" when his time comes to be king ... or at least begin debates to start the ball rolling on them. The Salic Law for one
Joan

 

[Sister Morphine]

But that's exactly my point .... it has nothing to do with Camilla, simply the fact that Charles intends to change the whole "title thing" with future consorts .... Camilla just happens to be the first
Joan

There has been no indication that this supposed to be a permanent thing. There has been indication though, that this is supposed to be a personal thing. I can pretty much bet you that William's wife will NOT be known as anything other than Queen Consort when her time comes.


They aren't thinking of giving Camilla another title because Charles wants to be different and throw all the toys in the air and let them land in new places. They are doing this because of their prior relationship and because they don't think she's "worthy" enough to be Queen. By changing it permanently, you are saying that NO ONE is worthy to be Queen and that just makes no sense to me at all.

 

[Sister Morphine]

Why would you assume that Camilla will be known as Princess Consort because of her history with the whole Diana / Charles situation? Has anyone said that's why she wants to be known by that title?

In Western monarchies the title is not common, but it has been announced that the title will be given to Camilla, Duchess of Cornwall, as an alternative to "queen consort" if and when Charles, Prince of Wales becomes King of the United Kingdom and the 15 other Commonwealth Realms. This is due to the somewhat controversial nature of the Prince's relationship with her, as both have previously been married and divorced, and they have been partners for many years

There is no other reasoning for why they would do this, other than the reason listed above. Charles does not strike me as the type to fly in the face of tradition like this just because he's feeling cheeky.

Frankly, to give her a title other than Queen is insulting.

 

[joan]

You don't know that for sure though, do you? I don't think that anyone has said that's why Camilla doesn't want to be known as Queen. My personal feeling is that Queen Elizabeth (the late Queen Mother) might be the last Queen with the title not actually born to the role
Joan

 

[joan]

In Western monarchies the title is not common, but it has been announced that the title will be given to Camilla, Duchess of Cornwall, as an alternative to "queen consort" if and when Charles, Prince of Wales becomes King of the United Kingdom and the 15 other Commonwealth Realms. This is due to the somewhat controversial nature of the Prince's relationship with her, as both have previously been married and divorced, and they have been partners for many years

Sorry .... missed this in your post. apparently it has been said .... can you tell me who this quote is from please? I still think it might be a sign for the future however.
Joan

 

[Sister Morphine]

You don't know that for sure though, do you? I don't think that anyone has said that's why Camilla doesn't want to be known as Queen.

For cryin' out loud, why ELSE would they do this, if not for he and Camilla's prior relationship? That reason alone makes no sense, but to do it for no reason at all makes even less! Just about every piece of information you can read about this whole debacle all but spells out that the reason they are thinking of doing this is because of their past relationship, the fact they are both divorced, etc,.


As long as there are Kings of England, there will be Queens Consort. If you don't allow the lawful wife of the King to be Queen, throw the monarchy in the scrap heap and become a republic.

 

[Sister Morphine]

In Western monarchies the title is not common, but it has been announced that the title will be given to Camilla, Duchess of Cornwall, as an alternative to "queen consort" if and when Charles, Prince of Wales becomes King of the United Kingdom and the 15 other Commonwealth Realms. This is due to the somewhat controversial nature of the Prince's relationship with her, as both have previously been married and divorced, and they have been partners for many years

Sorry .... missed this in your post. apparently it has been said .... can you tell me who this quote is from please? I still think it might be a sign for the future however.
Joan

That was from the Wikipedia article on the title "Princess Consort". No source is given, but if you Google "Camilla+Princess Consort", you'll find a bevy more information just like that. No source in that article doesn't mean it's made-up or bunkum, either.

And it's not a sign of the future, it's a sign of madness.

 

[Warren]

I have a feeling that Charles will thrown a lot of traditions out of the "privy window" when his time comes to be king ... or at least begin debates to start the ball rolling on them. The Salic Law for one

Joan, Britain doesn't have Salic Law, it has male primogeniture. The rules governing Succesion to the Crown are the province of the Parliament.

 

[Sister Morphine]

Joan, Britain doesn't have Salic Law, it has male primogeniture. The rules governing Succesion to the Crown are the province of the Parliament.

Do you think that England should do what other monarchies have done and adopt equal primogeniture? Just a slight deviation from the merry-go-round.

 

[Jo of Palatine]

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

My sentiments exactly. It is a mess and a stupid one to boot! If she is not worthy to share in his rank, then he should not have married her. This way it's a degradation of a woman which is tactless, heartless and absolutely unneccessary, IMHO. There won't be more public outcry then there was before the wedding, that's for sure.

