Title for Camilla

[AuroraB]

The divorce was finalised 28 August 1996. She died 1 year and 3 days later.

 

[BellaFay]

Really? An interesting new thread would be: If Charles predeceases the Queen, and William cannot be Duke of Cornwall , then what does income the heir support himself through? Charles is pretty much funded through the Duchy, I believe. So back on topic...If William is not eligable for Duke of Cornwall, strike the 'Dowager bit'...HRH Camilla Duchess of Cornwall, if Charles pre-deseaces Camilla while Queen Elizabeth is still alive.

If Charles were to predecease the Queen, Prince William's income would derive from the c.£11 million & interest bequeathed him by his mother (i.e. half of the £22 million in her estate on her death) & also the money that (according to Jonathan Dimbleby) Prince Charles & the Queen Mother put into a trust fund annually for both William & Harry from the mid 1980s onwards. In fact Prince William (having passed the age of 25) should already have access to both these sums. Although heaven knows what he spends it on as all his accommodation & staff costs are paid for by his father & the bulk of his travel costs by the taxpayer!

 

[wbenson]

Yes. PoW and DoC are titles reserved for the eldest son of the Sovereign.

Prince of Wales isn't reserved for the eldest son. Any male heir apparent (a female heir apparent has never happened in the UK, GB, or England as far as I know, but it is possible) can be made Prince of Wales, as George III was shortly after the death of his father, the previous Prince of Wales, by his grandfather George II.

 

[PrinceOfCanada]

My bad; I typed in a hurry.

The problem with a female Heir Apparent is the unusual set of circumstances that would need to occur. First you need a Queen Regnant on the throne; EIIR is the first one since Anne. Second, she needs to be--provably--beyond childbearing (years or ability) immediately after giving birth to her female Heir--something like an emergency hysterectomy due to complications in the birth, for example. It's a pity that male-preference primogeniture is still the rule; I imagine that as soon as the political climate in the other commonwealth realms warrants, Westminster will open the discussion. They'd have to do it before William accedes the throne, just in case he has a daughter followed by a son. The political outcry would be horrendous if that were to happen.

 

[wbenson]

What happened to Victoria?

There's also another circumstance which can lead to a true female heir apparent. Say William has only daughters but dies before becoming King. His eldest daughter would be the heir apparent as nobody could displace her.

They'd have to do it before William accedes the throne, just in case he has a daughter followed by a son.

A change in the law would be just as valid before or after his accession, although I agree that sooner is better than later just in case. I don't think the discussion will be opened unless that happens, myself. There's just not any reason other than future possibilities right now. When there's a real princess to look at and talk about, there will be much more reason. That's what happened in Sweden, I think.

 

[PrinceOfCanada]

What happened to Victoria?

A bunch of rum & cokes, that's what.

There's also another circumstance which can lead to a true female heir apparent. Say William has only daughters but dies before becoming King. His eldest daughter would be the heir apparent as nobody could displace her.

True.. but equally unlikely.

A change in the law would be just as valid before or after his accession, although I agree that sooner is better than later just in case.

Granted, but the difficulty is that he's unlikely to accede within the next 20 years or so, and one can safely assume that children will be on their way before then. I'm sure everyone breathed an enormous sigh of relief when he was born; had he been a girl they would have had to open the can of worms in 1981.

Actually, that might have been better, as republican movements weren't as strong then.

 

[Skydragon]

A change in the law would be just as valid before or after his accession, although I agree that sooner is better than later just in case. I don't think the discussion will be opened unless that happens, myself. There's just not any reason other than future possibilities right now.

As it is being discussed, it may happen sooner rather than later. Monarchy (Male Primogeniture): 8 May 2008: House of Commons debates (TheyWorkForYou.com)
More princesses to Queen it over us - Times Online

'Unfair' male right of succession to the throne set to be scrapped| News | This is London

 

[muriel]

If the in relation to male primogeniture is to be changed (and I am indifferent on this point), I would hope that it be changed before William has his first child - so as not to have any potential changes in the line of succession!

 

[MARG]

I agree. It was not easy for CP Victoria to step up to the plate when her younger brother had been the heir and it was very hard for him to suddenly become the "spare.

If gossip is to be believed, the King was and is not in favour of such a change. Doubly hard for the man who would have been King and the Princess that will now be Queen.

 

[wbenson]

I agree. It was not easy for CP Victoria to step up to the plate when her younger brother had been the heir and it was very hard for him to suddenly become the "spare.

