Title question | The Prince of Wales and The Duchess of Cornwall | Forum

A A A
Avatar

Please consider registering
guest

sp_LogInOut Log In sp_Registration Register

Register | Lost password?
Advanced Search

— Forum Scope —




— Match —





— Forum Options —





Minimum search word length is 3 characters - maximum search word length is 84 characters

sp_Feed Topic RSS sp_TopicIcon
Title question
December 23, 2017
10:30 pm
Avatar
Gidzmo
Los Angeles, CA

Duchess
Members
Forum Posts: 1089
Member Since:
January 7, 2013
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

A recent Express article asks "Will Camilla be Queen when Charles becomes King?"

I thought that Camilla would automatically become Queen when Charles becomes King.  The usual practice was that the wife takes the Mrs form of the husband's titles.  

Express/Camilla's title

"Men's evil manners we write in brass; their virtues we write in water."

--Griffith, Queen Katherine's servant (from Shakespeare's "Henry VIII")

December 23, 2017
10:34 pm
Avatar
Susan
New Jersey, USA

Queen
Forum Posts: 1426
Member Since:
November 24, 2012
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Gidzmo said
A recent Express article asks "Will Camilla be Queen when Charles becomes King?"
I thought that Camilla would automatically become Queen when Charles becomes King.  The usual practice was that the wife takes the Mrs form of the husband's titles.  
Express/Camilla's title  

Yes, that is true but when Charles and Camilla married it was made known that she was to be Princess Consort when Charles became King.  That could be changed which is what the article is indicating.  The information in the article is not new at all.  It has been mentioned and discussed over the years.

Susan

Eleanor of Aquitaine, by the wrath of God, Queen of the English

December 27, 2017
3:30 am
Avatar
Jeremy

Duke
Members
Forum Posts: 92
Member Since:
May 30, 2013
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

The announcement at the time said, rather cleverly, that it was the intention (at the time of the announcement) for Camilla to be known as HRH the Princess Consort. The wording deliberately left open the possibility of her being queen (if public opinion allowed for it).

December 27, 2017
1:59 pm
Avatar
LauraS3514

Lady in Waiting/Squire
Members
Forum Posts: 84
Member Since:
January 2, 2013
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Gidzmo said
A recent Express article asks "Will Camilla be Queen when Charles becomes King?"
I thought that Camilla would automatically become Queen when Charles becomes King.  The usual practice was that the wife takes the Mrs form of the husband's titles.  
Express/Camilla's title  

Under British Common Law, Camilla will automatically become "Her Majesty The Queen" the instant her husband becomes King. However, just as she is currently "The Princess of Wales" without actually USING that title, she may choose to be called something other than Queen when the time comes without actually losing the title of Queen. However, I cannot see Charles demoting his "darling wife" once again and am pretty confident that she will indeed be called "HM The Queen" when the time comes.

December 27, 2017
10:14 pm
Avatar
Gidzmo
Los Angeles, CA

Duchess
Members
Forum Posts: 1089
Member Since:
January 7, 2013
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

LauraS3514 said

Under British Common Law, Camilla will automatically become "Her Majesty The Queen" the instant her husband becomes King. However, just as she is currently "The Princess of Wales" without actually USING that title, she may choose to be called something other than Queen when the time comes without actually losing the title of Queen. However, I cannot see Charles demoting his "darling wife" once again and am pretty confident that she will indeed be called "HM The Queen" when the time comes.  

That's what I thought.  She might be called "The Princess-Consort", which is unusual.  The only time I can remember where a woman was a royal wife without having the same style and title was Wallis Simpson (somewhat, but not completely the same).

"Men's evil manners we write in brass; their virtues we write in water."

--Griffith, Queen Katherine's servant (from Shakespeare's "Henry VIII")

December 28, 2017
8:09 am
Avatar
Susan
New Jersey, USA

Queen
Forum Posts: 1426
Member Since:
November 24, 2012
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Gidzmo said

That's what I thought.  She might be called "The Princess-Consort", which is unusual.  The only time I can remember where a woman was a royal wife without having the same style and title was Wallis Simpson (somewhat, but not completely the same).  

It's happening to Camilla right now. Under British Common Law, she is HRH The Princess of Wales but is using HRH The Duchess of Cornwall so Diana fans are not upset. (Sorry, a bit of editorializing here. Wink)

Susan

Eleanor of Aquitaine, by the wrath of God, Queen of the English

December 28, 2017
7:40 pm
Avatar
Scott

King
Forum Posts: 587
Member Since:
November 24, 2012
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Gidzmo said

That's what I thought.  She might be called "The Princess-Consort", which is unusual.  The only time I can remember where a woman was a royal wife without having the same style and title was Wallis Simpson (somewhat, but not completely the same).  

