Title for Camilla

[serenissima]

I think your take on this is absolutely correct. I just wonder if 'they' (palace machine)thought that no one would pick up on the legislation change issue, in which case 'they' could act surprised when the time came and say oh well, she'll have to be Queen after all. Thinking by that time, the public will have warmed to Camilla.

People in general here feel that we just have to put up with all this but deep in somewhere not many people are feeling truly comfortable about what had happened.

Nobody really wants any harm done to Camilla but people in general just feel something is not quite right about their marriage.

 

[branchg]

I think your take on this is absolutely correct. I just wonder if 'they' (palace machine)thought that no one would pick up on the legislation change issue, in which case 'they' could act surprised when the time came and say oh well, she'll have to be Queen after all. Thinking by that time, the public will have warmed to Camilla.

I think that's exactly what they assumed would happen. Unfortunately, in a constitutional monarchy, these precedents must be considered by the will of the people as represented by Parliament, which is ultimately sovereign in the UK.

MP's weren't too happy to have the issue glossed over in a quick press release and started challenging the "intention" immediately. In the end, Clarence House conceded "legislation may be required to tidy-up the issue when the time comes", a very different stance than the initial one taken.

Personally, I do not believe Parliament will be willing to change the precedent and she will be Queen Camilla. But if the public opposition is clear, they will have no choice but to pass legislation.

 

[scooter]

Well there is another choice, even though many here would have me hung for mentioning it. Also, I firmly believe that this is part and parcel of the whole constitutional defender of the faith, remarriage issue. As far back as as the time of the separation from Diana, Charles consulted with Arnold, Lord Goodman, eminent lawyer and friend, who told him (according to published reports) that a divorce would not prevent Charles from becoming King, but a second marriage would. Charles replied that he did not intend to remarry. Charles also, in reply to QEII's letter, requesting they C+D proceed with the divorce, reiterated that he would not remarry. Interestingly, at the time leading up to Charles and Camilla's engagement announcement, BBC had a pole up (google C&C, engagement) which the overwhelming response was if they marry, he should renounce the throne. This combined with the Archbishop of Canterbury's decided unenthusiastic respose to the actual wedding of Charles to Camilla, leads me to wonder if the whole Princess Consort thing was premeditated to make the acceptance of Camilla more likely. Then after (hopefully) a long marriage, when QEII dies, people will be less hostile to Camilla. Just for the record, I am more interested in the historical/constitutional aspect of this than a mud fight about Camilla.

 

[branchg]

The issue at the time was whether the Church was prepared to accept a divorced Defender of the Faith. As the Church of England is without question a vessel of the Crown, it would be hard for the Archbishop of Canterbury not to accept a divorced monarch.

But the question of a remarriage was dicey since the previous wife was living and the proposed woman was a factor in the failure of the first marriage. Had Diana lived, I doubt Charles would have been able to marry Camilla with the consent of The Queen, but it's a question that can never be really answered.

The issue of Camilla's rank and title when he becomes King is clear constitutionally. She must be Queen, unless Parliament and the Crown Commonwealth are willing to accept a lesser title. If public pressure is strong enough, they will.

 

[sirhon11234]

Had Diana lived, I doubt Charles would have been able to marry Camilla with the consent of The Queen,

But why is that? I don't really understand why Charles and Camilla couldn't get married if the Princess was still alive.

 

[Elspeth]

If Diana had remarried, there'd have been no reason why Charles shouldn't. Especially with the changes in the Church of England's attitude to divorce.

 

[branchg]

If Diana had remarried, there'd have been no reason why Charles shouldn't. Especially with the changes in the Church of England's attitude to divorce.

I agree with that.

 

[Princess Alexandra]

I think that she should be Queen its only fair...the princess consort title just isnt right

 

[wbenson]

I think Charles and Camilla would have married sooner with Diana alive. She would have had several more high-profile relationships if not a second marriage, and the Diana circle types wouldn't be nearly as influential.

 

[Madame Royale]

Possibly so, but I don't believe Charles would have remarried as long as the Queen Mother was alive. '05' was an appropriate year.

She would have had several more high-profile relationships if not a second marriage

You have no way of knowing that.

