The Monarchy under Charles

[Iluvbertie]

Mr. John Smith's wife would be compelled to call herself the archaic Mrs. John Smith.

She does if she wants to attend many events such as Royal Ascot e.g. Carole Middleton is clearly seen being titled as Mrs Michael Middleton when she attend there while Zara Tindall is shown as Mrs Michael Tindall at the same events.

Calling herself Mrs Zara Tindall actually says she is divorced - like Sarah, Duchess of York.

Archaic - maybe but still correct form.

 

[wbenson]

Royal Ascot changed the rules on that last year. Married women may now use their own names. They had to have been one of the last institutions to insist on that.

In any case, just as the law doesn't require a woman to use a particular name or title, it also doesn't require that anyone else refrain from using it.

 

[tommy100]

The fact is no one knows what will happen when the Queen dies and Charles becomes King, who knows what Camilla's title will be? Quite on purpose IMO Clarence House has been vague on the issue and I don't blame them for this, why make a statement that might in a few years seem out of touch?

The facts are Charles will be King, Camilla will become Queen. The fact is she will only lose the title if Parliament takes it off her.

Anything else is speculation. And I personally speculate that Parliament is not going to get involved in taking the title of Queen away from her. I suspect most politicians don't want to been seen as petty enough to take the title of the wife of the new King for something that happened decades before.

I'm not getting into the they were right or wrong/Diana was right or wrong debate, I'm saying most politicians would run a mile rather than getting involved in this.

I really don't think Parliament will get involved in this so Camilla will still be legally called Queen....whether she uses it or not will be for her and Charles to decide and that's the part no one knows. I suspect at worst we will be in the same position as now...Camilla is legally Princess of Wales but uses a lesser title, she would legally be Queen but use a lesser title by choice.

Just completely personally I really don't see why Camilla should not be Queen. By the time the Queen died she will probably have been married to Charles for just as long if not longer than Diana was and whatever else you think of her as a person she has done a decent job as a member of the RF. I also worry about the precedence it sets for future consorts - when they aren't popular enough we take the title off them? Its like when people turned against the Queen in the wake of Diana's death and there were suggestions she should abdicate, looking back on that now it seems ridiculous and shows that people shouldn't try and make decisions based purely on personal emotions at the time.

 

[wbenson]

Yes, I'd be very surprised if this went as far as legislation. It's simply not necessary, IMO.

(And whatever happens, I expect it to be presented as a fait accompli on day one. I don't think this is going to be any kind of deliberative process. The decision will be made, and the justification will fit the decision rather than the other way around. And there are sound arguments on both sides, so they won't even have to reach.)

 

[muriel]

I think the justification will be a simple one. HM The King will be advised by his PM that his wife should be known as HM Queen Camilla.

 

[Lee-Z]

Legally unless something is actively changed she will be the queen, but imo she herself would much rather be untitled or at most "just a duchess"; i don't think Camilla particularly is looking forward to be a "first lady" but will go along with it to support Charles

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

HM The King and HRH The Duchess of Lancaster
HM The Queen and HRH The Duke of Edinburgh
Not such a shocking difference to me.

The British, the Dutch and the Danes have experienced loooong periods with a male consort. Seeing Victoria, Ingrid Alexandra, Elisabeth, Estelle, Leonor and Catharina-Amalia, the male consort will become the new norm in the foreseeable future. It would be trendsetting for the UK to make the title of the spouse gender neutral. Otherwise we keep the discussion why male spouses are no Kings but female spouses are.

 

[rominet09]

I think that, when the Queen disappears, people in UK will be too sad and upset to grant any importance to things like titles and so on.

 

[MARG]

HM The King and HRH The Duchess of Lancaster
HM The Queen and HRH The Duke of Edinburgh
Not such a shocking difference to me.

I think that, when the Queen disappears, people in UK will be too sad and upset to grant any importance to things like titles and so on.

I have no problem with the concept of the Duchess of Lancaster if it marks the end of 1000 years if tradition. Meaning that the consort of future kings will never be Queen.

If it is just to 'punish' Camilla then no, it's total hypocracy.

But, to be honest, I agree with rominet09 that such quibbles will not be central on the death of our beloved Queen.

 

[Denville]

I think that, when the Queen disappears, people in UK will be too sad and upset to grant any importance to things like titles and so on.

WIll they?
Titltes are important to the RF. If Camilla weren't treated as queen and called QUeen, I think it would bother Charles and many of his relatives, because it would be implying that she "wasn't good enough" or popular enough. I don't think it will be an issue though. I think that some Diana fans will object but there wont be that many.. just as some Diana fans and some High Anglicans were unhappy about the remarriage after the divorce.

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

I have no problem with the concept of the Duchess of Lancaster if it marks the end of 1000 years if tradition. Meaning that the consort of future kings will never be Queen.