I thought it was tactful of Camilla and Charles that she or they or whoever decided she should be known as The Duchess of Cornwall. A nice geste, but nothing more. Now this Princess Consort business means that of the three involved in that sad, sad marriage traingle only one eats humble pie for the rest of her life. Diana got a Royal funeral after she died together with her latest lover, Charles will be king - and Camilla will always be denoted as the wife who is not fit to be queen. Some sort of justice!

 

[Jo of Palatine]

Do you think that England should do what other monarchies have done and adopt equal primogeniture? Just a slight deviation from the merry-go-round.

The queen already did the first step towards equal primogeniture when she stated that princesses by birth have precedence of princesses by marriage. That was a clear indication that the Royal birthright exists for both genders - male and female.

 

[Sister Morphine]

My sentiments exactly. It is a mess and a stupid one to boot! If she is not worthy to share in his rank, then he should not have married her. This way it's a degradation of a woman which is tactless, heartless and absolutely unneccessary, IMHO. There won't be more public outcry then there was before the wedding, that's for sure.

I thought it was tactful of Camilla and Charles that she or they or whoever decided she should be known as The Duchess of Cornwall. A nice geste, but nothing more. Now this Princess Consort business means that of the three involved in that sad, sad marriage traingle only one eats humble pie for the rest of her life. Diana got a Royal funeral after she died together with her latest lover, Charles will be king - and Camilla will always be denoted as the wife who is not fit to be queen. Some sort of justice!

I've bolded the parts I agree with the most emphatically. This is all an absolute nightmare and I blame them for starting it.

 

[Frothy]

Sister Morphine,

Warren is absolutely right. You are not supported by the quotes you are giving, which are from the Times article I quoted in its entirety earlier.

What I said before that we all agree on is that Camilla can't not be queen without legislation.

But what you now keep posting is that without legislation, Camilla can't be Queen and Princess Consort at the same time. You keep posting she'd have to have the Queenship removed first to be made Princess Consort.

But both the Times article and my other quote from the same woman, the spokeswoman for the Department of Constitutional Affairs, refute that. Both articles say Camilla CAN be Queen and Princess Consort AT THE SAME TIME without any change in the law.

You quote here

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.”

But that paragraph finishes "However she is not going to be known as Queen, she will be known as Princess Consort".

This matches with the same woman's earlier quote that she can be PC without any change in the law and that there are no moves to strip her of her title as Queen, meaning, in sum, that the government asserts she can be both at the same time.

For all your posts to Joan I am glad to say I absolutely agree with you in all respects!

Edit to add

Do you think that England should do what other monarchies have done and adopt equal primogeniture? Just a slight deviation from the merry-go-round.

Yes I do but I'm sure that'll be good for fifty pages in a new thread! I also agree with Jo that QEII has taken the first step in altering the precedence.

 

[Sister Morphine]

The queen already did the first step towards equal primogeniture when she stated that princesses by birth have precedence of princesses by marriage. That was a clear indication that the Royal birthright exists for both genders - male and female.

I wasn't aware of that, but I was more thinking along the lines of the throne. Elizabeth is Queen because her parents had no sons. It would affect William and his wife first. If their first child is a girl, should she inherit the throne outright whether she has a younger brother or not?

 

[Sister Morphine]

Sister Morphine,

Warren is absolutely right. You are not supported by the quotes you are giving, which are from the Times article I quoted in its entirety earlier.

What I said before that we all agree on is that Camilla can't not be queen without legislation.

But what you now keep posting is that without legislation, Camilla can't be Queen and Princess Consort at the same time. You keep posting she'd have to have the Queenship removed first to be made Princess Consort.

But both the Times article and my other quote from the same woman, the spokeswoman for the Department of Constitutional Affairs, refute that. Both articles say Camilla CAN be Queen and Princess Consort AT THE SAME TIME without any change in the law.

You quote here



But that paragraph finishes "However she is not going to be known as Queen, she will be known as Princess Consort".

This matches with the same woman's earlier quote that she can be PC without any change in the law and that there are no moves to strip her of her title as Queen, meaning, in sum, that the government asserts she can be both at the same time.

For all your posts to Joan I am glad to say I absolutely agree with you in all respects!

Then why do I keep reading that in order for her to take a lesser title than the one she has by law, her Queen title must be taken away by law first? Are the people I'm reading quotes from lying or am I unable to read English? It doesn't matter what the rest of that paragraph states [which by the way, comes from a Times article as well.....possibly the same one you keep talking about], it still states that the only way she won't be Queen is by law. She can't be both at the same time! How can you be the unequal wife of the King and the equal wife of the King.......all at once? That construct makes absolutely 100% no sense at all.

