Title for Camilla

[milla Ca]

I´m sure the Queen Mother always wanted the best for her favourite grandson Charles. So she liked Diana as long as she thought she was good for Charles ( and the monarchy ) and she began to dislike her when she saw that Charles was very unhappy with her and Diana tried to damage the monarchy ( with her interviews etc. )
I´m also sure the Queen Mother had nothing against Camilla. I think she liked her and knows about her importance for Charles. But she had always her brother-in-law (Edward VIII ) and Wallis Simpson in her mind. And the worst word for her, i think, was abdication. So she always was afraid that Charles could one day marry the divorced Camilla and the result could be a abdication again.

 

[Skydragon]

Like I said earlier, I don't think the queen was especially happy about the marriage, but if she had wanted to, she could have made it impossible for them to marry without taking away his place in the line of succession. For a variety of reasons, their wedding day was probably not a happy one for the queen and perhaps her stellar sense of propriety was lessened on the occasion, but she and Camilla seem to get along nowadays and that's all that matters.

HM originally agreed to (and therefore supported the marriage), the use of Windsor for the civil ceremony. That doesn't sound like someone putting obstacles in the way. Camilla and Charles were probably a little nervous after the threats that had been made by the Diana circle but in the end the DC idiots didn't manage a big show and Charles and Camilla had a wonderful wedding.
HM was positively beaming, as she seems to have been ever since!

the QM supported Charles in every way that she could and I doubt we will every know the true amount of help she gave to Charles and Camilla. Charles and Camilla were stepping out in public together before the QM died, if she was so upset by this, she wouldn't have left Charles a brass razoo.

 

[wbenson]

Is the Queen even able to choose for herself whether or not to sanction a marriage, or is that done only "on advice"?

 

[kimebear]

HM originally agreed to (and therefore supported the marriage), the use of Windsor for the civil ceremony. That doesn't sound like someone putting obstacles in the way. Camilla and Charles were probably a little nervous after the threats that had been made by the Diana circle but in the end the DC idiots didn't manage a big show and Charles and Camilla had a wonderful wedding.
HM was positively beaming, as she seems to have been ever since!

the QM supported Charles in every way that she could and I doubt we will every know the true amount of help she gave to Charles and Camilla. Charles and Camilla were stepping out in public together before the QM died, if she was so upset by this, she wouldn't have left Charles a brass razoo.

I wasn't trying to insinuate that it was Camilla herself that HM didn't care for. Just the past sense of scandal that was created. The queen is nothing, if not, duty first. I think it probably really bothered her that her heir's wedding (second or not) was not celebrated in a larger fashion. After all, the bride is most likely the next queen and the current queen might have wanted a larger affair for the wedding of the next monarchs without the shadow that was cast over it.

 

[Elspeth]

On that, we agree - but what about the religious aspects? And does the Archbishop of Canterbury get any say in it, if her ex WAS still living at the time of coronation?

Could she be CALLED Queen without being CROWNED as such - or am I just a dithering idiot who needs major revision on the subject of royalty?

I'm not trying to be difficult, I'm just a bit confused.

Yes. Edward VIII was King from the moment of his accession to the moment of his abdication, even though he was never crowned. She wouldn't just be called Queen, she would be Queen.

The Archbishop could conceivably refuse to crown Charles and/or Camilla, but considering the morals of some of the previous monarchs who have been crowned with no problems, I can't see it happening, and I have a feeling it might backfire fairly nastily on the Church if it was seen that the Church was putting its foot down about who is and who isn't suitable to be Head of State. We're way beyond the days when the Church was that powerful.

 

[branchg]

Is the Queen even able to choose for herself whether or not to sanction a marriage, or is that done only "on advice"?

The Sovereign must take advice from The Prime Minister if the marriage is considered to be of importance to the State (i.e. the heir to the throne, his/her children, controversial with the public).

For marriages of other family members or distant relatives, it is not necessary.

 

[Jo of Palatine]

I just found this interesting poll about the question if Camilla should become queen - with long term results:

Ipsos MORI: Monarchy Trends

While the figures are still not very pleasant, the tendency is!

 

[cde]

I just found this interesting poll about the question if Camilla should become queen - with long term results:

Ipsos MORI: Monarchy Trends

While the figures are still not very pleasant, the tendency is!

Well no one ever said convincing people Camilla should be Queen was a quick weekend project. Sigh
Still your right, the numbers are looking up. And that is the important thing.

 

[BeatrixFan]

See, I find the asking people pretty pointless as they've got no say in it anyway. She will be Queen and there's nothing anyone can do about it except the Almighty. Why bother with these useless polls?

 

[Madame Royale]

I find the asking people pretty pointless as they've got no say in it anyway.

If we, the people, have no part to play, then there would have been no need to propose an alternative now would there...

Directly? It is a decision which is to be made within the corridors of power and it is there the final word is said.

