Talk:Princess consort

THis article needs to be rewritten. (Alphaboi867 19:58, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC))

HM Queen Camilla also known as HRH The Princess Consort

I think the entire concept of Camilla being a Princess Consort with the style Royal Highness is totally rediculous. It severely downgrades royal styles and titles in so much as you can call someone whatever you like regardless of whether they have a high royal style or not. It takes the concept of respect towards authority away. When Charles acceedes the throne, Camilla will be Queen with the style of Majesty and should in my opinion be treated as such. To style her and treat her as a Royal Highnes when she is in fact a Majesty is rather like treating the present Queen as if she were the Duchess of Edinburgh with the style Royal Highness. It is incorrect to refer to them as such when they hold higher statuses regardless of whether they hold these subsidiary titles. That's exactly what they are and will remain subsidiary titles. The same applies to the Lady Louise Windsor who is fact HRH The Princess Louise of Wessex. It is wrong to address her as Lady because the title of Princess with the style Royal supercedes that priveledge. If the concept of calling people whatever you want continues, the respect for the monarch will be lost due to the fact that royal styles and titles can be changed without the use of letters patent. Consider the possibility of this happening in numerous cases and not just one. Consider what the order of precedence would look like for women..

1. HRH The Duchess of Edinburgh (Legally Queen with the style Majesty but not styled as such) 2. HRH The Duchess of Cornwall (Legally Princess of Wales with the style Royal Highness but not styles as such) 3. Sophie Wessex (Legally Countess of Wessex with the style Royal Highness but is not styled as such for professional reasons) 4. Lady Louise Wessex (Legally Princess of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland with the style Royal Highness but is not styled as such) 5. HRH The Princess Beatrice of York (who might one day be stripped of all her styles and titles due to the popular notion of downgrading Royal styles and titles) 6. HRH The Princes Eugenie of York (who might one day be stripped of all her styles and titles due to the popular notion of downgrading Royal styles and titles)

..not to mention the fact that the whole reason for this Princess Consort malaki is pointless due to the fact that Camilla already holds the same status as Diana in the order of precedence aswell as Diana's former style of Royal Highness making her higher than Diana was at the time of her death. On the accession of Charles to the throne Camilla will also be a Princess in her own right a style that was used to refer to Diana but was never hers legally giving her a higher title than Diana had again.

Furthermore, the whole concept of the divorced wives of Royals and indeed peers retaining the female style of their husbands title is absurd. They are not Duchesses/Countesses etc so why refer to them as such. Sarah, Duchess of York is not a Duchess and Diana, Princess of Wales was not a Princess. Sarah was once but is not now and should be referred to as Mrs Mountbatten-Windsor or Ms Ferguson. Alternatively, one could give them another style and title if they merited such a title as was indeed the case with the late Diana, Princess of Wales. I think it's high time that someone reviewed the Royal titles and put things right once and for all.

Children

Largely theoretical, but I doubt any children of the union could be excluded from the succession without an Act of Parliament modifying the Act of Settlement. —Ashley Y 09:41, 2005 Feb 11 (UTC)

True. In order to exclude children from this union from the succession not only would the UK parliament need to pass a law, but so would every Commonwealth Realm. Given that Camilla is 57 years old and well passed menopause it's not an issue. The chances of her have a child are so small (she'd need really good fertility specialists) the gov't isn't going go through all the effort and international coorndination needed to changed the law. Imagine the debate it kick of in Australia. Same reason they keep delaying a law allowing cognatic primogeture and Catholic spouses. (Alphaboi867 18:39, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC))

Menopause point taken, but I'm curious... would future adopted children be excluded? --Ds13 05:38, 2005 Apr 10 (UTC)

The succession is to heirs of the body of the Electress Sophia. It doesn't include adoptees. - Nunh-huh 05:42, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Adopted children would have no right of succesion. However if their parents requested the Queen could allow them to be styled as if they were biological offspring. (Alphaboi867 05:59, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC))

first use of term?

I stated that the term was invented for Parker Bowles when creating this article yesterday. I today read at the German News-Site of n-tv (German CNN-partner) that the term wasn't used for 140 years, so it probably existed before? Unfortunalty, there are no futher information. See [1]. --Abe Lincoln 10:32, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Google has references to prinesses consort in China, India and Thailand, so even if it's the first use of the term in British monarchy, it's certainly been used before. --JohnnyB 17:08, Feb 11, 2005 (UTC)

legally become queen consort

she will legally become queen-consort the moment Charles ascends the throne.