How was it hard for him to suddenly become the "spare" when he was seven months old? I doubt he even remembers being the Crown Prince.

 

[MARG]

How was it hard for him to suddenly become the "spare" when he was seven months old? I doubt he even remembers being the Crown Prince.

Point taken. I was in error. However, as I also said, "gossip" has it that the King continues to disagree with the law change. Family dynamics would have to be affected by such a stance.

 

[iowabelle]

MARG, I almost ragged on you for the same thing! Didn't see how a toddler could miss this change.

But maybe the young prince views it as a way of escaping a confined life, although that makes it less attractive to Victoria (just look at the gossip she's endured with Daniel). If Carl Philip is into art, that's an interest more easily pursued without the crown. (Let's hope so anyway.)

My friend Nancy who has travelled in Germany tells me the Germans think Carl Philip was robbed of his birthright, though.

 

[milla Ca]

My friend Nancy who has travelled in Germany tells me the Germans think Carl Philip was robbed of his birthright, though.

The Germans?...or maybe some Germans or a German??

 

[jcbcode99]

I thought that was interesting that the Swedish succession was made retroactive like that, displacing Carl Philip and making Victoria CP. Imagine how she feels, knowing that her father prefers her brother to take the throne.
Getting back to the title for Camilla.....I am still in favor of Her Majesty The Queen Consort Camilla; has a nice ring.

 

[PrinceOfCanada]

Except that Queen Consort isn't really a title that's used in the UK. She will be HM Queen Camilla. She will be a queen consort, yes, but not the Queen Consort, if that makes sense.

 

[iowabelle]

The Germans?...or maybe some Germans or a German??

To be honest, I don't for sure know! At least one German woman told my friend... Are we wrong? Or do Germans in general even care about the succession in Sweden?

I'm willing to be wrong about what my friend told me.

 

[Jo of Palatine]

Or do Germans in general even care about the succession in Sweden?

Iowabelle, as queen Silvia of Sweden has been the first "German" queen for ages (we got rid of all our queens in 1918) a lot of people here in Germany are interested in her and her family.

 

[iowabelle]

Iowabelle, as queen Silvia of Sweden has been the first "German" queen for ages (we got rid of all our queens in 1918) a lot of people here in Germany are interested in her and her family.

That's what I thought... much like the Australians and their new princess, Mary. Of course, Silvia was such a beautiful young queen back in the 70s.

 

[jcbcode99]

She was a beautiful young Queen--she remains a beautiful Queen. She really wears those royal jewels well, too. I just love Queen Silvia. She's remarkable. I also hope to be able to refer to Camilla as HM The Queen one day.

 

[Monika_]

Elspeth, I suspect the backlash from presenting it as a last minute surprise (her being Queen, and not Princess Consort) would be significant. If they haven't chosen to state that as their intention now, I can only foresee cries of foul play in the end.

It's also possible that if it is their intention for her to continue to play more of a supportive/background role, this way no one would be able to compare her 'input' to HM's or the QM's. Just a thought...

 

[Odette]

I may be totally wrong but I believe I read that Camilla, even if she is not called by that title, she is already Princess of Wales, by virtue of her marriage to Prince Charles. Also when Prince Charles becomes King, Camilla will be Queen consort.
I personally believe that since she is P Charles wife she has earned the titles and the privilege her position gives her.

 

[Monika_]

Divorce was a social disgrace and unacceptable to the Church of England in 1936...

Denying the DofW the style of HRH was a choice. That's the point. If you argue that Camilla deserves it because of Charles' position, then it should apply to the other lady too. I think there are similarities between the two women. Both ladies had relationships with a PoW, although Edward VIII was not a married man, so yes, I suppose there is a difference there.

 

[Elspeth]

Divorce was a social disgrace and unacceptable to the Church of England in 1936. It was unthinkable for a twice-divorced woman to marry The King or become a member of the royal family, never mind Queen. So, Edward had no choice but to abdicate the throne due to his own selfishness and refusal to do his duty. What choice did George VI have but to deny her royal rank as a consequence?

He had the choice to grant it. Or at least the choice to say that it was automatically hers, which it was. If the HRH title had been a reward for good behaviour, certain HRHs by birth should have had it removed. As it is, it's simply a style that sons of monarchs, and their wives unless the marriage is morganatic, are entitled to.