Susan said

It's happening to Camilla right now. Under British Common Law, she is HRH The Princess of Wales but is using HRH The Duchess of Cornwall so Diana fans are not upset. (Sorry, a bit of editorializing here. Wink)  

Similar, but not really the same thing. Wallis Simpson most certainly had the same title - Duchess of Windsor - as was her 'right' under common law.  What she did not have was the style of HRH.  

As for Camilla, again it's not exactly the same.  Yes, she is Princess of Wales.  But she is also Duchess of Cornwall, Duchess of Rothesay, etc.  So she's just using one of her other titles by choice.  She hasn't been denied anything.  

As for Camilla's future title...  there is no such title in the UK as 'Princess Consort'.  If I'm not mistaken, that would require legislation in Parliament to establish it, and I'm quite sure that's not going to happen.  Certainly, neither Charles nor the lawmakers are going to pursue that while Queen Elizabeth is still alive.  And once she isn't, it'd be too late - Camilla will become Her Majesty The Queen the moment that her mother-in-law takes her last breath. 

As was pointed out earlier - the initial announcement very clearly - and cleverly - use the words "it is intended that..."   No doubt, this was very carefully thought out.  It avoided some of the uproar from the pro-Diana crowd, and to some extent appeased the anti-Camilla folks.  But most of all, it bought them time.  Time for Camilla to settle into her royal role, and time for her to try and earn the respect of some of those who were so against her.  And, IMHO, she's done a wonderful job.  The Queen seems to be happy with her efforts, and has awarded her for her work for 'The Firm'.  And few can argue that Charles seems to have benefited from having Camilla by his side, and perhaps become more prepared than ever for the job which will one day be his.  Just my 2 cents.

December 28, 2017
9:09 pm
Avatar
Gidzmo
Los Angeles, CA

Duchess
Members
Forum Posts: 1089
Member Since:
January 7, 2013
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Scott said

Gidzmo said

That's what I thought.  She might be called "The Princess-Consort", which is unusual.  The only time I can remember where a woman was a royal wife without having the same style and title was Wallis Simpson (somewhat, but not completely the same).  

Similar, but not really the same thing. Wallis Simpson most certainly had the same title - Duchess of Windsor - as was her 'right' under common law.  What she did not have was the style of HRH.  

As for Camilla, again it's not exactly the same.  Yes, she is Princess of Wales.  But she is also Duchess of Cornwall, Duchess of Rothesay, etc.  So she's just using one of her other titles by choice.  She hasn't been denied anything.  

As for Camilla's future title...  there is no such title in the UK as 'Princess Consort'.  If I'm not mistaken, that would require legislation in Parliament to establish it, and I'm quite sure that's not going to happen.  Certainly, neither Charles nor the lawmakers are going to pursue that while Queen Elizabeth is still alive.  And once she isn't, it'd be too late - Camilla will become Her Majesty The Queen the moment that her mother-in-law takes her last breath. 

As was pointed out earlier - the initial announcement very clearly - and cleverly - use the words "it is intended that..."   No doubt, this was very carefully thought out.  It avoided some of the uproar from the pro-Diana crowd, and to some extent appeased the anti-Camilla folks.  But most of all, it bought them time.  Time for Camilla to settle into her royal role, and time for her to try and earn the respect of some of those who were so against her.  And, IMHO, she's done a wonderful job.  The Queen seems to be happy with her efforts, and has awarded her for her work for 'The Firm'.  And few can argue that Charles seems to have benefited from having Camilla by his side, and perhaps become more prepared than ever for the job which will one day be his.  Just my 2 cents.  

Did George VI have the legal right to deprive Wallis of the HRH?  Or was this done under his role as "The Fount of Honour"?  

Camilla has done a good job--HM would have said something otherwise.

"Men's evil manners we write in brass; their virtues we write in water."

--Griffith, Queen Katherine's servant (from Shakespeare's "Henry VIII")

December 28, 2017
9:54 pm
Avatar
Scott

King
Forum Posts: 587
Member Since:
November 24, 2012
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Gidzmo said

Did George VI have the legal right to deprive Wallis of the HRH?  Or was this done under his role as "The Fount of Honour"?  
Camilla has done a good job--HM would have said something otherwise.  

As royal styles are at the pleasure of the sovereign, my opinion is that King George VI was fully within his rights.  But some would argue -- and have -- that it wouldn't have stood up in court, but we'll never know.  