[....].

It was also for centuries tradition that male heirs had preference, that royals were barred from marrying "papists"... The differences in gender have been taken out of the succession, royals are now free to marry Catholics, but still the titulature has not been adapted. Making the titulature of the male and female consort to the Sovereign gender neutral will become the new issue, mark my words.

 

[Mbruno]

It was also for centuries tradition that male heirs had preference, that royals were barred from marrying "papists"... The differences in gender have been taken out of the succession, royals are now free to marry Catholics, but still the titulature has not been adapted. Making the titulature of the male and female consort to the Sovereign gender neutral will become the new issue, mark my words.

Although I support a gender-neutral title for consorts of monarchs, I am afraid that is still very far from becoming a reality.

In fact, if anything, the opposite is happening. For example, Spain always had gender-neutral consort titles as husbands of reigning queens were always called "king" in the past. Nevertheless, under the 1987 royal decree that now regulates the titles and styles of Spanish royal family, it has now been decided that, while the wife of the king is to be called "queen" with the style "Majesty", the husband of a reigning queen will have only the dignity of "prince" with the style "Royal Highness".

The only tangible evolution I can think of is that Queen Maxima and Queen Letizia for example, at least oficially, are not called "Queen of the Netherlands" or "Queen of Spain", but rather only "Queen". Much to my surprise, I recently found out that is officially also the case for Queen Mathilde and was the case for Queen Paola,who, in official documents, are cited as "Queen [name], Princess of Belgium" and not as "Queen of the Belgians". In practice, however, that important distinction is frequently ignored.

 

[Mbruno]

WIll they?
Titltes are important to the RF. If Camilla weren't treated as queen and called QUeen, I think it would bother Charles and many of his relatives, because it would be implying that she "wasn't good enough" or popular enough. I don't think it will be an issue though. I think that some Diana fans will object but there wont be that many.. just as some Diana fans and some High Anglicans were unhappy about the remarriage after the divorce.

How would it bother Charles if he was the one who suggested not calling her "queen" in the first place ? Charles pushed himself into a corner when he promised that Camilla would be styled princess consort. Now, he can't go back on his word, or else he will be accused of deliberately deceiving the British public.

 

[Denville]

I doubt if he suggested it. It was probably advisers who felt that ti would be wise to put in some sop to the Diana fans, ie that Camilla wodl not use the title of Princess of wales and that she'd be Princess Consort just as Albert was Pr Consort. I'm sure that none of the RF was happy with this having to give Cam a lesser title and they hoped that in due course, she'd bec known as queen.
perhaps it was foolish to make an announcement about what would happen when Charles became King, they might have just stuck to sayng that Cam would be called Duchess of C..but I don't believe most people will care if she' is styled as queen...

 

[Mbruno]

I doubt if he suggested it. It was probably advisers who felt that ti would be wise to put in some sop to the Diana fans, ie that Camilla wodl not use the title of Princess of wales and that she'd be Princess Consort just as Albert was Pr Consort. I'm sure that none of the RF was happy with this having to give Cam a lesser title and they hoped that in due course, she'd bec known as queen.
perhaps it was foolish to make an announcement about what would happen when Charles became King, they might have just stuck to sayng that Cam would be called Duchess of C..but I don't believe most people will care if she' is styled as queen...

If they were not "happy with it", they shouldn't have announced it publicly as they did. It will be difficult to reverse that decision now without looking oportunistic and dishonest. At least that is my personal opinion.

 

[Skippyboo]

The sovereign's Consort is only one person in the whole country. If you are going to change the title, then the peerages need to also go to equal primogeniture and men can take the title from their wives and females can pass down titles if you want gender neutrality. However, this is more about Camilla then gender neutrality.

If Charles dies tomorrow, will people be calling for Catherine to be called Princess Consort and not crowned in Westminster Abbey with King William V when the time came? I think not.

I agree making the statement about the Princess Consort statement at the time was stupid. It didn't need to be addressed then.

 

[Osipi]

How would it bother Charles if he was the one who suggested not calling her "queen" in the first place ? Charles pushed himself into a corner when he promised that Camilla would be styled princess consort. Now, he can't go back on his word, or else he will be accused of deliberately deceiving the British public.

Charles didn't promise anything. The statement said "it is intended". There are a lot of factors back then that are totally different now. For all we know, that statement may have been made as Camilla's wishes. She wasn't really over the moon about becoming a part of Charles' and the family's Firm and being in the public limelight doing the royal job by a lot of indications back then.

