Questions about British Styles and Titles 1: Ending 2022

[cepe]

The Accession Council is ceremonial and their announcement has no legal status. The instant the Queen dies, Charles is King and Camilla is Queen. So even longer in reality. You're right that no one will be creating problems prior to the funeral.

 

[Dman]

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.

I know that the world will be busy in morning but I mean the debates will rise leading up to the next Coronation. Trust me, there will be a great deal of debates, stories, official statements, etc, going on. It's not going to be pretty and I think we have to brace ourselves for that.

 

[Iluvbertie]

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?

As she is the consort I don't think the realms have an issue. They were consulted in 1936 over the abdication but that was to do with the King himself not Wallis.

The real precedent is Anne Boleyn - definitely a figure in the divorce of Henry VIII and Catherine of Aragon - but she was crowned as Queen in a personal and separate ceremony.

 

[Valerie Rose]

The situation is known now and has been for years.
I expect that broad general policies have already been outlined and agreed upon by those most concerned.
I'm sure there will be no unseemly debate or appearance of dithering

 

[yvr girl]

Most people under the age of about 25 would have very little memory of Diana. As time goes on, this group will become larger and larger.

I think it was wise to use the Duchess of Cornwall title as it would have caused too much of a stir at the time to have a new Princess of Wales, but I don't think the Princess Consort title will come to pass. It won't matter any longer.

 

[US Royal Watcher]

I agree with yvr girl to a point. As time goes on, Diana's memory will continue to fade into history. For most people life goes on but there will always be some people who will insist on reliving the past.

The more interesting question is whether William and Catherine will become the Prince and Princess of Wales. Obviously, people would begin to associate the title with Catherine rather than Diana, which is the way it should be.

Personally, for reasons that have nothing to do with Camilla, I think the male and female consort should adopt equivalent titles. Philip is known as "Prince Consort" and Camilla and Catherine should be known as "Princess Consort" when the time comes.

 

[Osipi]

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.

As we're going down this road again, I kind of find it ironic that should Parliament pass legislation to allow the title of Princess Consort for Camilla, she will have attained something that no royal spouse has. She would be Princess Camilla in her own right. No Queen Consort has ever attained that. To me, that would be a slap in the face to those that have gone before her.

 

[yvr girl]

Personally, for reasons that have nothing to do with Camilla, I think the male and female consort should adopt equivalent titles. Philip is known as "Prince Consort" and Camilla and Catherine should be known as "Princess Consort" when the time comes.

Why not King Consort and Queen Consort? It is sexist to assume that King trumps Queen.

 

[royalistbert]

Why not King Consort and Queen Consort? It is sexist to assume that King trumps Queen.

I always thought the title King Consort should be created nowadays. I never why everyone downgrades the woman's title why not upgrade the mens.

 

[Lumutqueen]

Why not King Consort and Queen Consort? It is sexist to assume that King trumps Queen.

Except that's the way it goes, always has done and if people want to continually view tradition as sexist then I'll continue to laugh. Doesn't harm anyone, nobody cares, people just use the word sexist to their advantage. Think Philip minds not being Prince Consort?

Catherine will be Queen Consort, Camilla will be Queen Consort and any future husband of a Queen Regnant depending upon the government and the husband might be a Prince Consort.

 

[US Royal Watcher]

I always thought the title King Consort should be created nowadays. I never why everyone downgrades the woman's title why not upgrade the mens.

I think we should downgrade the title because the consort takes his or her title from the monarch. It makes more sense to me for the consort to take a lesser title. As Yvr Girl points out, the current disparity was created on the sexist assumption that a wife is subordinate to her husband. In a monarchy, everyone is subordinate to the monarch and that should be reflected in the spouse's title.

 

[cepe]

...I think the male and female consort should adopt equivalent titles...

The USA decided what they wanted to call their Head of State and (eventually) their spouse over 230 years ago. I'd like to stick with what we decided over a 1000 yrs ago, and I think the majority of the UK and other realms would agree.

I'm tired of hearing that change is necessary because something is allegedly sexist, religious (as opposed to non-secular) or traditional.

 

[Spheno]

I always thought the title King Consort should be created nowadays. I never why everyone downgrades the woman's title why not upgrade the mens.

England had one king-consort. Not best memories. Next queen chose to be unmarried.

 

[US Royal Watcher]

The USA decided what they wanted to call their Head of State and (eventually) their spouse over 230 years ago. I'd like to stick with what we decided over a 1000 yrs ago, and I think the majority of the UK and other realms would agree.

I'm tired of hearing that change is necessary because something is allegedly sexist, religious (as opposed to non-secular) or traditional.

I'm sorry, you're right. It is your monarchy. I'm just an interested observer. I used the word "we" in response to the post asking why the title should be downgraded.

That said, it is my opinion, that since a woman may now inherit the throne in her own right, the issue of parity between a male consort versus a female consort will come up--although hopefully not in my lifetime. You guys have plenty of time to figure it out.

 

[Skippyboo]

I was just reading Robert Hardman's book about the Queen. There was a discussion about Prince Philip not being named Prince Consort. Other than the fact that Philip never asked for it, it was speculated by the author that the queen did not want the Duke of Edinburgh title to disappear from usage which it would if Philip was Prince Consort due to the happy memories of the time before the accession where she was the Duchess of Edinburgh and could be a naval wife in Malta. Just as in the future, William and Kate will look back fondly on their time as the Duke/Duchess of Cambridge even though it will not be their main title for most of their lives.

The royal titles do not belong to just one person. There were different Prince and Princess of Wales, Princess Royal, Dukes of York, Gloucester, Kent, etc. There is no reason for Charles to not name William as PoW.

