Saturday, November 20, 2010

Prince Charles is quite right: Camilla could be Queen


It is not clear what all the fuss is about.

During an interview with the American network NBC, Prince Charles was asked by presenter Brian Williams: "Does the Duchess of Cornwall become Queen of England, if and when you become the monarch?" The prince hesitated, then replied: "That's well … we'll see won't we? That could be."

So Prince Charles has suggested that his wife 'could be' Queen when he accedes to the Throne.

Of course she could.

The tense tells us nothing new.

If Prince Charles be lawfully married to Camilla (and, for some, that remains a quite considerable 'if'), then the convention is that the wife of the King shall be Queen Consort.

The only exception in history was Queen Mary II who reigned as co-sovereign with King William III following the Glorious Revolution of 1689.

All this fuss over the title and style of Camilla came only as a result of extremist expressions of Dianaphilia: there could only be one Princess of Wales.

And so, out of sensitivity to popular opinion, Camilla took the title Duchess of Cornwall.

But it doesn't matter a fig what you call her: she is the Princess of Wales by virtue of her marriage to the Prince of Wales.

And she will automatically be styled Queen by virtue of her marriage to the King.

In any case, People appear to forget that it is Parliament that decides the succession: it is Parliament that will either change the Constitution to permit Charles (as King George VII) to be 'Defender of Faith', and it is Parliament that decides whether or not Camilla will be Queen.

So 'could be' is precisely the tense Prince Charles should have used.

But it is also the tense which applies to the likelihood of his own accession.

29 Comments:

Blogger Jared Gaites said...

Simple facts I suppose, unbiased and terse. Thinking about it though, although I have no problems with Royalty, it's significance in my life seems to have faded considerably. It's all minor details that flow into one ear and out of the other without hardly the slightest of effect being registered. It's almost as if some subconscious part of me is screaming "who the hell cares?"

20 November 2010 at 11:42  
Anonymous Sam Vega said...

"it doesn't matter a fig what you call her: she is the Princess of Wales by virtue of her marriage to the Prince of Wales"

What if no-one calls her the Princess of Wales? She is or is not Princess of Wales by virtue of a cultural and linguistic convention. This is sometimes supported by law and tradition, which are cultural and linguistic conventions with fancy robes on.

20 November 2010 at 11:42  
Blogger D. Singh said...

Your Grace

There are issues that are utterly distasteful in all this.

He married Diana – who loved him. He spurned her and committed adultery with Camilla Parker-Bowles.

Diana was killed. The Queen remarked after her death about ‘dark forces’.

Camilla divorces and ‘marries’ Charles and Blair’s friend Lord Falconer prays in Article 12 of the European Convention on Human Rights to project the doctrine that it is all legal and above board.

‘In any case, People appear to forget that it is Parliament that decides the succession: it is Parliament that will either change the Constitution to permit Charles … to be 'Defender of Faith', and it is Parliament that decides whether or not Camilla will be Queen’: the elite really are willing to change laws and times to suit their membership.

It turns my stomach. And so it should.

And as for Charles could be King George VII? Merely by changing one’s name does not permit escape from God’s anger. Better to confess, repent and be crowned King Charles III – that is what a hero would do – and he just could, just could become a hero.

20 November 2010 at 12:29  
Blogger Archbishop Cranmer said...

Mr D. Singh,

One should be thankful for mercies: the wedding is not taking place in Finsbury Park Mosque and the bride will not be wearing a burqa.

20 November 2010 at 12:40  
Blogger Jared Gaites said...

Hmm, suddenly I care, all of a sudden!

20 November 2010 at 13:27  
Anonymous Elliot Kane said...

Actually, I believe all titles must be bestowed, so it's perfectly possible for the wife of the King to not be the Queen.

Unless Camilla is formerly investitured as Queen, she will be no such thing.

The granting of titles is usually done as a formality as part of either wedding or coronation, but without the investiture the person has no legitimate claim to the title, regardless of their marital status.

It would be most unusual (And quite possibly unprecedented) for the King's wife to not be crowned Queen, granted, but even so.

Charles himself will not automatically become King just because his Mother dies. Without a formal coronation, he is still just the heir.

