Will Charles Ever Reign?

[Roslyn]

So the bit about "all future Queens" might mean that every Queen has to wear each of those pieces at least once!

That thought occurred to me when I read that passage.

I had delightful visions of:

He: "Put it on, you have to wear it, Queen Victoria said so!"
She: "No, no, no! It's hideous."
He: "Pleeeease?!"
She: "No!"



One could argue that the words don't say that no-one else can wear them, just that the queens have to.

But as I've said previously, I don't think it matters. They belong to the Crown, and the monarch for the time being can decide who gets to wear the baubles.

 

[Skydragon]

So the bit about "all future Queens" might mean that every Queen has to wear each of those pieces at least once!

thanks Elspeth, for taking the time to type it all out. It could of course mean that all future Queens have a right to wear them, not that they have to or others can't.

With the vast array of goodies that will be at her disposal, will Camilla be distraught at not wearing one or two bits and pieces anyway?

 

[Roslyn]

With the vast array of goodies that will be at her disposal, will Camilla be distraught at not wearing one or two bits and pieces anyway?

I strongly doubt it.

 

[MARG]

Camilla seems too comfortable in her own skin to care about all that sort of rubbish. She seems more likely to care if what she doesn't wear is read or misread as a slight against her husband. Like it or not, it is a factor.

Jewelery has always been a status symbol but in royal circles it is in fact, "in your face shorthand"! Just check out the State Banquet for President Sarkozy. The Queen, followed the dictates of the government on that occasion and really pushed the boat out, her sparklers being the icing on the cake (oh how insignificant was that itsy bitsy diamond brooch?).

We all know it and if it didn't really matter we would not be talking about the type of jewels she will be entitled to wear on a "Will Charles Ever Reign? thread.

 

[HM Queen Catherine]

If Camilla does become Princess Consort, it sort of depends on how it's done. If they do an end run around the current situation where a monarch (and hence spouse) can't take other titles and announce that HM Queen Camilla will be known by the fictitious title of HRH Princess Consort, then she'll still be Queen even though she isn't called Queen, so the terms of Queen Victoria's will would be complied with. However, if legislation is passed to deprive her of the title of Queen and create her Princess Consort in her own right, or however they'd do it, that would be a different situation. Even then, what if she did show up wearing the Oriental Circlet or the George IV diadem? Apart from the tabloids having a field day, what, practically, could anybody do about it?

I believe this whole debate is really a non-issue. Legally, Camilla became The Princess of Wales upon her marriage to Charles.

English law provides that the wife of a noble attains the same status as her husband upon marriage, unless her status is higher than his or she marries a peer. In that case, the wife is entitled to continue to use her higher rank.

For example, in the case of a Duke's daughter, she would be styled Lady Anne. Were Lady Anne to marry a plain Mr. Smith, then she would become Lady Anne Smith after marriage, as she holds the higher rank. If she were to marry the Earl of Devon, then she would become the Countess of Devon because she married a peer, even if she outranks her husband as the daughter of a duke.

Camilla and the royal family decided to style her the Duchess of Cornwall because they deemed it more acceptable than calling her Princess of Wales, and use the Cornwall title to distance her from the legacy of Diana.

When Charles ascends the throne, Camilla will legally be the Queen Consort. What she chooses to call herself, or what the royal family ultimately decides, will not alter her legal status. If she styles herself as Princess Consort, then she is not relinquishing her rights in any way whatsoever, and I expect that no matter what her style will be, she will be crowned with Charles when the time comes.

 

[jcbcode99]

Well said; I completely agree with everything you wrote. And, I do hope to see her crowned with Charles--wearing a crown!

 

[branchg]

The question is one that will have to be considered when Charles becomes King. Unlike the current situation, whereas Camilla enjoys all of her husband's styles and titles but has chosen to use her ducal title as her style, once he is King, she has no choice in her style and title except Queen. The wife of the King is Queen and nothing else.

The Government would have to agree the wife of The King is legally Queen Consort, but can be styled by a lesser title and rank as HRH The Princess Consort without legislation being passed by Parliament.

 

[branchg]

What she chooses to call herself, or what the royal family ultimately decides, will not alter her legal status. If she styles herself as Princess Consort, then she is not relinquishing her rights in any way whatsoever, and I expect that no matter what her style will be, she will be crowned with Charles when the time comes.