 

[Frothy]

Then why do I keep reading that in order for her to take a lesser title than the one she has by law, her Queen title must be taken away? Are the people I'm reading quotes from lying or am I unable to read English?

Neither one, I'm sure, there's no question of "lying" here, just different interpretations and search for proof of them.

I wondered if perhaps you had some other source quoted earlier that I have missed that states the Queenship must go for PC to be added. BranchQ also believes this, but he has not yet, I believe, offered proof of it other than his opinion, I apologise if I have missed such proof.

In trying to stop us going round in circles and clarify the debate as Warren earlier suggested, I am simply bringing forward the two separate government statements from the Department of Constitutional Affairs that Camilla can be known as Princess Consort, and remain Queen, without a change in the law.

Since these are statements by the Government and they tally with the statements of the BRF on their websites, my opinion is that those who wish to argue against what the Government and Royal Family say will happen probably ought to advance some proof or some source.

I am genuinely interested to BranchQ's view as to why the Queenship must be stripped before Princess Consort can be added when the Govt has said twice that's not so. The Govt has also said very clearly that this marriage is not morganatic. Branch has suggested a few times that the only way for Camilla to be PC would be take away the queenship with new laws then gazette her and it would be morganatic. But the Government in response to an MP's question has insisted it is not morganatic.

So for those arguing against the Govt and RF statements, I guess my question is, on what basis?

 

[Jo of Palatine]

I wasn't aware of that, but I was more thinking along the lines of the throne. Elizabeth is Queen because her parents had no sons. It would affect William and his wife first. If their first child is a girl, should she inherit the throne outright whether she has a younger brother or not?

IMHO you can't change such a thing without starting it slowly as an idea. The Swedish parliament started the whole change because there simply was noone but Carl Gustaf and old, old Bertil, even though Carl Gustaf has 4 sisters. The Netherlands are notorious for their people's strive for equality, so it was just a question of time. Belgium and Norway followed suit. Now Spain, for me, was a surprise, but I've yet to see the change becomes law indeed. Denmark and britain at the moment have a bit of a reprive because the heir of the heir is male. But the discussion will start here, too, I'm convinced. But not in Braitain as long as the queen lives. Then we will see what position king Charles has and what he does or does not to further the decision.

 

[Frothy]

Yes, we are both quoting from the same article. I also quote from an earlier AFP article posted by, I think it was Jo. Same source, the Dept of Cons. Affairs.

it still states that the only way she won't be Queen is by law. She can't be both at the same time!

First sentence: Yes, it sure does say that, we all agree on that. She will be Queen.

Second sentence: the article says outright that she can indeed be both at the same time. So does the other quote from the spokeswoman.

We have been discussing how exactly, by what mechanism, she could be both at the same time. Thus far the suggestion is that she would be gazetted with the title of Princess Consort and made a Princess of the UK in her own right, as Princes Albert and Philip were created Princes of the UK in their own right.

Camilla`will hold the title of Queen Consort in the right of her husband. She will be his equal wife. But she would use the title of Princess Consort that she would hold in her own personal right having been created such by her husband, the same way Elizabth created Philip Prince of the UK and Mary I created Philip of Spain (not yet King of Spain on his marriage) King Consort of England.

 

[Warren]

The queen already did the first step towards equal primogeniture when she stated that princesses by birth have precedence of princesses by marriage. That was a clear indication that the Royal birthright exists for both genders - male and female.

I'm not sure how much we should read into the Queen's action here. The Household or Court (or family) Order of Precedence re-arrangement concerned the Princess Royal and Princess Alexandra. I saw the upgrading of both as a special 'mark of respect' to the Queen's daughter and to her loyal and dear widowed cousin. It is noteworthy that both Anne and Alexandra became Knights of the Garter before Andrew and Edward.

As far as I know Princess Beatrice was not given an enhanced precedence on her 18th birthday, but the situation may change if and when William and Harry marry. It will be interesting to see if the York Princesses are given precedence over the Wales wives.

However, this is a digression from the Queen Camilla discussion, and would be more appropriate for the Order of Precedence thread.

 

[Madame Royale]

...and therefore the country.

A slight exaggeration perhaps (respectively).

A matter which shall be settled one way or another shall hardly throw a country into total despair. Especially given its nature (in comparison to events shaping our world).

