Questions about British Styles and Titles 1: Ending 2022

[Iluvbertie]

Wasn't he officially referred to as HRH The Prince of Wales?

In the CC - yes - but in the normal press it was just as common to be Prince Albert Edward - same with Charles - officially HRH The Prince of Wales but commonly Prince Charles

 

[XeniaCasaraghi]

Ish can you tell me why Elizabeth was "of York"? Is it because her father inherited the title, Duke of York, after his father was killed, before he became King? But Elizabeth was born when he was King so should she have been Elizabeth of England?

 

[Spheno]

Ish can you tell me why Elizabeth was "of York"? Is it because her father inherited the title, Duke of York, after his father was killed, before he became King? But Elizabeth was born when he was King so should she have been Elizabeth of England?

They didn't use this modern system at all.
Richard's son was Edward of Middleham - he was born at Middleham Castle.
Real power and lands were more important than titles.

 

[royalistbert]

In the CC - yes - but in the normal press it was just as common to be Prince Albert Edward - same with Charles - officially HRH The Prince of Wales but commonly Prince Charles

I think the press in the 1800s was a bit more formal than press nowadays.

 

[Ish]

Ish can you tell me why Elizabeth was "of York"? Is it because her father inherited the title, Duke of York, after his father was killed, before he became King? But Elizabeth was born when he was King so should she have been Elizabeth of England?

You bring up a really interesting question here, and I'm not certain of the answer.

Women were typically "of" something in relation to their father - if their father held no titles, and was just "of" wherever he came from then it would be that, but if he held titles then sometimes it would be "of" the title and sometimes it would be "of" where he came from. Daughters of the king were usually "of" the kingdom, but sometime that just depended on when they were born and when they were married (in comparison to when their father became king). I'm not sure if an unmarried woman at the time would have changed her "of" to reflect her father's status, as happens now.

That said, the trick with Elizabeth becomes a matter of when she became "of York." It could be that she was "of England" when born, but "of York" when her father was deposed, and just retained it after he became king again (not likely, as all of Edward's daughters are known as "of York").

It could be that they became known as "of York" when Richard came to the throne and declared them illegitimate - in this way they would have been taking a more noble surname than the "FitzRoy" more commonly associated with acknowledged illegitimate children.

It could also be that "of York" is more of a historical name - as time passed we recorded he surname as being of her father's house rather than what she actually used at the time. I do know that this is often the case when "Plantagent" is used.

They didn't use this modern system at all. Richard's son was Edward of Middleham - he was born at Middleham Castle. Real power and lands were more important than titles.

Real power and lands were often denoted by titles. The "of wherever" as a surname typically denoted where a man was born, but not a woman. Elizabeth is a perfect example as she wasn't born in York, but London.

 

[Iluvbertie]

I think the press in the 1800s was a bit more formal than press nowadays.

Not really - they did use the titles when being formal but at times they also used names and titles and even nicknames way more than the press today.

 

[Baroness of Books]

Wasn't it also because at that time, the two rival royal houses were Lancaster and York and many family members were defined by such? I recall that Henry VI's son, Prince Edward, was not only known as the Prince of Wales but also as Edward of Lancaster.

 

[Ish]

Wasn't it also because at that time, the two rival royal houses were Lancaster and York and the family members were defined by such? I recall that Henry VI's son, Prince Edward, was not only known as The Prince of Wales but also as Edward of Lancaster.

I think the house association is the most likely for later periods - we call them the Yorks because that's the house they were in. However, I do question how much of that would have been contemporary use at the time.

The name Plantagenet is associated with the House now, but it wasn't associated with the House them, until Richard of York revived it (previously it had just been a nickname of a forefather). While we see Lancaster and York appear throughout both the lines, do we know if sources at the time would have called them such, or if it's just later sources coming up with it?

I'm not trying to say that (in the case of York/Lancaster) it was one or the other, or even that it's clearly defined as to which it would have been - it's very possible it changed by person. I'm just theorizing here.

 

[elizabethkelly]

No, Camilla is absolutely technically Princess of Wales as the wife of the Prince of Wales, she is just not using the title officially out of respect for Diana. This is all part of a plan to win people over to camilla...calling her Princess of Wales right out of the gate would have caused an uproar, and Charles and his team of advisors knew it.
She'll be Queen Camilla one day, no doubt.

