The Monarchy under Charles

[Daenerys Targaryen]

I agree with you. It's enough to read this forum's threads from 2004 or 2005. They are heavy moderated but still you can feel that many royal watchers hated Camilla.
Now people's feelings has completely changed.

Not everyone's feelings have changed.

well Daenerys, you may believe that Charles never tells a lie.. I don't. I thnk it was spin, and perhaps it would have been more sensible to just say nothing about her future title.. but they did. If he was telling the truth then, why is it that botht he and Camilla have said when asked about the title "we will have to see"? why not a firm "yes of course, in due course she will be Princess Consort just as we said years ago."

I do not believe he never tells a lie. In fact he might well have been lying in order to get his way. I am hoping that he was sincere. Although, perhaps that is too much to expect on this particular subject, but I would hope that he isnt, as we say, a 'lying dog'.

I have to disagree. The world was very different in early 2005. There were grave questions around the potential acceptance of Camilla as a senior member of the BRF. This was a necessary sop to keep things moving. 12 years on, she is well accepted as Charles' consort, and an active and senior member of the BRF. That we are having this conversation only proves how accepted she is, and when the time comes, the "intention" to make her Princess Consort will be quietly dismissed.

And this is exactly the reason why some believe he was, in fact, lying his butt off.

 

[Lady Nimue]

No one knows the future. There was no way for Charles to know that 'the times' (regarding Camilla) would change so dramatically once she became his wife and became an active royal. It had been 8 years since Diana's death with no abate so why would he think it would abate? He likely meant what he said, of course he did. Why doubt it? Why care to doubt it?

As it turns out marrying Camilla was a game-changer of a kind he could not have anticipated (no one could have, hence why he said what he said and likely meant it). The social climate has changed (except for the few) as people have become more aware of the Wales' situation back then on the part of both parties, and have come to see Camilla in real life terms. For those few who can't let go of a very personal past for two people, Charles will always be 'the problem' (without possibility of redemption) and so they will see him through that lens.

 

[Countessmeout]

No one knows the future. There was no way for Charles to know that 'the times' (regarding Camilla) would change so dramatically once she became his wife and became an active royal. It had been 8 years since Diana's death with no abate so why would he think it would abate? He likely meant what he said, of course he did. Why doubt it? Why care to doubt it?

As it turns out marrying Camilla was a game-changer of a kind he could not have anticipated (no one could have, hence why he said what he said and likely meant it). The social climate has changed (except for the few) as people have become more aware of the Wales' situation back then on the part of both parties, and have come to see Camilla in real life terms. For those few who can't let go of a very personal past for two people, Charles will always be 'the problem' (without possibility of redemption) and so they will see him through that lens.

Camilla has been a wonderful princess of Wales. And she will be a wonderful queen consort. She supports her husband and her charities with passion. She has more than earned the title of the kings wife.


It's not a simple matter of her going by something else. Then would actually have to pass something. With duchess if Cornwall they didn't have to make a new title, she just used one of the lesser. But there are no lesser titles of King. His old titles belong to William. To call her princess, they will have to make her one in her own right. And if they do, then in fairness it needs to be permanent. It needs to apply to all queen consorts,

 

[Lady Nimue]

Camilla has been a wonderful princess of Wales. And she will be a wonderful queen consort. She supports her husband and her charities with passion. She has more than earned the title of the kings wife.

I agree. In fact, Camilla models exquisitely what it means to support a partner and still maintain one's own identity.

It's not a simple matter of her going by something else. Then would actually have to pass something. With duchess if Cornwall they didn't have to make a new title, she just used one of the lesser. But there are no lesser titles of King. His old titles belong to William. To call her princess, they will have to make her one in her own right. And if they do, then in fairness it needs to be permanent. It needs to apply to all queen consorts,

Pretty much sums it up, I think.

 

[royal rob]

I agree with you. It's enough to read this forum's threads from 2004 or 2005. They are heavy moderated but still you can feel that many royal watchers hated Camilla.
Now people's feelings has completely changed.

No not everyone has

 

[MARG]

Clarence House has already refuted that article as nonsense, In any case, it is extremely unlikely that Charles would use his accession speech, i.e. his first act as king, to talk about Camilla's title.

The official position remains that Camilla is intended to be known as HRH The Princess Consort and I don't see any credible evidence that Charles has backed down from that statement, or that he can realistically change it after sticking with it for so many years.

I'm not sure everyone understands, but common law is the law. Just because there's no statute governing a consorts title, doesn't mean Charles is free to do what he wants in this regard.

Britain has a constitution and not even the King is allowed to just ignore it.