I see all too often the issue being turned into something biblical in size of its possible ramifications and it just doesn't seem to me, incredibly likely, that the citizens of the UK shall be out in the streets, pulling out their hair and chanting Camilla's name in desperation...all because of her title.

 

[Frothy]

Sorry - Philip of Spain was granted a consort's title in right of his wife, so not an exact paralell, but Princes Albert and Philip were created Princes of the UK in their own right. If the Queen died and Philip remarried his wife would be HRH the Duchess of Edinburgh - it is his title and not dependent upon his marriage to the Queen.

 

[Frothy]

I take the rebuke! I suppose that like many ardent royalists and also Camilla fans, I despair of the ancient title of Queen Consort being mucked about in this way. But will the public care? I hope so....

 

[Jo of Palatine]

So for those arguing against the Govt and RF statements, I guess my question is, on what basis?

Common sense? No, don't laugh. I'm serious about it. It is against all ideas that are the basis for Royal titles to confer the title of Princess Consort on the woman who is legally queen.

You could have made the queen of England the princess of Wales in 1301 because she did not be the princess of Wales before - Wales was an independant princedom before and was conquered by England. So one could have argued that the possession of Wales made the king of England the prince of Wales in addition - and his queen the princess of Wales, without merging these titles with the Crown. But it happened not that way.

King Charles II. recreated his aunt Elizabeth Stuart, the Queen Consort of Bohemia and Electress-Consort of the Palatinate a princess of England and Scotland (that is: he negated her forfeit of her inheritance rights and restored these rights to her in order to bring his cousin, admiral (Cavalier Prince) Rupert of the Palatinate back in the line of succession. Unfortunately this prince (and all his brothers and their legitimate, male, protestant descendants) died earlier, so his sister Sophia was the next.

But htese are examples who bear no real similarity to the current situation.

It's as esay as that: Camilla will be queen but will be known as Princess Consort. What does that say about her and her status? Exactly.

 

[Madame Royale]

I take the rebuke! I suppose that like many ardent royalists and also Camilla fans, I despair of the ancient title of Queen Consort being mucked about in this way. But will the public care? I hope so....

Care? Many shall, no doubt. Then again, many probably won't either.

I support Camilla (contrary to what some may believe), but I role with the punches

What will be, will be Frothy

BTW: Thanks for not taking my response with offense. It wasn't intended to be offensive or argumentative.

 

[Warren]

.. I despair of the ancient title of Queen Consort being mucked about in this way. But will the public care? I hope so....

Will feminists and equal rights campaigners be protesting in the streets if King Charles announces the degrading of his wife's "status" as one of the first acts of the new reign?

 

[Jo of Palatine]

As far as I know Princess Beatrice was not given an enhanced precedence on her 18th birthday, but the situation may change if and when William and Harry marry. It will be interesting to see if the York Princesses are given precedence over the Wales wives.

Just an aside (my last one..): The York princesses will never be the daughters sof the souverain, but William and Harry's wifes will be the daughters-in-law of the souverain. Thus they will have precedence, anyway. But once William has a daughter and married sons, we'll see if queen Elizabeth created a precedence (if I live to see that day!)...

 

[Frothy]

Warren, hey! Count me as one of those feminists! But yes, it rankles. As Sister Morphine has said, it makes a value judgement on Camilla's personal moral behaviour in marriage but not Charles's, you note.

Perhaps they should sew a big red "A" onto her coronation robes?

Jo of Palatine, you are absolutely right, there's no common sense to it at all, and I don't laugh at that one bit. But in my view there is no common sense in Prince of Wales/Duchess of Cornwall. Alas, "it must make common sense" has no legal standing in Britain! If only it did....

Madame R, I took no offence at all, clearly you intended none. Goodness, I chose the handle "Frothy" because to me that's what TRF are and why I love them... this is my relaxation, to debate the minutia of titles and gazetting and Elizabeth of York etc away from the office, precisely because in the end it doesn't much matter, yet I am a traditionalist and see the monarchy as an important part of the "soul" of England, part of the warp and weft of its history.

Most posters here weren't that concerned with "Lady Louise", I sure was. I see the writing on the wall and don't like it one bit.

 

[Warren]

Just an aside (my last one..): The York princesses will never be the daughters sof the souverain, but William and Harry's wifes will be the daughters-in-law of the souverain. Thus they will have precedence, anyway.

But neither was Princess Alexandra the daughter of a Sovereign, and she was elevated to become the third Royal Lady in the land after the Queen and the Princess Royal. Alexandra now has precedence before the wives of the eldest and third sons of the Sovereign. (NB this does not relate to the Official Order of Precedence in England.)