 

[Jo of Palatine]

The issue of Camilla's rank and title when he becomes King is clear constitutionally. She must be Queen, unless Parliament and the Crown Commonwealth are willing to accept a lesser title. If public pressure is strong enough, they will.

We had that argument before but here it is again: what we are doing is coffeetable-talk at the moment. Of course we can discuss if the people are willing now to accept a Queen Camilla. But once the current queen is dead,t he whole climate in Britain will be affected. People will find that they love the new king as he is the symbol that their country is overcoming death. There's a deep aspect of eternity in human life involved in the idea of a hereditary monarchy (The queen is dead. Long live the king!). I have very serious doubts that the people of Britian who will feel an inner feeling of sadness and loss will do anything to hurt their new hope for eternity, their new king, by humiliating their new queen in public.

When Diana died, the people had no such new hope, they just looked for somebody to blame in order to cope with their loss. But when the queen dies, people will look up to Charles and his new office, finding consolation in him. And in the fact that he has a wife at his side who will be dignified in mourning and remind them all of the positive characteristics of their nation, for she will be a very British, very lady-like queen in mourning and she will show that she is willing to console the new king and with him the nation.

Of course I think some tabloids will immediately raise the question if Camilla should be queen - they are already prepared for it. But I doubt they will be heard by a mourning nation. I only hope the men in grey don't devise a wrong step by hte new king and his wife, for all could be lost then.

 

[wbenson]

You have no way of knowing that.

Well, no, but I thought such a disclaimer wasn't necessary since that was self-evident.

 

[Madame Royale]

It's just stating any relationship yet to have happened with the utmost conviction, is factuallly ineligible and facts are what makes this discussion worthwhile...

 

[serenissima]

We had that argument before but here it is again: what we are doing is coffeetable-talk at the moment...

Well, I am not too sure re: what you think will happen in due course here in the United Kingdom. People in general have become more indifferent in the matters re: the royal family but are more annoyed by the facts such as how much they spent etc, and particularly, the Prince of Wales has not been so popular for such a long time, by the time the Demise of the Crown takes place, people may have become less favourable towards our royalty. In the end, our monarchy will be, more likely, reformed or transformed into a much simpler form so that none of this all costly affairs will be talked about again and again. Even the older generations are feeling so "let down" by them these days for they are more "celeb-like" than "royal" that people will just become more and more distant from that family.

When the housing price has gone down so badly but the mortgage rate has gone up so high and many middle-class people have had their precious homes repossessed by their mortgage lenders, many unskilled people are feeling as if they are overwhelmed by the recent mass migration from Poland and other Eastern European countries etc and the gun related crimes etc are in increase etc etc, all what people see in the household of the Prince of Wales and other roayl persons' matters are just so irelevant to them but only to annoy them. When a hard working family loses their precious home and cannot afford their annual holiday in Italy or Spain any longer, they hear Prince William used an army helicoptor (which is funded by the tax payers' money and our service men and women are facing such dangers in Afghanistan and Iraq etc because of the lack of equipments etc) to make his quick way to get to his weekend break etc, they only feel that they are ridiculed by them and question 'who do they think they are ?"

Even some people who have been invited to the royal functions no longer feel so grateful to the Prince of Wales (though they are invited to such functions) because he seems to be interested in sort of people who are "in" things than those are far too unknow.

It is only the Queen whom many of us really look up to nowadays.

 

[Jo of Palatine]

snip interesting post

It is only the Queen whom many of us really look up to nowadays.

Maybe because there is not much happening which feeds their positive feelings for the Royals. There's been no wedding for ages, there are no small kids whose pics can be enjoyed (Lady Louise is kept out of sight and her brother's christening was not even documented by a pic of the queen with him), Charles and Camilla are happily married but both are already quite old and people feel he is still waiting to start working in his "real" job. William and Harry, Beatrice and Eugenie only get negative media coverage... the list appears to be endless... So there really is no big event where people could start to feel for their RF again.

My hope is that William will not only start working as a Royal and bring a bit more "Royal glamour" to the stage, but that he will start his public duties with the announcement of his engagement and then after the wedding will go along into his public life with his wife at his side. Just like Alexandra and Mary renewed the interest in the Danish Royals. Or the wedding of Willem-Alexander with Maxima brought new charme to the Netherlands.