Constitutionally, she is Queen automatically in her own right when Charles assumes the throne. To be known as HRH The Princess Consort requires The Sovereign to issue letters patent creating Camilla as such.

Since being a Royal Highness and Princess in your own right when you are legally Queen has no precedent, Parliament would have to agree and consent to changing the style and title of the succession. It is a lesser rank for the King's wife and creates a morganatic marriage.

I personally do not think this will come to pass nor do I believe Parliament will agree she can be known as Princess Consort without legislation.

 

[Marsel]

I agree that the wife of the King can only be Queen; there is really no other option.
However, if the style and title of the Princess Consort is still insisted upon, wouldn't that require legislation not just by the British/Scottish Parliaments, but also by the Parliaments of all the countries of the Realm, that would recognize Charles as their Monarch? If that is the case, I find such outcome highly unlikely.
Of course, Camilla could technically be Princess Consort in Britain (assuming legislation is passed) and Queen Consort in the other Realms, but that's equally improbable.

 

[branchg]

However, if the style and title of the Princess Consort is still insisted upon, wouldn't that require legislation not just by the British/Scottish Parliaments, but also by the Parliaments of all the countries of the Realm, what would recognize Charles as their Monarch?

Yes, it would. Probably not a big deal in this day and age, but it adds another layer of complication, especially since it would invite public debate in the Commonwealth and Crown nations about the monarchy.

 

[branchg]

With the vast array of goodies that will be at her disposal, will Camilla be distraught at not wearing one or two bits and pieces anyway?

With two tiaras currently in her possession that were worn by Queen Elizabeth and Queen Mary, as well as many other significant jewels, I doubt Camilla will be distraught that she doesn't have enough to wear that is worthy of her status.

And whether she is Queen or styled Princess Consort, there are plenty of other jewels from The Sovereign's personal collection at her disposal, not to mention any pieces The Queen gives her or leaves as a bequest.

 

[MelinaB.]

You all have some good points here.I'll just add my opinion:I believe Prince Charles is going to be a great King and the Duchess of Cornwall will stand by him & fill all of her duties.We're talking about a highly educated & intelligent royal couple.

 

[scooter]

Constitutionally, she is Queen automatically in her own right when Charles assumes the throne. To be known as HRH The Princess Consort requires The Sovereign to issue letters patent creating Camilla as such.

Since being a Royal Highness and Princess in your own right when you are legally Queen has no precedent, Parliament would have to agree and consent to changing the style and title of the succession. It is a lesser rank for the King's wife and creates a morganatic marriage.

I personally do not think this will come to pass nor do I believe Parliament will agree she can be known as Princess Consort without legislation.

Well, there was no precedent for the marriage of a Prince of Wales (or King) to a divorced woman, but the rules were bent to facilitate the marriage of Charles and Camilla. There has, however, been the precedent of a recent HRH whose wife was denied one, at the whim of the sovereign. If Charles was not being disingenuous at the time of the marriage, he certainly has the ability to make her Princess Consort at the stroke of a (King's) pen.

 

[Skydragon]

Luckily the CoE and most of the world have moved on and live in the 21st century, where divorcees are treated as human beings.

 

[scooter]

Perhaps 'divorcees are treated as human beings', but The Queen (or King) is supposed to be an example and moral leader. We shall see if the C of E has 'moved on' when Charles' Coronation and the concept of 'Queen Camilla' is no longer an abstract , In My Humble Opinion.

 

[Lumutqueen]

I really do hope that Camilla becomes Princess Consort not Queen. If she did then I think it would be unfair to Philip as he has never had the title King. I know times will have changed but the same principles still apply in my book. But I hope she is recognised as Charles' equal and does not stay the Duchess of Cornwall.

 

[Iluvbertie]

I really do hope that Camilla becomes Princess Consort not Queen. If she did then I think it would be unfair to Philip as he has never had the title King. I know times will have changed but the same principles still apply in my book. But I hope she is recognised as Charles' equal and does not stay the Duchess of Cornwall.

In Britain there are clear cut differences between men and women and what they gain on marriage regarding titles/styles etc.

A woman takes on the female form of her husband's styles/titles whereas a man doesn't.

To deny Camilla the title of Queen Consort gives her lesser rights than every other woman in Britain, in my opinion.

Philip - being the husband of a Queen Regnant has followed the precedence of other Consorts of Queens Regnant - Albert and George of Denmark and remained a Prince.