 

[fandesacs2003]

Exactly! This was the strategy. At 2005, Diana's was very present to people's minds, and they would be very hurt if another woman beared the same title, and in the top of that Camilla.
But there is no doubt that she will be fully a Queen.

 

[BrazilianEmpire]

But there is no doubt that she will be fully a Queen.

And she'll be a great Queen. History will remember her as the beloved consort of King Charles III.

 

[scooter]

This is all part of a plan to win people over to camilla...calling her Princess of Wales right out of the gate would have caused an uproar, and Charles and his team of advisors knew it.
She'll be Queen Camilla one day, no doubt.

So what you are saying is that they cold bloodedly misrepresented what the long term plan was at the time of the marriage beause they knew that if the true plan were known it would cause an 'uproar'? It's either that or take Charles at his word at the time of the marriage.

 

[cepe]

So what you are saying is that they cold bloodedly misrepresented what the long term plan was at the time of the marriage beause they knew that if the true plan were known it would cause an 'uproar'? It's either that or take Charles at his word at the time of the marriage.

I dont think so. MY understanding is that the wife of a royal takes her titles from her husband. So Camilla is Princess of Wales, Duchess of Cornwall, Duchess of Rothesay (when in Scotland), Countess of Chester etc. She has chosen to be called Duchess of Cornwall as it is one of her titles. This was made clear at the time.

When Charles becomes King, she will automatically become Queen - fact. There has been talk about her being called something else - ie Princess Consort, but the issue with that is that title does not exist, it does not come from her husband and therefore (it has been argued) has no validity in law.

"misleading" is a strong term. Times, people and events change things. Camilla is more accepted now than was once thought possible. What may have been considered as a way forward then may not seem necessary now.

My personal view is that creating some form of title does no one any credit. She has earned her place and will be the wife of of a King - ergo she should be called Queen

Please don't start a debate on divorce and all that stuff here - there is another thread if you want to do that.

 

[Iluvbertie]

So what you are saying is that they cold bloodedly misrepresented what the long term plan was at the time of the marriage beause they knew that if the true plan were known it would cause an 'uproar'? It's either that or take Charles at his word at the time of the marriage.

In 2005 it was announced that she 'intended on being known as Princess Consort'. That terminology is still the stated wording on the PoW website.

However it was also announced - by the then PM no less - that she would become Princess of Wales as soon as she was married AND that she would also be Queen Consort.

It was also made clear that legislation was needed to strip her of the title Queen Consort and create her Princess Consort - in 2005 - in the days leading up to the wedding.

There was no misleading of the population - but rather a refusal of many of the population to actually read and understand the entire situation.

The intention is still that she will be Princess Consort - but that means that the government of the day will have to pass the legislation to allow for a morganatic marriage which it was made clear in 1936 didn't exist in UK law - a wife takes all titles etc from her husband.

I suspect that the legislation will be introduced and will be shot down on the grounds of discrimination against one woman - denying her the same rights as every other woman.

 

[cepe]

Very clear reply on the detail - thank you. I don't believe that legislation will be introduced. Hopefully, which ever politican is around will stand up and say not necessary, but there is also the chance of weasel words along the line of "no parliamentary time". Anyway, by the time all that happens, the media will be calling her Queen Camilla .

 

[royalistbert]

All our history of having Queen consorts and then to suddenly have a Princess Consort. Princess Consort doesn't have the same ring to it as Queen.

 

[cepe]

I think that to change something so key to the constitutional monarchy system for one occasion for one individual is wrong.

 

[Dman]

It's a tricky situation but I applaud Camilla for taking her secondary title and working her tail off as HRH The Duchess of Cornwall. She respected Diana's memory, her sons and the people over the title of HRH The Princess of Wales and think that's great.

I think if Charles and Camilla want the title HRH The Princess Consort to come into law, then I think that Parliament should allow that to happen. If Charles & Camilla agree on the title Queen Consort, then I think that should happen.

I'm actually looking forward to William being invested as HRH The Prince of Wales and Catherine becoming HRH The Princess of Wales. I'm sure Charles will give his son the title as soon as he can.

 

[Baroness of Books]

I suspect that the legislation will be introduced and will be shot down on the grounds of discrimination against one woman - denying her the same rights as every other woman.

Absolutely, and this seems the strongest case that Camilla will be Queen Consort. Why is she less deserving than her predecessors who carried the title just because a certain segment of the population can't accept her as the wife of a king? How many Queen Consorts throughout British history based on that would have then been denied the title because of their unpopularity? Quite a few, I'd wager. Camilla should not go down in history as being denied a rightful title because of such discrimination.