Time changes things. Camilla has fit seamlessly into her role and has adapted and has grown comfortable with being The Duchess of Cornwall and all indications point to Camilla being comfortable in a role as Queen by Charles' side. At the time of the marriage, if being DoC and in the limelight gave her the heebeejeebees, I imagine that the prospect of being Queen totally freaked her out. She may feel comfortable now with being Charles' Queen Consort.

We'll see what happens.

 

[Ish]

It was also for centuries tradition that male heirs had preference, that royals were barred from marrying "papists"... The differences in gender have been taken out of the succession, royals are now free to marry Catholics, but still the titulature has not been adapted. Making the titulature of the male and female consort to the Sovereign gender neutral will become the new issue, mark my words.

And if the push to have Camilla be something other than Queen was because of a desire to end the tradition and adopt gender neutrality in the title of the consort of the monarch, you would have a point.

But it's not about that. It's about punishing Camilla for daring to have an affair. No one is suggesting that the title change overall, no one is suggesting that Catherine be Princess Consort. No one wants to end the tradition... they just want to punish Camilla.

 

[Lee-Z]

I have the feeling that for some people Camilla stole the "queen" title from Diana, and no facts (C&D divorced so D wouldn't be queen anyway) will change the feeling
What i don't know is how many people think like that..

 

[Denville]

If they were not "happy with it", they shouldn't have announced it publicly as they did. It will be difficult to reverse that decision now without looking oportunistic and dishonest. At least that is my personal opinion.

THey have to do a lot of things that they are not too happy about. I think ti wasn't a good idea, to say too much but I can understand why they did it. And I don't believe most people will care.

 

[Denville]

Charles didn't promise anything. The statement said "it is intended". There are a lot of factors back then that are totally different now. For all we know, that statement may have been made as Camilla's wishes. She wasn't really over the moon about becoming a part of Charles' and Time
We'll see what happens.

I don't think it had anything to do with Camilas feelings. I think that it was softening up the public, to accept her as Charles' wife.. knowing that there was a set of Diana fans who would really really hate the idea of her marrying Charles and other old fashioned royalists who weren't too happy with Charles marrying a divorced woman and being divorced himself. So I think that they did leave some wiggle room, yes - in saying "it is intended" ie
"it may happen but we don't say for sure that it will happen".
as you say, time has passed now. People who have met Camilla generally like her. She's settled intot the RF, does a decent job, and problaby has been accepted in private as Charles's wife and the woman he has alwys loved and should have married.

 

[andrew]

.

If the Queen equals or surpasses her mother's longevity, Camilla will be in her 80's when Charles accedes. With her predisposition to osteoporosis, I doubt that she will be doing very much public duties so the question of her style may not be that relevant.
I don't think there will be many announcments. Charles will be proclaimed king at that it is. The coronation will take place after many months and I fear it will be a less grand event than it was 65 years ago so maybe even Charles will not be crowned, instead there will be a ceremony in the presence of the crowns-St Edward's, consort's crown,etc and an oath taken in front of the leaders of all religions present in Britain and the other realms.
I wish for a traditional coronation,where both of them are annointed and crowned but I think it won't happen...

 

[ROYAL NORWAY]

If the Queen equals or surpasses her mother's longevity, Camilla will be in her 80's when Charles accedes. With her predisposition to osteoporosis, I doubt that she will be doing very much public duties so the question of her style may not be that relevant.
I don't think there will be many announcments. Charles will be proclaimed king at that it is. The coronation will take place after many months and I fear it will be a less grand event than it was 65 years ago so maybe even Charles will not be crowned, instead there will be a ceremony in the presence of the crowns-St Edward's, consort's crown,etc and an oath taken in front of the leaders of all religions present in Britain and the other realms.
I wish for a traditional coronation,where both of them are annointed and crowned but I think it won't happen...

Operation Golden Orb is already being planned, and it will (of course) be a less grand event than it was 64 years ago, but he will be crowned.

 

[Osipi]

As there hasn't been a coronation in the lifetime of the majority of the people on the planet today and with Charles very much being a traditionalist, I think he will stick as much as possible to the pomp and circumstances and the pageantry that he possibly can. Dust off the robes and the coronets and the tiaras and the glittering jewels. The UK and the world needs something grand to celebrate and revel in as a break from the gloom and doom and the troubles the world over.

I do think that Charles may make some cost efficient cuts where he can but when it comes to THE day, its going to be an event of a lifetime for most of us that have never experienced a proper British coronation. I think there will be changes perhaps in the future for William's coronation but the span between lifetimes of a monarch and heir won't be as lengthly as it is between Charles and his mother.

Good point you made Andrew about Camilla's health should she be in the 80s when Charles becomes King. That may have a lot to do with things too.

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

Of course there is the fait accompli: the situation as it is. Du moment Her Majesty abdicates or passes away, Charles is King and Camilla, the King's wedded spouse, automatically is Queen.