Indirectly? Abolsutely the people have a say. By the time Charles is King and if no greater majority had warmed to the idea, then The Prime Minister of the day, amongst others, would surely not neglect the show of public feeling. Not reading the public mood can be a very precarious business, as they well know.

If the greater majorty support Camilla as Queen Consort then full steam ahead. If in the event they do not, then there's really nothing standing in the way of creating her Princess Consort. I would be certain the appropriate executive papers would be drawn up, and passed, quite quickly.

 

[BeatrixFan]

But thats the point of monarchy - you get what you get and you don't get a say. If you want a say, you ditch the crown and get a President in where you can have a say. Anyone who thinks the monarchy is governed by committee is always going to be disappointed.

 

[branchg]

The monarchy must have the consent of the people to survive. To ignore the wishes of the public is to deestablish it altogether and have a republic instead.

If the majority of Britons remain opposed, Parliament will act to remove Camilla's right to be HM The Queen, allowing Charles to issue letters patent creating her HRH The Princess Consort instead.

 

[grevinnan]

Camilla will be Queen Camilla. Charles will never settle for anything less. The public will only have any say in the issue if the public outcry and opinions are so strong that the future of the monarchy is in jeopardy.
When the current Queen dies and Charles ascends the throne the country will be in deep mourning and whatever he wants he will get.

 

[branchg]

If in the event they do not, then there's really nothing standing in the way of creating her Princess Consort. I would be certain the appropriate executive papers would be drawn up, and passed, quite quickly.

It would require an Act of Exclusion being passed by Parliament stating the wife of Charles III is denied the rank of Queen Consort instead holding whatever titles of honour and rank granted by The King as fount of honour.

The Crown Commonwealth nations would also have to consent to the change through each Governor-General as advised by their Prime Ministers.

So, it won't be so simple or easy.

 

[Madame Royale]

A committee? Good heavens!! The Mob, Sam, get it right...

You receive what is extended, though this does not mean what is given cannot be altered. They know this. It is not an autocratic institution, but a constitutional democratic monarchy.

 

[branchg]

Camilla will be Queen Camilla. Charles will never settle for anything less. The public will only have any say in the issue if the public outcry and opinions are so strong that the future of the monarchy is in jeopardy.
When the current Queen dies and Charles ascends the throne the country will be in deep mourning and whatever he wants he will get.

I'm not sure about that. If the outcry is that loud, Parliament may force him to abdicate in favor of William instead. There is no way any future Prime Minister is going to allow overwhelming public opinion to diminish the standing of the monarchy over the status of his wife.

There are definitely reservations about Charles and Camilla that will surface once The Queen passes on. That's why she is trying her best to showcase Camilla and Charles as time goes on in their future role, hoping the public will get used to the idea.

But it may or may not happen.

 

[wbenson]

It would require an Act of Exclusion being passed by Parliament stating the wife of Charles III is denied the rank of Queen Consort instead holding whatever titles of honour and rank granted by The King as fount of honour.

Which would only be if they choose to go the legal route and not a simple "brute force" route. I really doubt that there would be that many people, especially in officialdom, who would refuse to call her "HRH the Princess Consort" if the Palace simply instructed people to call her that. It would be a bigger stretch than anything that's been done before (Princess Alice, Lady Louise, etc.), but I think they could pull it off and simply stick their heads in the sand. I don't want them to, but I think they could.

 

[Madame Royale]

It would require an Act of Exclusion being passed by Parliament stating the wife of Charles III is denied the rank of Queen Consort instead holding whatever titles of honour and rank granted by The King as fount of honour.

The Crown Commonwealth nations would also have to consent to the change through each Governor-General as advised by their Prime Ministers.

So, it won't be so simple or easy.

Of this I'm aware, though I think some prefer to make it seem more arduous than what it really is, or shall I say, what it could be.

I don't see why any Governor General would veto such a move, let alone any Prime Minister. Having had Clarence House publically acknowledge that it is the intention of both the Prince of Wales and Duchess of Cornwall, that Camilla would assume the title of Princess Consort, then why would there be any need to go against the intention of the King and his spouse? Quite simply, there is none.

 

[BeatrixFan]

Well lets be honest here - it could be done but it wont be done. Why? Because no one cares enough. No one can afford to care enough. Hence why it's a non issue and hence why all these polls and debates about it are a waste of time.

 

[branchg]

Which would only be if they choose to go the legal route and not a simple "brute force" route. I really doubt that there would be that many people, especially in officialdom, who would refuse to call her "HRH the Princess Consort" if the Palace simply instructed people to call her that. It would be a bigger stretch than anything that's been done before (Princess Alice, Lady Louise, etc.), but I think they could pull it off and simply stick their heads in the sand. I don't want them to, but I think they could.

I don't think they will get away with it by the means you describe. The legal issues are very clear that the wife of The King must be Queen Consort and nothing else. All of the constitutional precedents were thoroughly examined in 1936 and there is no other conclusion that can be made.