 

[Charlotte1]

It seems as though Princess Marina remained a Princess of Greece and Denmark in her own right even after her marriage to the Duke of Kent. Following her elder son's wedding, she simply reverted to her own substantive princely title and her late husband's niece the Queen permitted her to be style as HRH Princess Marina the Duchess of Kent instead of HRH the Dowager Duchess of Kent.

Sorry somewhat late to this discussion but I'm not on this board everyday!

No Marina did not retain her title of Princess of Greece and Denmark in the UK after her marriage to The Duke of Kent. British citizens cannot hold foreign titles. Marina became a British citizen when she married, so if George did not have a dukedom, then she would have been Princess George. The two of them together would not have been Prince George and Princess Marina but Prince and Princess George. After her marriage Marina was always The Duchess of Kent, the Court Circular always had her as The Duchess of Kent during the 30s, 40s and 50s. In the UK she was not Princess Marina. When her son married, she didn't revert back to her substantive princely title, she was granted a courtesy title of Princess Marina by the queen. ( please don't quote wikipedia to me, it's wrong! Check with a royal historian who specialises in British titles) So it's then she became Princess Marina, Duchess of Kent and the Court Circular reflects this.

King George V changed the rules on foreign titles, overnight princes turned into marquis, lords, etc. Queen Victoria's daughter Princess Beatrice went from being Princess Henry of Battenberg to Princess Beatrice as she was the daughter of a queen. Princesses Victoria Helena and Marie Louise of Schleswig-Holstein to simply Princesses VH and ML.

So when Marina married into the British royal family, in the UK she was no longer Princess Marina until she was given a courtesy title in 1961. Outside the UK Marina could still remain Princess Marina of Greece and Denmark. In 1947 Princess Katherine of Greece married a British citizen, she also became a British citizen and lost her princess title ( and rank) in the UK. As she would attend royal events George VI gave her a courtesy title of the style and rank of a daughter of a British Earl. She became Lady Katherine, but outside the UK she was still Princess Katherine and this was reflected in the 2002 judgement for compensation against the Greek government that the Human Rights Court made, she was listed as Princess Katherine of Greece ( not Lady Katherine Branham) She died last year and was buried in Greece as Princess Katherine.
Earl Mountbatten's daughters Lady Patricia and Lady Pamela Mountbatten as late as the 1940's signed guest books in their relatives German castles as Princess Patrica of Battenberg and Princess Pamela of Battenberg.

 

[serenissima]

Oh, I see. So, Princess Marina retained her Princess Marina outside here whilst she was married to her husband. Talking about this note, the Duke of Marlborough is supposed to hold a title of a prince by the Holy Roman Empire but I suppose he is not supposed to use it here but only in Germany ? Is that it ? Having said that, we call the Duke of Leinster, His Grace the Duke of Leinster but he is not a duke here in England but is the Viscount Leinster when he was sitting in the House of Lords. I suppose he prefered much grander style to his lesser style. Oh, in that case, will it be permisible for the Duke of Marlborough to call himself "prince" John or whatever instead of the Duke of Marlborough ? Even people like the Tolstoys still call themselves counts and countesses here.

 

[Jo of Palatine]

Oh, in that case, will it be permisible for the Duke of Marlborough to call himself "prince" John or whatever instead of the Duke of Marlborough ?

Titles of the Holy Roman Empire never passed through the female line. It's true that the First Duke of Marlborough, John Churchill, was created a prince of Mindelheim in 1705 but as he had no son, the title became extinct. The Dukedom of Marlborough in Britain is one of the few with a special reminder that allows daughters to inherit, thus there is still a Duke of Marlborough, but as he is no male-line descendant of the "Fürst von Mindelheim", this title no longer exists. BTW - Germany does not longer recognize titles anyway.

 

[serenissima]

Maybe because there is not much happening which feeds their positive feelings for the Royals. There's been no wedding for ages, there are no small kids whose pics can be enjoyed (Lady Louise is kept out of sight and her brother's christening was not even documented by a pic of the queen with him), Charles and Camilla are happily married but both are already quite old and people feel he is still waiting to start working in his "real" job. William and Harry, Beatrice and Eugenie only get negative media coverage... the list appears to be endless... So there really is no big event where people could start to feel for their RF again.