Camilla needs to follow the precedence of other wives of Kings and become Queen Consort ala Queen Elizabeth the Queen Mother, Queen Mary, Queen Alexandra, Queen Adelaide, Queen Caroline etc.

The fact that Philip and Camilla are different genders means that they really can't be compared.

If Camilla isn't to be Queen Consort then, in my opinion NO woman can take the titles/styles of their husband but keep their birth status only - so no Princess of Wales, Queens Consort, Duchesses etc.

To apply one standard to one woman is an insult to that woman.

 

[scooter]

To me it's a question of whether you take Charles at his public 'word' the it is intended that Camilla be known as the Princess Consort. If that is truly what the then King Charles intends, then all he has to do is issue letters patent and sign his name, and it's done, and the whole Queen Camilla, xyz fight goes away. Why continue the fight?

 

[Marsel]

Personally I would agree to Camilla being known as Princess Consort (perhaps out of respect for the Duke of Edinburgh, although he is not, and has never been a Prince Consort), only on one condition; if all future spouses of the British Monarch were known as Prince/Princess Consort.
That would be fair and truly equal.

However, to deny Camilla the title that is rightfully hers (once Charles becomes King), is really insulting, as Iluvbertie rightfully said.

To me it's a question of whether you take Charles at his public 'word' the it is intended that Camilla be known as the Princess Consort. If that is truly what the then King Charles intends, then all he has to do is issue letters patent and sign his name, and it's done, and the whole Queen Camilla, xyz fight goes away. Why continue the fight?

Scooter, Letters Patent would not be enough to 'solve' this issue; if Camilla is to be granted the title of the Princess Consort in her own right and intends to be known as such, that would require a Parliament legislation, not just from the British/Scottish Parliaments, but also from the Parliaments of all the countries of the Realm, that will recognize Charles as their King (thanks to branchg, who cleared up that point for me).

 

[scooter]

Just My Opinion, but I think it's likely that quite a few major members of the Commonwealth/Realm will not be 'recognizing Charles as their king'. My personal wager is that the death of QEII, will ring the death knell on the Commonwealth. Everyone loves HM. Her heir and his future 'Queen' do not inspire quite so much enthusiasm, if you read the ongoing press of the Realm on the subject. Canada, New Zealand and Australia would be high on the list.

 

[branchg]

I doubt legislation will be passed when the time comes. They're already married and she shares equal rank with her husband. Why should she be denied the right to be Queen? If she wasn't good enough, then they never should have married in the first place.

Wallis was an entirely different matter. She was already divorced once and, then proceeded with another divorce at The King's behest. Edward knew the Government was adamantly opposed to a marriage and wanted to abdicate. He paid the price for his decision and renounced the rights of any future descendants under the Act of Settlement. Given that point, George VI refused to allow his wife and any children to take the style and rank of HRH, limiting them to the Peerage.

 

[Marsel]

Just My Opinion, but I think it's likely that quite a few major members of the Commonwealth/Realm will not be 'recognizing Charles as their king'. My personal wager is that the death of QEII, will ring the death knell on the Commonwealth. Everyone loves HM. Her heir and his future 'Queen' do not inspire quite so much enthusiasm, if you read the ongoing press of the Realm on the subject. Canada, New Zealand and Australia would be high on the list.

I believe that the death of Queen Elizabeth (long may she live) will only bring the King and the countries of the Realm closer; the death of one Monarch and the accession of the other were usually times of great national unity across the Empire (and later the Commonwealth). I sincerely doubt the nationalists would choose the moment of Her Majesty's death to push forward their agenda - that would be just tacky.

With the possible exception of Australia, I just don't see any other country, where anti-Monarchist movements are strong enough to affect the course of events, once Charles is King.


Branchg, I agree with you that it is highly unlikely the Parliaments (whether British or the Commonwealth ones) will pass, or are asked to pass a legislation like that. Camilla is the wife of the Prince of Wales; once Charles is King, she shouldn't be denied the title that is rightfully hers.

 

[Mermaid1962]

All 10 provinces in Canada have to vote the same way in order to change part of our Constitution. The likelihood of that happening to abolish the monarchy isn't very likely. For one thing, some provinces are more loyal than others.

Just My Opinion, but I think it's likely that quite a few major members of the Commonwealth/Realm will not be 'recognizing Charles as their king'. My personal wager is that the death of QEII, will ring the death knell on the Commonwealth. Everyone loves HM. Her heir and his future 'Queen' do not inspire quite so much enthusiasm, if you read the ongoing press of the Realm on the subject. Canada, New Zealand and Australia would be high on the list.