20 November 2010 at 13:41  
Anonymous Will Jones said...

‘In any case, People appear to forget that it is Parliament that decides the succession: it is Parliament that will either change the Constitution to permit Charles … to be 'Defender of Faith', and it is Parliament that decides whether or not Camilla will be Queen’

But if I remember my constitutional history correctly, it is not just Westminster that has a say regarding the monarchy, but the parliaments of all commonwealth realms have to reach agreement, such as occured with the abdication crisis.

Convention dictates she will be Queen Consort as she will be the wife of the King in-right; for her to not be addressed/titled as such, all realms have to agree to the change in style not just the UK's. Unless the Statute of Westminster is now obsolescent?

20 November 2010 at 13:52  
Blogger Maturecheese said...

YG You forgot the word 'yet'

20 November 2010 at 13:57  
Anonymous Mrs Proudie of Barchester said...

@Elliot Kane
No sir, you are wrong. The formula 'The king is dead, long live the king' means one king follows immediately upon the death of another - there is no need for a coronation. Edward VIII was king but was never crowned. So was Edward V. The wife of the king automatically becomes Queen - end of story.

20 November 2010 at 14:00  
Anonymous Bede said...

Camilla was the main factor in the break up of Charles' first marriage. She should certainly not become Queen, but remain as Consort.

20 November 2010 at 14:03  
Anonymous Will Jones said...

@Bede

She cannot be Queen as she is not in the line of succession. As the wife of the King, she will be become his Queen Consort, generally shortened by convention to simply Queen.

It is exactly the same position that Prince Phillip holds as wife to HM. Camilla will become a queen as the wife of a king, rather than a queen that is head of state as HM currently is. If the first marriage was still intact, the same would hold true for Diana.

20 November 2010 at 14:18  
Anonymous Voyager said...

Yes Your Grace it is strange how Prince Charles has only Lord Falconer's strange interpretation of the 1949 Marriage Act to make him believe he can marry in a Register Office.

There is no provision for a Monarch to marry a divorcee and that must have been a consideration for Baldwin as he arranged to be rid of Ribbentrop's mate Edward VIII,

We are probably going to be spared Queen Camilla - the 1640s are returning and we may have Princes Charles, William and Harry in exile on the Cote d'Azure or in Florida if the deconstructing of Great Britain continues

20 November 2010 at 15:26  
Anonymous len said...

If Charles ever became King it would herald the end of the Monarchy so the question about who would be Queen is immaterial.


The real power, influence, and authority resides in the E U our Royalty is only there as a symbol of what we once were.

20 November 2010 at 16:04  
Anonymous Elmo said...

All of you should leave poor Charles and Camilla alone! He made a mistake in his youth, marrying Diana. And poor Diana, God rest her soul, had a trying time because of that awful mistake. But Charles has finally found happiness and peace and we should leave him to it. I am certain he has repented many more times than any of us will have done for the wrongs we have committed. Has anyone heard of forgiveness?

Good grief!

One would have thought he had killed Diana himself!

Long live Charles and Camilla!

20 November 2010 at 16:32  
Anonymous non mouse said...

Len - I fear it, I fear it greatly.
It may be my imagination, but I wondered if HM and Prince Philip both looked particularly grim at the Cenotaph this year. I also noticed that Charles didn't step down backwards - but half turned away from the monument. Doubtless the symbolism was unintentional, but...

What I really cannot fathom, though, is why we don't avail ourselves of that piano wire - and stop paying the euSSR and Westminster. That 'treaty' of theirs cannot be legal: it bypassed consent of the people... and I believe HM had to sign it because our pretend "representatives" claim that Brussell's will is ours.

Could she not have been ill-advised about popular opinion - as indeed she was over Diana? Oh- and as for Camilla: this wasn't a morganatic "marriage"?

Anyway, even if Brussells deprives our monarch of a crown- he's still who he is. They cannot make it otherwise, whatever they believe of their thinking and re-inscription.