Camilla is a totally different situation in that she is already married to the heir to the throne and will automatically be Queen when the time comes. Whether Parliament will be prepared to introduce legislation will depend greatly on public opinion at the time. If opposition is strong to her being Queen, it can be done.

I think it would do immeasurable damage if it were done after Charles's accession. If they really intend for it to be that way, they should be putting the legislation in train now.

 

[Elspeth]

I may be totally wrong but I believe I read that Camilla, even if she is not called by that title, she is already Princess of Wales, by virtue of her marriage to Prince Charles. Also when Prince Charles becomes King, Camilla will be Queen consort.
I personally believe that since she is P Charles wife she has earned the titles and the privilege her position gives her.

Yes, Camilla is Princess of Wales, but she's choosing to be known by another of her titles. When Charles becomes King, she'll automatically be the Queen Consort unless legislation to the contrary has been passed before his accession.

 

[caroline mathilda]

As it is, it's simply a style that sons of monarchs, and their wives unless the marriage is morganatic, are entitled to.

What is the definition of morganatic marriage now? Traditionally it has been the marriage of two social unequals. As Camilla is a commoner, is their marriage not already morganatic as well as all the other "commoner" and Royal titled marriages not only in Britain but throughout the Royal Families of Europe? I am very curious about all of your perspectives.

 

[kimebear]

What is the definition of morganatic marriage now? Traditionally it has been the marriage of two social unequals. As Camilla is a commoner, is their marriage not already morganatic as well as all the other "commoner" and Royal titled marriages not only in Britain but throughout the Royal Families of Europe? I am very curious about all of your perspectives.

The UK has no morganatic marriages as far as the royal family is concerned. They only have to marry a non-Catholic and follow the Royal Marriages Act of 1772 and obtain the consent of the monarch for them to be seen as equal and keep their places in the Line of Succession.

 

[Odette]

Yes, Camilla is Princess of Wales, but she's choosing to be known by another of her titles. When Charles becomes King, she'll automatically be the Queen Consort unless legislation to the contrary has been passed before his accession.

Thank you Elsbeth. I understand that out of courtesy she chose not to be known as the Princess of Wales but why should they pass legislation to prevent her from being titled Queen consort? I hope they do not. She does not deserve to be humiliated like that.

 

[Elspeth]

Well, she is Duchess of Cornwall as well as Princess of Wales, so it's just a matter of calling her by one of her titles rather than another. However, when Charles is King, she's automatically Queen Consort (since we don't have morganatic marriage in the UK), and a Queen can't also be a Princess. So if she was called "Princess Consort," it wouldn't alter the fact that she was still Queen and also it would be an incorrect and nonsensical title because it doesn't really exist. Not that anybody could stop her using it if she really wanted to, just like nobody could stop her calling herself Bozo the Clown if she really wanted to, but it'd be a fabrication and an incorrect one at that. If royals start down that path, goodness knows what else they might decide to do if something gets a bit inconvenient. It makes something of a mockery of the whole system of royal styles and titles.

The only way she could legally and in reality be Princess Consort was if legislation was passed to deprive her of the Queen Consort title and to create her Princess Consort. I assume she'd have to be created Princess Consort in her own right, as opposed to just taking the style by virtue of her marriage, but I'm not sure.

 

[Elspeth]

What is the definition of morganatic marriage now? Traditionally it has been the marriage of two social unequals. As Camilla is a commoner, is their marriage not already morganatic as well as all the other "commoner" and Royal titled marriages not only in Britain but throughout the Royal Families of Europe? I am very curious about all of your perspectives.

Morganatic marriage also involves the social inferior being forbidden to take the same rank as her husband, as well as forbidding children of the marriage from inheriting their father's title and any entailed property. Since Camilla has the HRH, the marriage isn't morganatic.

The Duke and Duchess of Windsor's marriage was morganatic in everything but name because the Duchess was deprived of her HRH and since the Instrument of Abdication specified that children of the marriage would not be eligible to inherit their father's royal status but would be styled as the children of nonroyal Dukes. The ironic thing is that Edward was quite willing to marry Wallis morganatically and remain King but was told it wouldn't be possible because morganatic marriage didn't exist in England - then by the time Queen Elizabeth, Tommy Lascelles, and the other senior royal advisors had had their way, he ended up in a morganatic marriage anyway, although not as King.

 

[Odette]

If one believes the polls, the British have been a little softer on Camilla now than they were 5 years ago. Hopefully by the time P Charles becomes King, the majority will have no problem with her becoming Queen Camilla.