The Monarchy under Charles

[Skippyboo]

Legally Camilla is Queen as soon as Charles is King. Is Parliament going to pass a law that changes 1000 years of common law where a wife takes the titles of her husband because of one person. Even if Camilla uses the Princess Consort, she is still doing the job description of the Queen. She would still be the highest ranked lady in the land. Charles isn't going to put Kate or Anne ahead of Camilla in order of precedence. She isn't going to be left behind in Ray Mill House when Charles is hosting a State Dinner.

 

[Daenerys Targaryen]

She likes having her own house at Ray Mill. Why would she give that up? She's legally the Pss of W now, but uses Dss of C. I dont see a problem with Charles keeping his word, and Camilla being Pss Consort.

 

[Dman]

Legally Camilla is Queen as soon as Charles is King. Is Parliament going to pass a law that changes 1000 years of common law where a wife takes the titles of her husband because of one person. Even if Camilla uses the Princess Consort, she is still doing the job description of the Queen. She would still be the highest ranked lady in the land. Charles isn't going to put Kate or Anne ahead of Camilla in order of precedence. She isn't going to be left behind in Ray Mill House when Charles is hosting a State Dinner.

Right, Camilla will do the job as the King's Consort regardless. That's not the issue. The issue is over her official title.

 

[Skippyboo]

Her titles are the female versions of her husband's titles. Once the Queen dies, Charles is no longer Prince of Wales, Duke of Cornwall, Duke of Rothesay, Earl of Chester... He is the King and the female version of her husband's title is Queen. Not Princess.

 

[Iluvbertie]

That would be my guess too. His late Grandmother made QE swear that she would never allow the marriage. It was not until after he death that the wedding became remotely possible.

I have never heard this. Where did you hear that the Queen Mother made her daughter swear to never allow the marriage?

Given the religious beliefs of the Queen such a promise would have been binding I would have thought and as such I doubt, if she had ever made such a promise, that she would have broken it.

Had the Queen Mum said such a thing I am sure she would also have said that Camilla wasn't to ever have access to any of her jewels and yet Camilla is often seen wearing those jewels and even has one of her rings as her second engagement ring.

 

[MARG]

The question is, was Charles sincere when he said Camilla will be Princess Consort, or was he lying in order to get the marriage through with a minimum of fuss, planning that afterwards he would just change it t Queen.

It was stated as an intention. Times change and so do people.

That would be my guess too. His late Grandmother made QE swear that she would never allow the marriage. It was not until after he death that the wedding became remotely possible.

I'm sorry but I find the very notion that such an oath existed utterly credulous. Can you provide a reputable reference to support that such an oath was indeed demanded by QEQM, made and then broken by the Queen? If so then I could only surmise that HM despised her mother and dances on her grave every time she gifts yet another of her mothers treasured jewels to her daughter-in-law, starting with her engagement ring!uld

As to the issue being over her official title, I can only say that at this time, officially, when Charles comes to the throne Camilla will be his Queen. To change this would take the very strong will of the Queen and a willing parliament. Neither of which I believe will be forthcoming. What profit the United Kingdom in the eyes of the world if they enshrine petty spite and meanness of spirit in law

 

[Dman]

I have never heard this. Where did you hear that the Queen Mother made her daughter swear to never allow the marriage?

Given the religious beliefs of the Queen such a promise would have been binding I would have thought and as such I doubt, if she had ever made such a promise, that she would have broken it.

Had the Queen Mum said such a thing I am sure she would also have said that Camilla wasn't to ever have access to any of her jewels and yet Camilla is often seen wearing those jewels and even has one of her rings as her second engagement ring.

I'm not sure The Queen made a promise to her mother over the marriage, but everyone knew The Queen Mother was against any thought of marriage between Charles and Camilla. She allowed them to 'knock da boots' in her private estates, but marriage wasn't something she agreed to.

 

[Pranter]

I think for the QM it was too much like the David situation...that thought of that type of scandal again must of made her ill.


LaRae

 

[Dman]

I think for the QM it was too much like the David situation...that thought of that type of scandal again must of made her ill.


LaRae

Nobody liked the situation. Not even The Queen herself. Charles was Prince of Wales and he could do what he wanted. That's just how the cookie cumbles.

 

[Pranter]

If only he'd decided to 'do what he wanted' back when he was 'pushed' into marrying Diana. Took him awhile to find his backbone.


LaRae

 

[Ish]

What makes you think she would want to do that? She stonewalled the C+C relationship/marriage for decades.