The only difference will be whether or not Parliament is prepared to act with legislation denying her rightful rank in law. This is doubtful in my opinion and creates more problems than it would solve.

Either she is accepted as Queen Consort or Charles must abdicate.

 

[branchg]

Well lets be honest here - it could be done but it wont be done. Why? Because no one cares enough. No one can afford to care enough. Hence why it's a non issue and hence why all these polls and debates about it are a waste of time.

That's what everyone is hoping and it should be a non-issue when the time comes. But we'll have to wait and see.

 

[BeatrixFan]

I think you're all missing the point here though - the British people won't march on Buckingham Palace and demand the head of Charles 'cos Camilla's Queen. We don't do that, we never have - the only reason Wallis Simpson wasn't Queen was because the big wigs didn't want her to be. It was the PM and the Archbishop who brought down Edward VIII, not the people and the people won't bother when Charles becomes King. They'll automatically be King and Queen and we'll all just get on with it. Thats what we do. There's no ultimatum, there's no fuss, there's no referendum or act of parliament - it'll just happen and we'll just get on with it.

 

[Madame Royale]

Either she is accepted as Queen Consort or Charles must abdicate.

I'm sorry, but that's a severe exaggeration. By that ideology, he may as well have signed a forthcoming act of abdication the same day he signed his marriage register.

It was never going to be any easy slog.

 

[wbenson]

I don't think they will get away with it by the means you describe. The legal issues are very clear that the wife of The King must be Queen Consort and nothing else. All of the constitutional precedents were thoroughly examined in 1936 and there is no other conclusion that can be made.

If they released a statement to the effect of "though Camilla legally remains Queen, she wishes to request that she be unofficially styled Her Royal Highness the Princess Consort for the time being," I really don't think anyone would begrudge her that. Yes, some people would refuse to call her anything else, and maybe Tuvalu or Papua New Guinea would call her Queen Camilla in everything they do, but I can't imagine the government (or most of the people) being so caught up in it that they do anything but say "whatever, it doesn't really bother us."

 

[branchg]

I think you're all missing the point here though - the British people won't march on Buckingham Palace and demand the head of Charles 'cos Camilla's Queen. We don't do that, we never have - the only reason Wallis Simpson wasn't Queen was because the big wigs didn't want her to be. It was the PM and the Archbishop who brought down Edward VIII, not the people and the people won't bother when Charles becomes King. They'll automatically be King and Queen and we'll all just get on with it. Thats what we do. There's no ultimatum, there's no fuss, there's no referendum or act of parliament - it'll just happen and we'll just get on with it.

Which is what should happen. They're already married and she shares his rank and titles. There is no logical reason why she should not be Queen when the time comes.

 

[branchg]

If they released a statement to the effect of "though Camilla legally remains Queen, she wishes to request that she be unofficially styled Her Royal Highness the Princess Consort for the time being," I really don't think anyone would begrudge her that. Yes, some people would refuse to call her anything else, and maybe Tuvalu or Papua New Guinea would call her Queen Camilla in everything they do, but I can't imagine the government (or most of the people) being so caught up in it that they do anything but say "whatever, it doesn't really bother us."

She can't be Queen and a Princess Consort at the same time. She is Her Majesty The Queen, not Her Royal Highness Princess Camilla, once her husband becomes King.

That's the difference.

 

[wbenson]

She can't be Queen and a Princess Consort at the same time. She is Her Majesty The Queen, not Her Royal Highness Princess Camilla, once her husband becomes King.

"Can't be" is very, very different from "Can't be called." A simple statement of "Call her this thing we've made up, not this thing the law says she is" would most likely suffice in getting most people to call her whatever they want. It wouldn't be her legal title, in fact it wouldn't really exist at all. That doesn't matter in the long run, though. I hope they won't do that, as I really do want to see a Queen Camilla, but I also accept that, if pressed, they'll do what they want anyways.

 

[jcbcode99]

The notion that Charles is going to be forced to abdicate over Camilla's title is really a little extreme and over the top; it is also unlikely. The facts are these--when Charles ascends the throne Camilla will automatically become Queen Camilla. No special laws are going to be passed to make her the Princess Consort--why on earth should they be passed? She is the spouse of the monarch, not a second class citizen. All this talk of what she will be titled is well, disrepectful of what her rightful position is. This is utterly and without question ridiculous; the idea that Parliament would pass a law stating that Camilla is the Princess Consort because so many people still revere the memory of a dead woman who sought to bring down a monarchy-well, it is unethical that people would even consider such a thing. The laws of succession are how they are for a reason. The spouse is the Queen. Enough is enough.

 

[Madame Royale]

No special laws are going to be passed to make her the Princess Consort

You, or anyone here (myself included), cannot categorically state this, jcbcode99.....though I do admire you'e steadfast conviction..hehe..

 

[sirhon11234]

a dead woman who sought to bring down a monarchy-well

That is not true or fair to say jcbcode99.