Could we have some more detail on this, please? I thought the point of the whole foofaraw was that she wouldn't become queen consort. - Montréalais

I think the idea is this: Unless Britain and all the Commonwealth countries change their laws, Camilla will legally be the queen consort when she marries Charles, because that's the title given to the wife of the king. However, she won't be addressed as such. --JohnnyB 18:43, Feb 15, 2005 (UTC)

There is no specific law that says Camilla will become Queen. However tradition says that the wife of a King will be Queen. Only an Act of Parliament can prevent the Queen consort from styling herself that. For example when King George IV ascended the throne, his estranged wife, Caroline of Brunswick became Queen consort, and used this title offically. George IV persuaded parliament to bring forth a law, the Pains and Penalties Bill 1820 to strip Caroline of her title of Queen (and to divorce her). However the bill failed to pass its first reading and then Caroline died. Astrotrain 21:38, Feb 16, 2005 (UTC)

George IV never was validly married to Caroline of Brunswick. He was married to Maria Fitzherbert. --217.251.78.118 (talk) 18:55, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Camilla is allready Princess of Wales, and will become Queen when Charles succeeds - it's just that neither he nor her will refer to her as such for publicity reasons. - Matthew238 22:55, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Queen

why does she have to become Queen when Charles ascends? can she not stay Duchess of Cornwall ?. Prince Philip remained Duke of Edinburgh after his wife became Queen and for more than fifty years it has been "HM The Queen and HRH The Duke of Edinburgh.." so why could it not be .."HM The King and HRH The Duchess of Cornwall.." If you ask me, they are both morganatic marruages.....

Phillip is a man, Camilla is a women. Different rules apply to them. A women automatically takes the feminine form of her husband's titles. By contrast a man doesn't get the masculine form of his wife's titles. England had only one king consort, Phillip II of Spain. Phillip was created Duke of Edinburgh his his own right. Camilla is Duchess of Cornwall (she's also Princess of Wales) because her husband is Duke of Cornwall. When Charles ascends the throne William will automatically become Duke of Cornwall and his wife will be Duchess of Cornwall. Neither Camilla or Phillip are in morganatic marriages. The concept is totally foreign to British law and custom. Plus the offspring of a morgantic marriage have no succession rights. The Queen's children are all in line to the throne and in theory if Charles and Camilla were to have a child s/he would be after Prince Harry in the line of succesion. (Alphaboi867 18:17, 26 March 2006 (UTC))[reply]

In spite of the well-meaning tautology "she is from a noble and aristocratic family," Camilla is of the gentry. --Wetman 16:33, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Camilla, and so forth

While it has been announced that Camilla will be known as "Princess Consort" when Charles becomes King, is there any particular reason to believe this will happen? Should we state this as a fact? Beyond this, shouldn't we mention Princess Maxima, in the Netherlands? It is my understanding that, because of the lack of Kings for a hundred years in the Netherlands, the Dutch have become deeply confused about the way these things work, and have determined that the wives of reigning kings should only have the style of "Princess" (or alternately, have decided that the difference between the sexes is, er, sexist, and have decided to follow the female model for male rulers, instead of the male model for female rulers), and that thus, Princess Maxima will remain Princess Maxima even after her husband becomes King. This seems like a more clear-cut case than the ad hoc nature of Camilla's supposed status in this respect - there seems to be a general understanding in the Netherlands that this is a rule that will be in place for the indefinite future. Any thoughts? john k 14:58, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think modifying it to make it clear that it has so been announced, but with the doubt that it may not come to pass, it perfectly appropriate. The Dutch model is somewhat different, given that ex-Queens, such as Juliana, revert to the title of Princess. They follow their own rules.--Wehwalt 14:03, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If precedent means anything, all wives of past Kings of the Netherlands became Queen. Wilhelmine of Prussia, Anne of Russia, Sophie of Württemberg and Emma of Waldeck & Pyrmont. So why not Maxima? 87.208.3.170 (talk) 20:46, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think WP:Crystal ball applies here wonderfully well and that any reference to her possible future title is irrelevant enough to be removed until there is some sustainable fact to support it as really effecting her life story. It would be more relevant in her mother-in-law's article, if the Oueen actually has made the (bizarre?) Princess anouncement, and then as an idiosyncracy in the perfect sense of the word. If only some populist (?) politicians (having assumed that everybody hates this woman and won't stand for her being Queen) are behind that announcement, why not let's ignore it? If it is a genuine attempt to start a permanent new tradition of gender equality in Britain (as the Dutch plans seem to be), let's not ignore it and see if we can find a reliable source to describe it as such. SergeWoodzing (talk) 17:03, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

When, not if

1) The source says "when"
2) All consitutional mechanisms are in place to immediately proclaim Charles as King once the Queen dies. "If" is therefore the violation of WP:CRYSTAL, NOT "When." 62.190.148.115 (talk) 13:33, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]