20 November 2010 at 16:59  
Blogger Yorky said...

Your Grace,

With Brigadier Parker-Bowles still living and that shambolic registry office "wedding" followed by a blessing by the Church (how can the Church bless something that it disapproves of? if it does not disapprove then why the registry office job?) I have never considered HRH The Prince of Wales and Mrs Andrew Parker-Bowles to be properly married.

Thank God for Toby Young, who has kindly pointed out that I am not alone and have the law of the land on my side (the law of the land being Our laws, not the "Human Rights Act" imposed on us by the EUSSR).

God save the Queen: if she outlives her Heir Apparent all will be good.

20 November 2010 at 17:01  
Anonymous Oswin said...

Mr. Singh @ 12.29

Mr. Singh!

PLEASE, none of that 'Diana' drivel ... enough has surely been enough.

20 November 2010 at 17:36  
Blogger Jared Gaites said...

Your Grace

I have read it somewhere today that the legality of their marriage is questionable. They could not get married in church because Camilla is still a divorcee who has not been released so to speak because her first husband still lives (for the time being anyways). And there is some kind of clause 45 or something which prohibits royalty from joining in wedlock through the weak and pathetic civil ceremony option. So if and when Charlie gets the job, it will be highly doubtful if Camilla will even be considered his wife let alone become bloody queen. Of course, I am simply recycling things that I have read here and there, but I am most certain that you will already be aware of this.

20 November 2010 at 17:37  
Blogger Jared Gaites said...

ooops, somebody has already pointed this out. Apologies.

20 November 2010 at 17:38  
Blogger Gnostic said...

Jug-ears isn't fit to be king. What I think about him and that baggage he's married too I won't post here.

As someone else has already said, let's hope that Brian turns up his toes before Brenda so we can all say a big hurrah for Willy who seems to be an eminently sensible type compared to his buffoonish and sadly deluded old man.

20 November 2010 at 18:31  
Anonymous Oswin said...

Gnostic @ 18.31 : erudite and insightful ... now where's my Sunday Sport?

20 November 2010 at 19:00  
Blogger Richard Gadsden said...

I am curious. My understanding, perhaps incorrect, is that Caroline (wife of George IV) was never Queen Consort because she was never crowned as such; the title is not automatically bestowed merely by marriage.

Perhaps Your Grace will correct me

20 November 2010 at 20:16  
Anonymous Indigo said...

Why is Charles saying this now, that Camilla can be queen? Is he jealous of William and his bride to be? Sounds like it to me.

20 November 2010 at 22:01  
Blogger Jared Gaites said...

Bah, we are all doomed and it's our own fault. In the USA they have a president whose nationality is validly questionable, and here we have a future king whose marriage is not recognised by the church that he is supposed to defend, and is also specifically null and void as far the the state can read into it. Hah, what a bloody state of affairs. Some time in the future there will be a comedian like Frankie Howard taking the piss out of all of us and reducing people to tears of laughter at the ridiculous and comical society we created. How Cranmer can keep a straight face when he tries to big it up is totally beyond my understanding.

20 November 2010 at 22:17  
Anonymous Papal Bull said...

If Prince Charles be lawfully married to Camilla (and, for some, that remains a quite considerable 'if')...
Given that the need for a royal divorce spurred the formation of the Anglican Heresy, I doubt that the CoE could be "iffy" about the legality of the Royal nuptuals.

21 November 2010 at 01:27  
Blogger ENGLISHMAN said...

As mrs winsor has abolished the office of monarch ,with her signature on the sixth and final enslavement treaty,future monarchs are a matter of idle speculation,and just as well judging by the calibre of the contestants.

21 November 2010 at 07:41  
Anonymous Ron Todd said...

The best outcome for the royalists would be for Charles to die before the Queen, avoiding an unpopular king and even more unpopular queen without having to fiddle the sucessesion.

If people realise it is down to parliement to pick the king and that they can ignore the strict line of sucession they might start to question the whole system

21 November 2010 at 09:34  
Anonymous Indigo said...

I think that petty and envious Charles is saying in coded language to Kate that there is no Queen vacancy after his own mother dies.

21 November 2010 at 11:13  
Anonymous Prue said...

If Camilla does not become Queen then she could always become a drag Queen...has the bones for it!

22 November 2010 at 12:12  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Newer›  ‹Older