 

[branchg]

The Crown Commonwealth nations would automatically recognize the new Sovereign as head of state, the same as the United Kingdom, under the Act of Settlement. Of course, they could choose to deestablish the Crown with legislation and become republics at any time.

The Commonwealth of Nations has to formally appoint a new Sovereign as the head. While in practice this should be routine, it is not automatic nor legally bound to the Crown. The members all have to assent to it.

 

[Roslyn]

Personally I would agree to Camilla being known as Princess Consort (perhaps out of respect for the Duke of Edinburgh, although he is not, and has never been a Prince Consort), only on one condition; if all future spouses of the British Monarch were known as Prince/Princess Consort.
That would be fair and truly equal.

However, to deny Camilla the title that is rightfully hers (once Charles becomes King), is really insulting, as Iluvbertie rightfully said.

This is how I feel, too. I think it's very unjust.

I think it's most unfortunate that the official monarchy site currently says she will be known as The Princess Consort when Charles accedes. It was easy to argue that the statement of intent made at the time of the marriage was just that: a statement of what was intended at that time, and that things changed. But for the site to still say she will be so known makes it harder to change tack when the time comes.

 

[Elspeth]

Well, maybe when the time comes it's going to be "oopsie, whoever knew that we'd need to jump through all those legal hoops?"

and we can all just say "we did..."

 

[MARG]

Well, there was no precedent for the marriage of a Prince of Wales (or King) to a divorced woman, but the rules were bent to facilitate the marriage of Charles and Camilla.

If there was no precedent what rules would there have been needing to be bent?

 

[Iluvbertie]

If there was no precedent what rules would there have been needing to be bent?

I think Scooter was referring to the fact that the CofE was easing its attitude to divorcees in the late 90s.

Some people see this attitude change as happening because of Charles rather than the fact that it was happening anyway and Charles was able to benefit by being able to marry the woman he loves despite both of them being divorced. The new official attitude just formulated what had been fairly common practice anyway.

I might add there has never been any legislation that denied the throne to a divorced person or one married to a divorced person.

 

[Charlotte1]

Just My Opinion, but I think it's likely that quite a few major members of the Commonwealth/Realm will not be 'recognizing Charles as their king'. My personal wager is that the death of QEII, will ring the death knell on the Commonwealth. Everyone loves HM. Her heir and his future 'Queen' do not inspire quite so much enthusiasm, if you read the ongoing press of the Realm on the subject. Canada, New Zealand and Australia would be high on the list.

Australians don't look to their leaders for moral guidance, they are more interested in 'can they do the job'. In the past Australians have voted in a Prime Minister (and also re-elected him) who had publicly admitted that he was an alcoholic and had repeatedly been unfaithful to his wife. The republican debate in Australia focuses solely on Australians having a Head of State who is Australian and lives in Australia. Charles's private life is not a factor, not even the tabloid press or women's magazines make it an issue.
New Zealand had a republican Prime Minister who recently was voted out of office, the new government has just reinstated Imperial Honours, New Zealanders again can be created Peers (Sir, Dame) Charles's private life isn't an issue.
Canada's likelihood of becoming a republic is miniscule due to the fact that it would be so difficult and also would fire up the whole separatist issue with Quebec, no government in Canada would like to open that can of worms.

Besides these 3 countries, there are another 13 that recognise the British monarch as Head of State there is nothing coming from them in relation to becoming republics when Charles becomes king.

Tabloid stories and moralistic attitudes don't change systems of government. Far more intellectual arguments do.

 

[MARG]

I'm with you on this. New Zealand has had Prime Minister's with less than pristine backgrounds. To be honest, we just can't be bothered being the "Morality Monitors" that some non-citizens seem to expect. And, as Charlotte 1 noted, we recently voted out a sort-of, may-be, wanna-be, Republican-leaning, government. The acceptance of the anti-Republican move reflects in the acceptance of the reinstatement of the Imperial Queens Birthday Honours List IMHO reflects a feeling that an ex politician as Head of State leaves something to be desired.

Strangely enough the Monarchy in the person of HM Queen Elizabeth II and her stalwart hubby, not to mention her heir Prince of Wales and his wife the Duchess of Cornwall, seem to be perceived as a sort of stabilising institution in a very unstable time!