My hope is that William will not only start working as a Royal and bring a bit more "Royal glamour" to the stage, but that he will start his public duties with the announcement of his engagement and then after the wedding will go along into his public life with his wife at his side. Just like Alexandra and Mary renewed the interest in the Danish Royals. Or the wedding of Willem-Alexander with Maxima brought new charme to the Netherlands.

To tell you the truth, the general public here is a lot happier when our royal people are not so glamorous but more dowdy. People seem to have some respect towards the Princess Royal because she is hard working and also not so glamourous but looks more like an old fashioned "dame". People in general do not seem to mind if the Prince of Wales had his staff party at the Ritz or the Prince and Princess Michael went to the SAVOY (though it is closed at the moment for refurbishment) for some function (because those places are not greatly fun though I like the professional service which the Ritz provides. They still use those large keys for their guest bedrooms - a nice change from those American sort of plastic cards. Oh, I like the American Bar, still, at the SAVOY, but I suppose I am getting old. Those places such as the China White and all are far too much for me) but when we hear they were hobnobbing with some terribly fashionable people etc at some very trendy places etc in Knightsbridge etc, then, people start feeling that they are just using their privilege as "royal" to have fun. Many people have to work very hard to have their tables reserved in such places but those people just have it all because they are happened to be "royal". This seems to put a lot of people off nowadays.

Many of us still have such respects towards the Queen because she seems to understand her people's sentiment and appreciate their day-to-day works etc that are, usually, unknown. However, what many now see in the royal matters are fun, glamour and celeb-like life style.

 

[Jo of Palatine]

Having said that, we call the Duke of Leinster, His Grace the Duke of Leinster but he is not a duke here in England but is the Viscount Leinster when he was sitting in the House of Lords. I suppose he prefered much grander style to his lesser style.

The Duke of Leinster is an the Premier Peer of Ireland and as thus his title is recognized in the UK. He has other, lower titles as well. The Viscounty of Leinster is in the Peerage of Great Britian, maybe that's why he uses it in the House of Lords. But of course he is recognized in the order of precedence as a duke.

 

[serenissima]

... BTW - Germany does not longer recognize titles anyway.

Oh, I see. However, my friend in Germany has a friend who still styles himself as a baron. Maybe, this man uses his people's previous title as though he is still a baron, then. Oh, talking about this note, people say that Lady Douro is supposed to be a German princess. I suppose she cannot call herself "princess" here. There are so many Germans who are supposed to be this and that around here.

The Duke of Leinster is an the Premier Peer of Ireland and as thus his title is recognized in the UK. He has other, lower titles as well. The Viscounty of Leinster is in the Peerage of Great Britian, maybe that's why he uses it in the House of Lords. But of course he is recognized in the order of precedence as a duke.

Oh, the Irish peerages are inferior to those of Great Britain. Is the Marquess of Londonderry Irish peerage ?

 

[Jo of Palatine]

Oh, I see. However, my friend in Germany has a friend who still styles himself as a baron. Maybe, this man uses his people's previous title as though he is still a baron, then. Oh, talking about this note, people say that Lady Douro is supposed to be a German princess. I suppose she cannot call herself "princess" here. There are so many Germans who are supposed to be this and that around here.

Germany does not recognise titles anymore but accept the former titles as part of the name. So while Lady Douro does not longer hold the status of a Royal princess like in the old times pre-WWI, when the head of her family was the German emperor and king of Prussia, she was born as Antonia Prinzessin von Preussen (that was her name, not her title). I'm not sure though if her father's marriage to Lady Bridget Guiness is thought to be an equal marriage or if it is considered to be a morganatic marriage - so I am not sure if in case she had been received by officials of the Federal Republic for whatever reason, protocoll would have allowed it that she be called a "Königliche Hoheit". She is the granddaughter of the last Crown Prince of Germany and Prussia, but I think her parent's marriage must be according to the House laws for her to be called by the courtesy title of HRH in Germany. But she is of course in the line of succession to the British throne as she is a great-great granddaughter of queen Victoria: Queen Victoria - Victoria, German Empress and queen of Prussia - Wilhelm II. - Crown Prince Wilhelm - Friedrich Prinz von Preussen - Antonia Prinzessin von Preussen. And another interesting tidbit: Lady Douro's grandmother was the sister of queen Alexandrine of Denmark, grandmother of the current queen Margrethe, so she is a second cousin to the Danish queen.