As Queen Victoria said when talking about Prince Albert:

'It is a strange omission in our Constitution that while the wife of a King has the highest rank and dignity in the realm after her husband assigned to her by law, the husband of a Queen regnant is entirely ignored by the law.'

The title 'Princess Consort' doesn't exist in Britain. The highest rank and dignity in the realm after HM The King is HM The Queen.

I do not believe that Charles intended to deceive anyone anymore than I believe he lied. It was another time and no one could have imagined the way the world has changed and the UK and Commonwealth have changed as well.

We stand on the edge of a world in flux, socio-political and economic change has been dramatic, war after war have driven the refugees of Africa into the countries of the EEU and UK is leading the exit from a European Union in the name of nationalism. All Europe is seeing the rise of nationalism and xenophobia. Countries want to be seen as strong and important. That being the case, I do believe that should HM pass within the next five to ten years, the UK Government are not going to be in the mood to shoot themselves in the foot by enacting a punitive change to the constitution diminishing history.

No, when the Head of State of a foreign country visits the UK, they will be greeted by all the pomp and circumstance they can muster and be met by the King and Queen.

 

[Jacknch]

Please note that posts containing speculative ideas concerning Diana, Princess of Wales have been edited. Please let's get back on topic - this thread is about the Monarchy under Charles, not the titles of monarch's spouses or how they will be referred to in the future.

 

[Skippyboo]

That article is worthless. Charles doesn't have any personal property right now. He will inherit Sandringham and Balmoral from his mother. However, he doesn't keep the property owned by the Duchy of Cornwall like Highgrove. Windsor, BP, Clarence House, KP are owned by the State. All the residents of KP aren't going to move in BP. Total Garbage

 

[Countessmeout]

Yes, he simply holds interest in possession over Cornwall. Meaning while he controls the estate, with a board, and the income of the estate is his, he can't sell anything on the estate for profit. And when he becomes king, the estate as a whole passes to the new duke, William, including high grove. I never did quite understand why he didn't buy high grove in his own name with the income. I guess perhaps among other things, to avoid inheritance laws eventually.

Balmoral and Sandringham are the only two properties he has any say in. And if there was any real plan to make Kensington a museum, these new offices, the money spent on Wll and Kate's apartment and on Ivy would have been pointless.

 

[sthreats]

Can he buy Highgrove from the Duchy-before he is king. It seems to be very important to him.

 

[HRHHermione]

Can he buy Highgrove from the Duchy-before he is kind. It seems to be very important to him.

Really no need for him to own it privately- it will pass to his son and then grandson either way. I doubt William would do anything that isn't considerate of his father's feelings.

 

[Iluvbertie]

Can he buy Highgrove from the Duchy-before he is kind. It seems to be very important to him.

No. The Duchy can't sell any of its property.

When he bought it he did so using Duchy money knowing that he would have to lease it from the Duchy rather than own it outright. Had he used the accumulated income from the Duchy (as happened when a previous Duke of Cornwall bought Sandringham) it would be possible for him to keep it and also to leave it to whomever he pleases but as he bought it using Duchy capital it belongs to the Duchy now and he has to lease it.

He will be able to ask the new Duke of Cornwall if he can continue to lease it from him when he is King and who knows the new Duke may agree to allow the King to continue leasing the property.

 

[muriel]

No. The Duchy can't sell any of its property.

My understanding is that the Duchy can buy and sell property as it considers appropriate, it just can't release the capital from any sale to the PoW. This allows the capital to remain intact for subsequent generations.

I believe the Duchy has actively developed a number of its real estate holdings and continues to buy and sell agricultural and commercial holdings across the UK.

When he bought it he did so using Duchy money knowing that he would have to lease it from the Duchy rather than own it outright. Had he used the accumulated income from the Duchy (as happened when a previous Duke of Cornwall bought Sandringham) it would be possible for him to keep it and also to leave it to whomever he pleases but as he bought it using Duchy capital it belongs to the Duchy now and he has to lease it.

He will be able to ask the new Duke of Cornwall if he can continue to lease it from him when he is King and who knows the new Duke may agree to allow the King to continue leasing the property.

I thanks that is right, buying Highgrove from Duchy finances was a conscience decision. When King, Charles will not need Highgrove as he will have Windsor, Sandringham and Balmoral as retreats.

I suspect Highgrove will end up with William and Catherine, and they may take a view on what they want to do with Anmer. Either they can keep Anmer, or it ends up getting used by Harry or perhaps being let iout.

 

[Dman]

Article on Camilla's future title on Charles's Succession:
Camilla will be Queen one day, constitutional expert says

 

[ROYAL NORWAY]

From this Sky News article by Rhiannon Mills, Royal Correspondent: (Read more in Dman's above post)

But Lord Norton of Louth, a peer in the House of Lords and professor at the University of Hull, says the constitutional position is very clear.