December 29, 2017
5:56 am
Avatar
Jeremy

Duke
Members
Forum Posts: 92
Member Since:
May 30, 2013
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

I'm not sure that an act of parliament would be required to create a new title. I don't think that was necessary in the case of the late Queen Elizabeth (1900-2002), who was the first widowed queen consort to use the title "Queen Mother" in an official capacity. Previous widowed queens consort continued to be known as "Queen Alexandra" and "Queen Mary" after the deaths of their respective husbands. I suppose the extra title became necessary when there were two Queens Elizabeth alive at the same time. My understanding is that there was simply an announcement from the Palace that this is how the Queen Mother would be styled. I think the same could be done if Camilla were not to be styled Queen.

In passing I note that, as things stand, there's no prospect of anyone else being styled Queen Mother before Prince William becoming king and then predeceasing his wife. I'm unlikely to be around to see that!

On the question of King George VI's 'legal right' to withhold the HRH style from the Duchess of Windsor, there's an collection of documents available online here for anyone with the time and the interest. (Personally, I found it fascinating.) My own non-expert conclusion is that the King did not follow the obvious precedent which had always applied, but that as fount of honour he was perfectly entitled to go against precedent if he wished to. Neither Parliament nor any court of law would ever had challenged his sovereign rights in this regard, so the question of the legality of his decision doesn't really arise in practice.

December 30, 2017
9:34 pm
Avatar
Gidzmo
Los Angeles, CA

Duchess
Members
Forum Posts: 1089
Member Since:
January 7, 2013
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Jeremy said
I'm not sure that an act of parliament would be required to create a new title. I don't think that was necessary in the case of the late Queen Elizabeth (1900-2002), who was the first widowed queen consort to use the title "Queen Mother" in an official capacity. Previous widowed queens consort continued to be known as "Queen Alexandra" and "Queen Mary" after the deaths of their respective husbands. I suppose the extra title became necessary when there were two Queens Elizabeth alive at the same time. My understanding is that there was simply an announcement from the Palace that this is how the Queen Mother would be styled. I think the same could be done if Camilla were not to be styled Queen.

In passing I note that, as things stand, there's no prospect of anyone else being styled Queen Mother before Prince William becoming king and then predeceasing his wife. I'm unlikely to be around to see that!

On the question of King George VI's 'legal right' to withhold the HRH style from the Duchess of Windsor, there's an collection of documents available online here for anyone with the time and the interest. (Personally, I found it fascinating.) My own non-expert conclusion is that the King did not follow the obvious precedent which had always applied, but that as fount of honour he was perfectly entitled to go against precedent if he wished to. Neither Parliament nor any court of law would ever had challenged his sovereign rights in this regard, so the question of the legality of his decision doesn't really arise in practice.  

In the Queen Mother's case, it was simply done to avoid confusion.  "Queen Elizabeth?  Which one?"

I think she will be styled as Queen when the time comes.  MOST people have accepted her (I have seen some comments otherwise).

"Men's evil manners we write in brass; their virtues we write in water."

--Griffith, Queen Katherine's servant (from Shakespeare's "Henry VIII")

January 26, 2018
3:51 pm
Avatar
DKM

Emperor
Forum Posts: 70
Member Since:
September 6, 2012
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

At various times both Charles and Camilla have been asked the question on if she will be Queen one day.  Charles in an interview and Camilla by a child during a walkabout.  Both replied, we will have to wait and see.

Last poll I saw, which was years ago, showed a majority thought she should become queen.

February 11, 2018
9:08 pm
Avatar
Gidzmo
Los Angeles, CA

Duchess
Members
Forum Posts: 1089
Member Since:
January 7, 2013
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Emperor said
At various times both Charles and Camilla have been asked the question on if she will be Queen one day.  Charles in an interview and Camilla by a child during a walkabout.  Both replied, we will have to wait and see.

Last poll I saw, which was years ago, showed a majority thought she should become queen.  

Camilla would legally be HM The Queen, even if she chose not to use the title--just as she is legally now HRH The Princess of Wales (but uses Duchess of Cornwall instead).

"Men's evil manners we write in brass; their virtues we write in water."

--Griffith, Queen Katherine's servant (from Shakespeare's "Henry VIII")

February 12, 2018
9:21 pm
Avatar
Prof H

Crown Princess
Members

Moderators
Forum Posts: 1006
Member Since:
January 2, 2013
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

I thought the original decision to announce that she would be known as Princess Consort was to satisfy all the red Diana fabs who blamed Camilla for Diana's misery and death.  In the years since their marriage Camilla has proven to be a hard working member of the royal family, a devoted husband to the pOW, a wonderful daughter in law to HM, in fact all the things one would wish in a future queen.  She can even wear all those massive necklaces and tiaras the younger royals won't.  Charles adores her and their marriage seems sound and happy.  There is absolutely no reason she should not and will not be queen (unless she or Charles predeceases HM of course).