But you're right, it is difficult with former German titles as part of the name today.

 

[branchg]

The Hohenzollern House Laws require equal marriages to remain in succession, but morganatic unions are accepted with lesser styles granted.

 

[Jo of Palatine]

The Hohenzollern House Laws require equal marriages to remain in succession, but morganatic unions are accepted with lesser styles granted.

That's why I'm not sure about the "Königliche Hoheit". German protocoll accepts former Royal styles if the former reigning family considers this member to be a full member with succession rights - for the Prussians this means born from an equal marriage.

 

[serenissima]

Germany does not recognise titles anymore but accept the former titles as part of the name...

Oh, I see. In that case, since you are German yourself (I assume), you could change your surname by deed poll to something like Grafin von Regensburg or whatever and nobody can legally challenge you, perhaps ? Here, this sort of things are dealt with very carefully that one can be prosecuted for using such styles. Having said that, here, there is no law to forbid people to use the style of Dr even without a valid PhD. Funny, isn't it ?

That's why I'm not sure about the "Königliche Hoheit". German protocoll accepts former Royal styles if the former reigning family considers this member to be a full member with succession rights - for the Prussians this means born from an equal marriage.

Is this the same in Austria ? How do the German government deal with German nationals whose people once had other styles or titles that were from Czech land or Slovakia or wherever ?

I understand that the descendants of Charles Edward the last Duke of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha (a Nazi man) are also in the line of succession to our Crown. Do they use Saxe-Coburg-Gotha as their surname or Wettin ?

 

[wbenson]

It's just stating any relationship yet to have happened with the utmost conviction, is factuallly ineligible and facts are what makes this discussion worthwhile...

Again, though, it was quite evident that I was not stating anything with "the utmost conviction" as I was talking about the possibilities if a deceased person were still alive. Since that is an impossibility, that makes it clear that all things stated were pure prognostication (postgnostication?)

 

[Elspeth]

Erm - would you two be kind enough to sheathe those rapiers and rejoin the conversation the rest of us are having?

 

[Madame Royale]

Yes, ma'am...

she seems to understand her people's sentiment

On the whole, though she went through her paces to get there, I think. Her Majesty hasn't always been the greatest at reading public opinion and has at times been let down by those employed to avoid any unfortunate press.

And it still happens, as we have seen with Clarence House. Last August comes to mind. I think it lax and expect better for the royal family.

 

[Jo of Palatine]

Oh, I see. In that case, since you are German yourself (I assume), you could change your surname by deed poll to something like Grafin von Regensburg or whatever and nobody can legally challenge you, perhaps ? ?

No, of course not. It's very difficult to get permission to change your name and certainly not to one who depicts a higher social status. But when one of Lady Duoro's cousins married a "commoner" they decided to keep "Prinz/essin von Preussen" as the family name, thus her children and her husband share that name now. Or if you have Prinzessin in your name and have an illegitimate child, this child has the same name as you: Prinzessin von...

 

[Jo of Palatine]

Is this the same in Austria ? How do the German government deal with German nationals whose people once had other styles or titles that were from Czech land or Slovakia or wherever ?

I understand that the descendants of Charles Edward the last Duke of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha (a Nazi man) are also in the line of succession to our Crown. Do they use Saxe-Coburg-Gotha as their surname or Wettin ?

I don't think Austria follows that rule. But then it's a completely different country with own rules and own protocoll. If the Germans from Czech or Slowakia were nobles they can of course keep that part of their names. Normally ex-reigning houses keep their old titles and may even apply for a name change permission if an elder, more senior relative dies and they inherit a higher title. Eg the Margrave of Meissen who is Head of the ex-Royal House of Saxony. Or if an herediary prince inherits from his father, the Fuerst. The Saxe-Coburg-Gotha use the name of Prinz/essin von Sachsen-Coburg-Gotha, Herzog/in zu Sachsen. AFAIK nobody uses the name of Wettin as family name.