For decades?

In what universe did that happen?

Charles met Camilla in 1971. They dated until 1973, when the relationship ended.

That same year, Camilla married Andrew Parker Bowles. Most reports on the early relationship imply that marriage wasn't even considered between Charles and Camilla at that point.

The pair remained friends and rekindled a romance in 1979/1980, while Camilla remained married to Andrew. She didn't divorce Andrew until 1995.

Charles of course married Diana in 1981. It's not clear when his sexual relationship with Camilla ended (with some sources claiming that it didn't end until the day before his wedding), but it's been implied that the affair resumed around 1985/86. Charles wasn't divorced until 1996.

Charles and Camilla married in 2005, 10 years after her divorce and 9 after his.

Where are these decades in which the Queen was stonewalling anything? There's no reason to believe she did anything to stop the relationship in the 70s, or when it resumed as an affair in the 80s, or in the 90s as their first marriages came to their ends. And when Charles and Camilla wanted to marry in 2005, the Queen allowed it.

 

[Dman]

If only he'd decided to 'do what he wanted' back when he was 'pushed' into marrying Diana. Took him awhile to find his backbone.


LaRae

Well, Charles Did have his eyes set on another woman back in the day. Also, he wanted to take some time to gain some experience. Also, he was listening to his great uncle 'Dickie.'

 

[MARG]

I am confused, suddenly we have "fake news" all over the forum, no proof of where it came from but there it is is, stirring and corrupting what little proof we can actually validate. I cannot in all conscience, believe that this is random or unintentional.

 

[WreathOfLaurels]

http://http://www.spectator.co.uk/2017/02/prince-charles-wants-a-queen-camilla-hes-still-wrong-heres-why/

A recent piece from The Spectaor- odd I was always certain they were pro Charles, but these things are so much in flux these days, I just can't tell anymore... still seems a little sanctimonious and unfair - it's been twenty years after all and it's the same magazine that publishes Taki....

 

[Mbruno]

Legally Camilla is Queen as soon as Charles is King. Is Parliament going to pass a law that changes 1000 years of common law where a wife takes the titles of her husband because of one person. Even if Camilla uses the Princess Consort, she is still doing the job description of the Queen. She would still be the highest ranked lady in the land. Charles isn't going to put Kate or Anne ahead of Camilla in order of precedence. She isn't going to be left behind in Ray Mill House when Charles is hosting a State Dinner.

Nonetheless, as Princess Consort, she won"t be crowned as she would be as Queen; she won"t use the predicate HM and foreign HRHs won"t curtsy to her as they would to a Queen. Basically, as PC, she will have the rank and precedence that Philip has or that Henrik had until recently in Denmark and we all know how Henrik felt about it and he wanted to be made King Consort instead.

 

[Skippyboo]

Just more reasons for Charles not to do anything. The legal precedence and 1000 years of tradition is the wife of a King is a Queen. Is Parliament going to force the King to lower his legal wife married with approval of the Royal Marriage Act to a lesser title that has never been used in the history of British/English monarchy because on some Puritan view of morality? I don't think so especially with a large portion of the population have divorced. Also if both Charles and Camilla are guilty of the same moral crime, why is only Camilla is theoretically punished not both.

 

[Daenerys Targaryen]

It was stated as an intention. Times change and so do people.

I'm sorry but I find the very notion that such an oath existed utterly credulous. Can you provide a reputable reference to support that such an oath was indeed demanded by QEQM, made and then broken by the Queen? If so then I could only surmise that HM despised her mother and dances on her grave every time she gifts yet another of her mothers treasured jewels to her daughter-in-law, starting with her engagement ring!uld

As to the issue being over her official title, I can only say that at this time, officially, when Charles comes to the throne Camilla will be his Queen. To change this would take the very strong will of the Queen and a willing parliament. Neither of which I believe will be forthcoming. What profit the United Kingdom in the eyes of the world if they enshrine petty spite and meanness of spirit in law

I just read it in a book just last week. I will pull up the quote later today. I have to go to Physical therapy this morning for the broken leg.

 

[Dman]

I don't think people should be fearful over the future of the monarchy. I know people are concerned about Charles outspokenness on many issues, but he's just going to be a king that care about his people, country and world.

The drama over Camilla's future title will get crazy once again, but she's going to do the job as Charles's Consort beautifully. She's been doing the job as his wife brilliantly and people's thoughts and feelings about has softened with the passing of the years.

The monarchy will be in good hands.