"If I had been born crested not cloven, you would not talk to me thus, sir."  Elizabeth I of England  

February 12, 2018
11:16 pm
Avatar
Gidzmo
Los Angeles, CA

Duchess
Members
Forum Posts: 1089
Member Since:
January 7, 2013
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Prof H said
I thought the original decision to announce that she would be known as Princess Consort was to satisfy all the red Diana fans who blamed Camilla for Diana's misery and death.  In the years since their marriage Camilla has proven to be a hard working member of the royal family, a devoted husband to the POW, a wonderful daughter in law to HM, in fact all the things one would wish in a future queen.  She can even wear all those massive necklaces and tiaras the younger royals won't.  Charles adores her and their marriage seems sound and happy.  There is absolutely no reason she should not and will not be queen (unless she or Charles predeceases HM of course).  

That is what was announced.  It might be that they hold to that, or change course to have her known as Queen when the time comes.

"Men's evil manners we write in brass; their virtues we write in water."

--Griffith, Queen Katherine's servant (from Shakespeare's "Henry VIII")

February 13, 2018
3:52 pm
Avatar
DKM

Emperor
Forum Posts: 70
Member Since:
September 6, 2012
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Prof H said
I thought the original decision to announce that she would be known as Princess Consort was to satisfy all the red Diana fabs who blamed Camilla for Diana's misery and death.  In the years since their marriage Camilla has proven to be a hard working member of the royal family, a devoted husband to the pOW, a wonderful daughter in law to HM, in fact all the things one would wish in a future queen.  She can even wear all those massive necklaces and tiaras the younger royals won't.  Charles adores her and their marriage seems sound and happy.  There is absolutely no reason she should not and will not be queen (unless she or Charles predeceases HM of course).  

That was the basic reason, but a lot has changed and many in media and politics have pointed out that she will be legally be Queen, whatever title she goes by unless there is an act of Parliament.

I don't remember who, but some major politician a few years back made some statement to the effect of she will be queen and should be recognized as such.  My guess is if any of out live HM, that is what will happen.

February 13, 2018
9:09 pm
Avatar
Prof H

Crown Princess
Members

Moderators
Forum Posts: 1006
Member Since:
January 2, 2013
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Camilla has certainly worked hard at her role as Duchess of Cornwall and as Charles' wife.  One only has to look at them together to see how happy a couple they are, however long they had to wait for their happiness.  Charles' sons seem to have accepted Camilla with no difficulty.  HM clearly adores her.  I think back to the annus horribulus with the Windsor Fire (I was in the GK then so got to read the outpouring in the tabloids) and the string of divorces.  Now HM has three of her four children happily married, the PR for over a quarter of a century, grandchildren who seem to have picked out the proper spouses, and a long peaceful retirement (and don't we wish her as long a life as possible).

 

The spouse of the king legally should be the Queen and most likely, given as you point out, longevity, Camilla will be queen.  I suspect she doesn't care for herself, only for Charles because he clearly cares so much.

 

Those of us who have followed this sage so long should ourselves be thrilled how things have worked out for a woman whose life has always been one of duty.  Let her remaining years be filled with peace and happiness.

"If I had been born crested not cloven, you would not talk to me thus, sir."  Elizabeth I of England  

February 16, 2018
4:08 am
Avatar
Jeremy

Duke
Members
Forum Posts: 92
Member Since:
May 30, 2013
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

I've just thought of something else which might be some guidance in the event (now looking less likely, I agree) that Camilla is made "Princess Consort" rather than being known as Queen.

Back in the 1950s there was talk about a princely title for the Duke of Edinburgh. He had been created HRH by his father-in-law King George VI at the time of his wedding, but he had never been made a prince of the United Kingdom. That changed in 1957. But there was communication between the Palace and Number 10 (and, I think, the Commonwealth realms) about Philip's title. I don't ever remember reading anything about an act of parliament. Eventually, Philip's title was simply published in the London Gazette. You can see the announcement here.

My expectation, therefore, is that Charles would take ministerial advice, but that Parliament would not need to legislate. The last time I can think of that happening was for the Royal Titles Act of 1953, but that concerned the head of state.

Forum Timezone: America/Chicago

Most Users Ever Online: 100

Currently Online:
7 Guest(s)

Currently Browsing this Page:
1 Guest(s)

Top Posters:

Member Stats:

Guest Posters: 6

Members: 6278

Moderators: 1

Admins: 3

Forum Stats:

Groups: 18

Forums: 52

Topics: 1222

Posts: 7838

Newest Members:

jaclynkf1, ludozher, verail16, JasonTrown, Richardcig, babyuntow, graceqg4, Liycvoze, winnieeh1, kristieqm3

Moderators: Prof H: 1006

Administrators: DKM: 70, Scott: 587, Susan: 1426