That is already a fait accompli in the very first second of the new Reign. Then the Governments of all His Majesty's realms have to come into action to deny the title of Queen to Her Majesty Queen Camilla. That is hard to imagine. All these years no any of Her Majesty's Governments have made pro-active legislative proposals so that the current Duchess of Cornwall would not become Queen.

Du moment that the new King accedes the kingship in front of the honourable members of his Privy Council, the fait accompli is there. Maybe the new Queen, in court mourning, will already witness the King's accession. Then it is already too late. So we may all be 99,99% sure that there will be a Queen Camilla indeed.

Unless the King announces that it was the expressed free and voluntary wish and desire of the Queen "to be known as" The Duchess of Lancaster...

 

[Lady Nimue]

And if the push to have Camilla be something other than Queen was because of a desire to end the tradition and adopt gender neutrality in the title of the consort of the monarch, you would have a point.

Agree.

But it's not about that. It's about punishing Camilla for daring to have an affair. No one is suggesting that the title change overall, no one is suggesting that Catherine be Princess Consort. No one wants to end the tradition... they just want to punish Camilla.

And for that reason alone it's reprehensible. Old grievances seeking revenge on someone who was as much 'sinned against as sinning' as the saying goes (if one looks at the facts of what went down those decades ago).

If they submit to these base motives then every time she is so referred to the horror of the old animus rears its head. It becomes a pall over everything. A 'scarlet letter' Camilla is condemned to wear to satisfy those unable to let go of something not their business to hold onto in the first place. Diana was never going to be Queen. That was done and over by her own actions, not Camilla's.

I have the feeling that for some people Camilla stole the "queen" title from Diana, and no facts (C&D divorced so D wouldn't be queen anyway) will change the feeling. What i don't know is how many people think like that..

Exactly so, and it's a fraudulent idea. It should not be pandered to imo.

Of course there is the fait accompli: the situation as it is. The moment Her Majesty abdicates or passes away, Charles is King and Camilla, the King's wedded spouse, automatically is Queen.

That is already a fait accompli in the very first second of the new Reign. Then the Governments of all His Majesty's realms have to come into action to deny the title of Queen to Her Majesty Queen Camilla. That is hard to imagine. All these years no any of Her Majesty's Governments have made pro-active legislative proposals so that the current Duchess of Cornwall would not become Queen.

The moment that the new King accedes the kingship in front of the honourable members of his Privy Council, the fait accompli is there. Maybe the new Queen, in court mourning, will already witness the King's accession. Then it is already too late. So we may all be 99,99% sure that there will be a Queen Camilla indeed.

Exactly so, and we can be equally sure that the tabloids will take to address her as Queen Camilla with all the attendant nastiness, which is why I think.....

Unless the King announces that it was the expressed free and voluntary wish and desire of the Queen "to be known as" The Duchess of Lancaster...

Because Camilla is a human being who deserves some peace from the nonsense. Just as we all know that Camilla is very much The Princess of Wales, so, too, we will all know she is Queen though she go by The Duchess of Lancaster. She will have all our respect all the more for her extraordinary character.

 

[padams2359]

I guess it will all come down to whether or not she is crowned with him, or she is sitting with the family as a spectator.

 

[wyevale]

In truth I think the Prince of Wales is far too loving a Husband, as well as a traditionalist Gentlemen to allow his wife to be 'demoted' publicly as she would appear to be if titled Princess Consort.
As others have said the implication would be that their union is somehow 'lesser', and that is nonsense in this day and age, where divorce, adultery and second marriages don't even raise an eyebrow.
By law 'a married Woman takes the rank, style and dignity of her Husband' and for a 1000 years for a Kings Wife that 'style and dignity' has been Queen.
In addition I cannot believe any Govt would with to insult the [mourning] new King, by presenting him [for signature] with documents demoting his beloved wife !

 

[Iluvbertie]

I guess it will all come down to whether or not she is crowned with him, or she is sitting with the family as a spectator.

She doesn't have to be crowned with him to be Queen Consort however.

She will be the Queen the instant he becomes the King. Their coronation could easily be over a year after that event.

 

[hel]

A pretender to challenge Charles

Now that we've discussed Camilla's future title to death, it appears that a challenge to Charles' claim has arisen. How exciting!

https://www.thestar.com/news/world/...-london-claiming-to-be-the-rightful-king.html

A Colorado resident named Allan V. Evans took out an ad claiming to be the rightful monarch in Wednesday’s edition of the Times of London.

The 40-line, four-paragraph ad lists his credentials and claim on the lineage.

He has graciously agreed not to take the throne while Her Majesty is still alive, out of respect for her long years of service, thus throwing into doubt whether there will be a monarchy under Charles.

There's a photo of the article in the Times that makes for entertaining reading.