 

[cepe]

It's a tricky situation but I applaud Camilla for taking her secondary title and working her tail off as HRH The Duchess of Cornwall. She respected Diana's memory, her sons and the people over the title of HRH The Princess of Wales and think that's great.

I think if Charles and Camilla want the title HRH The Princess Consort to come into law, then I think that Parliament should allow that to happen. If Charles & Camilla agree on the title Queen Consort, then I think that should happen.

I'm actually looking forward to William being invested as HRH The Prince of Wales and Catherine becoming HRH The Princess of Wales. I'm sure Charles will give his son the title as soon as he can.

Imagine putting a law in place for 1 person - poss. 3 readings in both houses, lots of time and debate; lots of raking over old news. For someone who will probably be Queen for 20 years. In the whole expanse of the monarchy - why on earth do that? The monarchy is supposedly greater than one individual.

 

[BrazilianEmpire]

Imagine putting a law in place for 1 person - poss. 3 readings in both houses, lots of time and debate; lots of raking over old news.

And all that just after Queen Elizabeth II's death. They really think the Prime Minister will ask the new King to signe a law stripping his wife from her titles on the day his mother died? This ideia sounds ridiculous to me.

 

[scooter]

I think that to change something so key to the constitutional monarchy system for one occasion for one individual is wrong.

Well you have the prescedent in the immediate family of QEII's aunt Wallis, who was denied equal status to her husband. And Wallis had no possibility of being Queen. None the less, she was denied, by letters patent, no need to involve the entire government. Seems straightforward to me. And it IS what Charles announced at the time. Also, there was a lot published about Camilla not wanting to be queen before she agreed to marry him, so it seems quite plausible that she has no desire to be Queen.

 

[royalistbert]

There is no precedent of the wife of the King being denied being Queen. You marry the heir to the throne you expect that you may be Queen is some point in the future.

 

[cepe]

Well you have the prescedent in the immediate family of QEII's aunt Wallis, who was denied equal status to her husband. And Wallis had no possibility of being Queen. None the less, she was denied, by letters patent, no need to involve the entire government. Seems straightforward to me. And it IS what Charles announced at the time. Also, there was a lot published about Camilla not wanting to be queen before she agreed to marry him, so it seems quite plausible that she has no desire to be Queen.

Key point missed here. Wallis Simpson was not married to the King, and the country does not recognise morganatic marriages as legal. No preescedent at all

 

[Iluvbertie]

The difference is that the title The Queen Consort is the only title available for the wife of The King.

Wallis wasn't denied the title of the wife of her husband - i.e. she did become The Duchess of Windsor - to stop her doing that would have been impossible without legislation. The LPs that have been referred to relate to the LPs that created Edward as Duke of Windsor and so it could be included in those LPs that the HRH only applied to him and him alone and not to his spouse or children - despite the earlier 1917s LPs.

To stop her using a style could be done via LPs - to stop her taking her husband's titles is a different situation entirely.

As there a no LPs to create Charles HM The King there can be no LPs to strip his wife of HM The Queen - it needs new legislation specifically to deny the wife of HM The King to take on a different title - and unlike The Duchess of Cornwall he doesn't have any other titles she could use.

 

[Skippyboo]

It doesn't make sense to pass a law to change queen to princess consort just for Camilla especially right after the Queen death. Just because Camilla was Charles's mistress is not a reason to deny her the proper title. How many Kings were adulters ? Almost all of them but they still were King and Head of the CoE.

 

[cepe]

What is really daft is that whilst this would be going through the parliamentary process, her legal title would be Queen. So why bother?

There are more important things for our politicans to be dealing with, frankly.

 

[Roslyn]

There is also some suggestion that the change will have to be ratified by all the Realms, too. I haven't thought much on this though. Bertie, what say you?

 

[Dman]

When The Queen is near the end and close her eyes, the Camilla/Queen issue is going to hit the fan. I'm not sure Charles, Camilla, the royal family, palace officials and the government is looking forward to that headache.

 

[Skippyboo]

I don't think so. When the queen dies, there will be an accession council and the announcement of the new King from SJP. Then the lying in state and funeral. That is going to take 7 to 10 days and no politician is going to raise a stink about Camilla during that time period in difference to the late queen. Plus William and Harry will treat Camilla as the Queen.