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: 1018
Member Since:
January 6, 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: 1364
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: 88
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: 83
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: 1018
Member Since:
January 6, 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: 1364
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: 556
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: 1018
Member Since:
January 6, 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: 556
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: 88
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: 1018
Member Since:
January 6, 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")

Forum Timezone: America/Chicago

Most Users Ever Online: 100

Currently Online: Prof H
11 Guest(s)

Currently Browsing this Page:
1 Guest(s)

Top Posters:

Member Stats:

Guest Posters: 0

Members: 4880

Moderators: 1

Admins: 3

Forum Stats:

Groups: 18

Forums: 52

Topics: 1198

Posts: 7511

Newest Members:

RobertBix, BeverlyTaind, edeawuduwieg, ohterujarh, Bryceunacy, adamnk1, ukaqizwiudagi, idanqasax, ufucipafol, usoxmaoxow

Moderators: Prof H: 957

Administrators: Emperor: 33, Scott: 556, Susan: 1364