 

[Osipi]

Nonetheless, as Princess Consort, she won"t be crowned as she would be as Queen; she won"t use the predicate HM and foreign HRHs won"t curtsy to her as they would to a Queen. Basically, as PC, she will have the rank and precedence that Philip has or that Henrik had until recently in Denmark and we all know how Henrik felt about it and he wanted to be made King Consort instead.

Isn't it true also that in order to use the style of Princess Consort, Camilla would have to be made a Princess of the UK in her own right as Charles, being King, will not have a princely title for his wife to take the feminine version. Her style then would be Princess Consort but she would also be Princess Camilla.

I don't believe that there's ever been a female spouse that has be created a princess in her own right in the UK. In reality, doing this would be conferring an honor on Camilla that no other spouse has ever had. There is, however, the case of Princess Alexandra who was able to revert to using Princess Alexandra of Kent after the death of her husband, Sir Angus Ogilvy. Difference being that Alexandra was the granddaughter of a King.

It would be so much easier and less worrisome to sort out to just declare Camilla as Queen Consort when Charles becomes King and let the chips fall where they may.

 

[duke of poliganc]

Isn't it true also that in order to use the style of Princess Consort, Camilla would have to be made a Princess of the UK in her own right as Charles, being King, will not have a princely title for his wife to take the feminine version. Her style then would be Princess Consort but she would also be Princess Camilla.

I don't believe that there's ever been a female spouse that has be created a princess in her own right in the UK. In reality, doing this would be conferring an honor on Camilla that no other spouse has ever had. There is, however, the case of Princess Alexandra who was able to revert to using Princess Alexandra of Kent after the death of her husband, Sir Angus Ogilvy. Difference being that Alexandra was the granddaughter of a King.

It would be so much easier and less worrisome to sort out to just declare Camilla as Queen Consort when Charles becomes King and let the chips fall where they may.

Louise, Princess Royal and Duchess of Fife two daughters were made princesses in their own right with the style Highness .

and princess alexandra never chose or was obliged to discontinue the use of the title and style of Princess and royal Highness upon marriage .

edit : i missed the word female ' spouse ' when i written the response but now think you were right on this issue .

 

[Osipi]

The one difference though between the ladies that you mentioned and Camilla, though, would be the ladies that you cited were born from the royal bloodline albeit the Fife daughters from a female line.

We're getting off topic of the monarchy under Charles a bit though and perhaps the moderators could deem it worthwhile to open up the Title for Camilla thread that was closed down in 2011 (after reaching part 4). New people have since joined and perhaps this conversation could be continued there? Its an interesting thread to read though still.

http://www.theroyalforums.com/forum...of-queen-when-charles-becomes-king-32105.html

I do think, however, that when Charles is King, Camilla will be his Queen.

 

[Iluvbertie]

One thing not mentioned in this most recent discussion was Tony Blair's comment in the parliament - that 'yes Camilla was going to be Princess of Wales but wasn't going to use that title and that yes she would be Queen Consort and that parliament would have to pass legislation to strip her of that right for her to be known as Princess Consort.' That was a week or so before the wedding.

She won't have to be a Princess of the UK in her own right to be Princess Consort. Prince Albert was never a Prince of the UK and was Prince Consort. Philip, although never having the title as Prince Consort with capital letters, he too was the Consort of the monarch without being a Prince of the UK for 5 years.

 

[MARG]

Prior to marriage, Philip was a Prince in his own right as indeed was Prince Albert. Camilla was neither and as she takes her title from Charles, its a problem because when he becomes King, all his secondary titles devolve to Prince William.

 

[Osipi]

What would really be odd is to solve it all in the most generic way. When Charles becomes King, Camilla then becomes Mrs. King.

 

[Iluvbertie]

Prior to marriage, Philip was a Prince in his own right as indeed was Prince Albert. Camilla was neither and as she takes her title from Charles, its a problem because when he becomes King, all his secondary titles devolve to Prince William.

Philip had given up being a prince prior to his marriage and was only created a Prince of the UK by The Queen in 1957 by LPs. At the time of his marriage he was plain Lt Philip Mountbatten.

There is clear evidence that even George VI no longer saw Philip as a Prince as there was an entry made in the shooting book at either Sandringham or Balmoral where someone wrote in 'Prince Philip' and George crossed out the word 'Prince'.

Albert was never a Prince of the UK.

That is a clear point.