 

[Dman]

I think we have to face that the title of HRH The Princess of Wales wasn't designed for Diana. It was a title she gained when marrying Charles and respectfully Camilla decided to not take on the title publically due to the past. I think Catherine will be proud to take on her role as HRH The Princess of Wales when the time comes and carry on carving out her role.

 

[Valerie Rose]

I agree

 

[Nico]

Words of wisdom Dman. Just hope it will be shared by many ...

 

[HighnessN]

Why not King Consort and Queen Consort? It is sexist to assume that King trumps Queen.

I think it has more to do with history. When people talked of "heirs" unfortunately they meant males. I think males getting "lesser" titles when married to a female heir was not make sure that no one assumed that the male was the monarch(which people in the old days and even some today would have assumed if the male was king).

Women inheriting based on birth not sex is a relatively new thing, maybe in the future males will be "king consorts" but I doubt it will happen soon.

 

[Iluvbertie]

As we're going down this road again, I kind of find it ironic that should Parliament pass legislation to allow the title of Princess Consort for Camilla, she will have attained something that no royal spouse has. She would be Princess Camilla in her own right. No Queen Consort has ever attained that. To me, that would be a slap in the face to those that have gone before her.

Until fairly recently the Queens' Consort mainly were Princess own name in their own right - by birth.

The Queen Mother wasn't of course but before that we have to go back to the wives of Henry VIII before we have a Queen Consort who wasn't born a princess in her own right - Mary, Alexandra, Adelaide were all princesses before their marriages as were those before them.

 

[Baroness of Books]

Either way, precedent would be set for a situation that shouldn't arise anyway.

 

[tommy100]

Why would Parliament need to do anything for Camilla to be known as 'Princess Consort'? When Charles becomes King Camilla will automatically become Queen in the eyes of the law. If she chooses to take a lower ranking title then why does Parliament need to get involved? They didn't need to when she decided to be known as Duchess of Cornwall.
Personally I think there won't be any legislation stripping Camilla of the title Queen, the only real possibilities in my mind are whether Camilla does become known as Princess Consort (Whilst legally, technically still Queen) as Clarence House have said since the marriage or whether that anouncement is quietly forgotten and she is known as Queen.
I can't see a Parliament stripping her of a title.

 

[Lumutqueen]

Why would Parliament need to do anything for Camilla to be known as 'Princess Consort'? When Charles becomes King Camilla will automatically become Queen in the eyes of the law. If she chooses to take a lower ranking title then why does Parliament need to get involved? They didn't need to when she decided to be known as Duchess of Cornwall.

You answered your own question, to strip Camilla of a title that is legally hers "Queen", it would need new legislation putting in place in regards to monarchs spouses titles. Therefore parliament has to get involved.
They didn't get involved when she chose to use DOC because she already had that title. It was in the title bucket she could choose from being the wife of the POW. It usually of course goes that the higher title is used than the lesser one.

Personally I think there won't be any legislation stripping Camilla of the title Queen, the only real possibilities in my mind are whether Camilla does become known as Princess Consort (Whilst legally, technically still Queen) as Clarence House have said since the marriage or whether that anouncement is quietly forgotten and she is known as Queen.
I can't see a Parliament stripping her of a title.

iluvbertie explained the situation a few pages back;

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.

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.

She cannot be Queen Consort and be known as The Princess Consort, doesn't work like that. She has to be one or the other.

 

[royalistbert]

When the time comes what was said back then will be the last thing on people's mind. Quite frankly Camilla title will be an afterthought on the day The Queen passes.

 

[Lumutqueen]

When the time comes what was said back then will be the last thing on people's mind. Quite frankly Camilla title will be an afterthought on the day The Queen passes.

On the day yes, in the weeks after yes, but when it comes to discussion of the coronation and the titles, Charles' words are going to be brought up over and over again. It was a massive massive mistake on his part and his PR teams part.

 

[tommy100]

Surley Charles could allow her to be known as Princess Consort without going through rounds and rounds with Parliament? Didn't the Queen allow Princess Alice to known as that rather than HRH The Dowager Duchess of Gloucester? There is a difference to being legally entitled to a title and choosing to be known by that title or aother title.

 

[US Royal Watcher]

I suppose nothing stops the palace from referring to her as "Princess Consort" or "fork" if they want, but does that really resolve the issue if her legal title is "Queen Consort?"

 

[Ish]

Surley Charles could allow her to be known as Princess Consort without going through rounds and rounds with Parliament? Didn't the Queen allow Princess Alice to known as that rather than HRH The Dowager Duchess of Gloucester? There is a difference to being legally entitled to a title and choosing to be known by that title or aother title.

There is a difference here.

Princess Alice's title was Princess Henry, Duchess of Gloucester. All that changed was her using her first name instead of her deceased husband's first name - similar happened with Princess Marina. She still held all her titles.

With Camilla, she will hold no titles other than Queen Consort. In order to strip her of that title Parliament has to be involved - Parliament is necessary to strip someone of a title.

The title Princess Consort would have to be created just for her. While Charles could issue LPs to do so without Parliament's involvement, to make her not also be Queen then Parliament has to be involved.

 

[tommy100]

I've just looked back at the FAQs on the PoW website about Camilla being Queen...
Will The Duchess become Queen when The Prince becomes King?
As was explained at the time of their wedding in April 2005, it is intended that The Duchess will be known as HRH The Princess Consort when The Prince of Wales accedes to The Throne.

Intended and known? Not exactly legal laguage there really. Only time will tell what happens

 

[US Royal Watcher]

He certainly left the matter open, regardless of what some people think. Charles has always taken a long-term view. He knows that most members of the public are fair and open-minded. Few people are still angry about events that happened more than 20 years ago. But the there is a steady drumbeat from the media that is difficult to ignore. He'll tread carefully.