He said: "Upon the death of the Queen, Charles automatically becomes King - that is it. His wife will become Queen Consort, formally established by precedent.

"But if she wishes to be known by another title, that's a matter of royal prerogative, so the monarch could determine that another style will be employed."

Last week, Camilla was at her husband's side during a royal tour in Europe, a trip described as a Brexit charm offensive. They are a close couple who work well alongside each other and share common interests.

Enormous crowds came out to see them, with the Duchess mobbed by the public and Italian media in Naples. Camilla clearly has a good working rapport with photographers and journalists who regularly cover her official engagements.

Chris Jackson, royal photographer for Getty Images, has followed her for the past 13 years and says she plays the media game but in a very natural way.

He said: "The Duchess is just professional in her role, she's matured in her role over the years and she seems to be comfortable promoting the causes that she's passionate about, osteoporosis, domestic violence. From a photographer's point of view she's working with you and that's great and it makes my job a lot easier."

Within the royal family, Camilla has been elevated to become a central part of the upper tier of Britain's monarchy.

The Queen made her a privy councillor in 2016 and she carries out engagements on behalf of Her Majesty.

Camilla's charity work doesn't always get that much media attention in the UK, but you could say less time in the papers is good news. After all, it's not her role to overshadow the Prince.

A wider public acceptance of Camilla however would undoubtedly make things easier when Charles does become King.

 

[Dman]

Although, I get the feeling it will be a PR headache, It will be fascinating to hear what title Charles and the Palace issue for Camilla.

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

What Sky News stated, is in fact a longstanding communis opinio on this forum: Camilla will be Queen indeed, as she also is The Princess of Wales right now. Of course the unsecurity begins with the question: by what title will Camilla "be known as"?

 

[MARG]

I can't see the problem. The moment his mother dies, that's it, he is the King and his wife is Queen. It was always going to be that way except I think they thought they could just call her "Princess Consort" just like she is called Duchess of Cornwall and not Princess of Wales and that would be that.

The geopolitical situation has changed dramatically over the last decade, the last five years even and with the ramifications of Brexit, the UK will is trying to maintain as high a profile as possible. The effective"downgrade the King's wife, even if that is what she and even he want, may very well be perceived as an own goal.

 

[Dee Anna]

When Charles is king Harrys life will change too. The older royals will start retiring and if not replaced with more bodies like the yorks, William and Harry will both have to pick up their roles ten fold. At least until George and Charlotte are done university and ready for duties, Harry will have to step up. He may continue traveling for Invictus and such but the idea he would live abroad are pipe dreams. And as his uncles and sung slow down eventually, even more.

Like her mother before her I can't see Anne slowing down anytime soon, if ever! Edward and Sophie are a generation removed from Charles of course, so no cause for concern of retirement there for the foreseeable. The issue of the slimmed down monarchy being within Charles' remit of course.

I can easily see Harry being a more global ambassador for the RF going forward, along with supporting his own off-shore charities. So living abroad, as in having a home outside the UK a definite possibility whilst having KP as his London base, and family pending, a country base also.

He just does have a greater scope in this area than William.

 

[Denville]

not that much. anne and the siblings may or may not slow down but it is high time that harry, William and Kate started doing more. the queen's very busy, and so is Charles. When he becomes king, he'll be even busier and may have lost a few of his cousins and may want to sideline Andrew, for example. so there will be a lot of wok for Harry and the Cambridges to pick up.. he should not be thinking of living abroad etc he should be based In the UK and full time on Royal duties, with or without his wife beside him.

 

[Dee Anna]

That is a major factor; the balcony scene featuring the Queen, Philip, Charles, Camilla, William, Harry and Kate. No room in the picture for the Queen's three other children, never mind wife and husband!

It spoke volumes, not just of Charles' vision going forward but also of the Queen's backing to a certain extent.

William knows his role, it's up to Harry to create his. Yes, now, seen as a central figure, he has to carve out his own position within The Firm.

Move on to a similiar balcony scene in thirty years time, with - why not? - Charles & Camilla! - William, Kate, George, Charlotte and partners or not. Where's Harry?

 

[Osipi]

In 30 years time, most likely Charles and Camilla (both will be around 100 years old at that time)will be out of the picture and it will be William and Kate, George and Charlotte and their partners and perhaps little ones.

That balcony scene represented the continuity of the monarchy and wasn't remotely associated with the working "Firm". Two different things. I don't see Harry being relegated to the sticks even in 30 years. He'll be the only brother of the monarch and although I most likely won't be around to see it, William most likely will rely heavily on his brother. They're close now and I don't see that changing any time soon.