The fact that The Queen gave Philip the title of Prince of the UK, after he had voluntarily given up the title of Prince, is relevant to Camilla being created a Princess of the UK in her own right - her father-in-law had that title bestowed on him so why not on her?

 

[Denville]

The one difference though between the ladies that you mentioned and Camilla, though, would be the ladies that you cited were born from the royal bloodline albeit the Fife daughters from a female line.

http://www.theroyalforums.com/forum...of-queen-when-charles-becomes-king-32105.html

I do think, however, that when Charles is King, Camilla will be his Queen.

YES OF course she will and she will be crowned as queen if he is crowned King. Which being a traditionalist he's sure to want. As his wife, she IS princess of Wales, she just does not use that title out of deference to Diana. I think that the Princess Consort thing was just there to try and soften things for ardentn Diana fans, who didn't like the thought of her being queen.. but it is going to happen...

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

[...] because when he becomes King, all his secondary titles devolve to Prince William.

The King has secondary titles as well, for an example Duke of Lancaster. And of course he -fons honorum- can create peerages and/or bestow titles:

"The King has been pleased by Letters Patent under the Great Seal of the Realm bearing date [dd mm yy], to give and grant unto the most honourable Dame Camilla Rosemary Mountbatten-Windsor GCVO the style and titular dignity of a Princess of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

The King has been pleased to declare his will and pleasure that the most honourable Dame Camilla Rosemary Mountbatten-Windsor GCVO shall henceforth be known as Her Royal Highness The Princess Camilla."

 

[Iluvbertie]

To do that first off parliament has to pass legislation stripping her of the title of Queen. Otherwise it is unnecessary to grant her a lower title to the one that she would hold as the equal partner of the King.

What being Princess Consort means is that the marriage is morganatic - something that it was decided in 1936 wasn't possible in British/English law.

 

[wbenson]

Isn't it true also that in order to use the style of Princess Consort, Camilla would have to be made a Princess of the UK in her own right as Charles, being King, will not have a princely title for his wife to take the feminine version. Her style then would be Princess Consort but she would also be Princess Camilla.

Have to be? I don't think so. As far as I know, under English law, anybody can call themselves HRH the Princess Consort so long as it's not done for fraudulent purposes. They don't even have to go down the route of letters patent. If the Palace simply releases a statement saying that Camilla "wishes to be known as HRH the Princess Consort," and people call her HRH the Princess Consort, then for all intents and purposes she is HRH the Princess Consort. Someone's wish to be called something can't be illegal, so unless the government were prepared to force the issue, I think it would have to end there, and whatever one thinks of Camilla I think it's safe to say that there won't be a populist uprising pushing the government to demand a crown on her head.

And Britain doesn't have morganatic marriages, but that doesn't place a mandate on a woman to use her husband's title. Married women have the same rights as everyone else to decide what they call themselves. The Duchess of Kent doesn't violate the law by asking people to call her Katharine Kent.

Again, I think it could become a political issue, with the government advising the King that his courtiers should not call his wife anything but HM the Queen...but that would be a political question, not a legal one, and I think it's unlikely that the politics of the issue would compel a government to act. I can think of no legal process that could compel a woman to call herself by her husband's title, and if one did exist, I can't imagine it would last long, because if HM the King's wife can be forced to call herself HM the Queen, then presumably Mr. John Smith's wife would be compelled to call herself the archaic Mrs. John Smith.

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

We see a similar situation in the Netherlands: Máxima legally is HRH Princes Máxima of the Netherlands but "is known as" Queen Máxima. The Dutch Government suddenly developed weak knees in 2013 and left their intention that the title of the spouse will be non-discriminatory and gender neutral: all consorts, male or female, have the title of Prince(ss).

When the dot came to the i, the Government thought it was "undesireable" that Máxima was known with a lesser title than the spouses of other Kings. (Why this undesireability did not stretch out to male spouses, was not mentioned...) and sadly they allowed the blurring of the in essence so logical, clear, gender-neutral and non-discriminatiory titulature coming with the Royal House Act 2002.

We will see this same phenomenon in politics in the UK. Despite earlier intentions, like in the Netherlands, the UK Government will not only point to legislation but also use the argument that it would be "undesireable" that the spouse of the British King is "lower" than other spouses of Kings. Mark my words. To the left, to the right, despite earlier intentions, Camilla will be Queen.

It is a bit sad because with a Princess Lalla Salma, a Princess Máxima and a Princess Camilla it would become "normal" in modern monarchies with gender neutral successions that the consort, no matter the gender, is a Prince or Princess in their own right.