I think Harry is pretty much resigned to being a full time working royal for the "Firm" in the years ahead. He's even embraced it recently in an interview stating he's finding out the best ways to use the position he's been given to make a difference in the world.

 

[csw]

I wish they would remove from the official site the statement she will be known as Princess Consort. Regardless of whether she is styled as such when the time comes or if she is styled as Queen Consort, there is no longer a need to make the statement. She has established her own reputation in the kingdom. If they do decide to change her style on Charles ascension, leaving the statement there til the last minute will make it seem like they "lied" all this time. Personally, I hope she is styled as Queen Camilla but even if not, that statement is annoying.

 

[IrishRoyals]

Article on Camilla's future title on Charles's Succession:
Camilla will be Queen one day, constitutional expert says

Rightfully so.

 

[Lady Nimue]

Article on Camilla's future title on Charles's Succession:
Camilla will be Queen one day, constitutional expert says

Interesting statement in the article: "Camilla's charity work does not always get media attention in the UK, but less time in the papers is good news. After all, it is not her role to overshadow the Prince."

Too bad the press didn't have this sensibility with Charles' (excessively) impressionable first wife. It appears Camilla will be held to a 'higher standard', which we all know Camilla is fine with. What makes Camilla so appealing, in fact.

 

[Osipi]

Camilla has never come across to me as being someone that actively seeks the limelight or attention. She is perfectly content to be Charles' consort and support system. She does what she does without asking for anything in return and does it with grace and style. She has all the qualities that would make for a good Queen Consort.

 

[ROYAL NORWAY]

Interesting statement in the article: "Camilla's charity work does not always get media attention in the UK, but less time in the papers is good news. After all, it is not her role to overshadow the Prince."

Too bad the press didn't have this sensibility with Charles' (excessively) impressionable first wife. It appears Camilla will be held to a 'higher standard', which we all know Camilla is fine with. What makes Camilla so appealing, in fact.

The press was tough with Diana, too, when she lived. And the only reason they write about her now (except that it's 20 years since she died) is because she died the way she did.

1. Does Camilla deserve to be Queen Consort? Yes she does.

2. Is there anything she thinks about? No, I don't think so.

3. Does she decerve more praise from the press for the work of her charity work? Yes, and not just a bit.

 

[Dee Anna]

In 30 years time, most likely Charles and Camilla (both will be around 100 years old at that time)will be out of the picture and it will be William and Kate, George and Charlotte and their partners and perhaps little ones.

Indeed, they will be 98 and 99! That's why I put the "- Why not? -"!

But by no means absurd to consider Charles as a spritely or not 98 year old, 30 years on. Or even bypassing the 100 and sending himself a card! But obviously, will not live forever either.

Regardless of when it is, it will be William who will literally take up the reigns(!), not Harry, who does need to establish a role for himself within the Firm and not just as the second son of the King, the younger brother of the King etc. Something I'm sure he has an agenda on, it's the rest of his life after all. As it stands he is an exellent ambassador for the RF, I can see him taking on a more global role in that area, leaving William to concentrate on the homefront as heir or King.

 

[Westfield Bakery]

It would be nice for Charles to include other members of the BRF on the balcony once he is King Charles III or King George VII, in honor of his grandfather.

Andrew, Beatrice, Eugenie, Edward, Sophie, Anne, Timothy, etc. should not be excluded from the balcony.

 

[Osipi]

I actually expect him to assemble extended members of the BRF for balcony appearances once he does become King.

We have to remember that Charles has never said anything publicly about how his reign is going to be but there's been a lot of presumptions over the years. Many refer to the balcony appearance during the Diamond Jubilee where it was the Queen, the DoE, Charles and Camilla, William and Kate and Harry.

Its been said that this "hints" at the future of the monarchy but I don't think so. It was a celebration of HM's 60 years years on the throne. It was a celebration of the monarchy itself and its my opinion that the balcony appearance was to show the continuity of the monarchy into the future.

We have to remember that there are three different "groups" if we can call it that for ease of explaining. There is the direct line to the throne and the future of the monarchy itself. There is the extended royal family which, like a lot of families, have aunts and uncles and cousins by the dozens. Then there is the working "Firm". The people that work representing the monarchy.

Charles, to me, is pretty much a traditionalist and I really don't see him wanting to change things overly much. Of course he'll make some changes but I don't expect them to be drastic ones. Perhaps over time and, as we know how the BRF plans and executes things to run smoothly, we'll see gradual changes happening as the BRF plans the transition between the reign of Charles to the reign of William.

Just my opinion of course.