Jill (lilgrrl311) wrote in theroyals,



So now that the Prince of Wales is marrying Camilla Parker Bowles and she's going to be the Princess Consort, does that set a precedent for future Kings of Great Britain? Will William's wife be the Princess Consort too since Queen Victoria's husband was the Prince Consort?

Will there ever be another Queen of Great Britain again?
  • Post a new comment


    Anonymous comments are disabled in this journal

    default userpic
I have a feeling that when Charles does become King, Camilla will become Queen. I think this is just to settle those you are against this marriage and in the years to come we will propably here that when he becomes King she will be his Queen.
Camilla cannot be called queen much like Prince Philip cannot be called king. Certain requirements are necessary for the succession of consorts in the monarchy. One of those includes the title the ruler's partner will take. Diana was the daughter of an Earl, therefore she would take on the title of queen when Charles became king. However, they divorced and she died but continued to possess the title of Princess of Wales. Camilla does not have the same rights because she is not descended from Earls nor is she related to Charles in any close way. Her title will not be Princess of Wales rather Duchess of Cornwall, impying her inferior status. I assume that since neither of them will bear children, the problem of heirs is not an issue. This is different than the problem with Edward VIII of the UK, because Edward still had no heirs and his wife was not royal.

Philip is not king because he was not the heir, Elizabeth II was. William III and Mary II were the only exceptions to that rule, and William was a grandson of a king anyway, so it is much closer. Philip and Elizabeth's closest common ancestor is Victoria, which is four generations back.
oy...you have some terrible misinformation there. daughter of an earl has nothing to do w/ title or style as queen
Camilla could be called Queen consort but I believe QEII and crew are making Princess Consort (which is a new thing) her title in deference to the Diana love.

When Diana died she was Diana, Princess of Wales. She was no longer Diana, HRH THE Princess of Wales. William and Harry are Princes of Wales if they were girls they would be Princesses of Wales. See the difference? She was A princess of Wales not THE Princess of Wales which implies the wife of THE Prince of Wales (heir to the throne).
Technically Camilla will be THE Princess of Wales but again with respect to Diana and probably not to rock the boat too much is choosing to be titled as the wife of one of his lesser titles, Duke of Cornwall, thus making her Duchess. It's nothing to do w/ inferior status. She will now be the second lady in the land. Second to QEII, third is Sophie Wessex (who's daughter while rightfully a Princess is titled/styled Lady Louise), and fourth is the Princess Royal.
The Edward VIII comment is confusing.

If a Queen regnant marries her husband becomes a Prince Consort (so history seems to go).
If a King marries marries his wife becomes a Queen Consort (again...so history seems to go)

Queen Victoria's husband was a Prince Consort because he was not the ruling person. But there have been 3 Queen Consorts after her time, then QEII who is (like Victoria) Queen regnant/reigning.
Camilla *should* be Queen Consort when Charles becomes King. The styling of her as Princess Consort is a mere exercise in diplomacy towards the Diana 'problem' that will always continue.

Williams's wife will more than likely be Queen Consort. There's really no reason she wouldn't be. In England it's something like...the woman takes her name from the man's....I forget the correct wording.
Your points are granted. I partially misread the original thread then went off on a tangent where I lost my train of thought. Quite a common occurence, really. Looking again, I now know why I argued that she would not be the queen and that is because I never think Charles will become king. Not to hard to believe, either, so the succession crisis really amounts to nothing. Queen Elizabeth II is queen and Philip is Prince consort because she is the heir to the throne and he is not. George VI was king, but due to medieval practices, his wife became QUEEN Consort instead of Princess or Duchess consort, just to confuse us all. Why Philip is not KING Consort, we may never know. However, there is to some degree a requirement outside of being protestant to become even a legitimate consort, otherwise King Edward VIII would not have had to abdicate due to his engagement. What this law is, I do not remember so maybe I should look it up again.
In the hierarcy of royalty ... I think Philip was not giving King consort because King is higher than Queen. So placing him as King consort would lead people to believe him higher then his wife. Especially if you called him King Philip and Queen Elizabeth ... it would make people think that he was in charge!
Also I think your right about Charles never become king ....
Yeah, basically. Elizabeth is the one with the royal blood, so to speak, so she is the one on the throne. Philip has no real power in the reigning-monarchial sense and the "King" title would make it seem like the exact opposite. I've never heard of it going "Queen So-and-so and her husband, King So-and-so" whether it be real life or fictional stories. Since women weren't always allowed to rule before men, it never used to be an issue. Whomever she married became king (referencing King William and Queen Mary). Giving Philip the "Prince" title seems to clear up that confusion.
Philip has just as much royal blood as QEII. He was born a Prince of Greece and Denmark.
He took the name Mountbatten when he joined the military (Greek Royals seem to be w/o a surname)
Oh yeah, I know he's got royal blood. I meant British-wise - sorry, I didn't clarify it.

british wise...it's a whole 'nuther germanic story
It's an English thing to not have Queen so and so and her husband King so and so. In Portugual, Queen Maria (oops, her name could've been Isabelle too, I forget her name, but she was a child queen and contemporary of Victoria, and Albert) married Prince Ferdinand of Saxe-Coburg (yes, another one of those pesky Saxe-Coburgs....haha!) and he became King Ferdinand of Portugual. Also, when Mary, Queen of Scots married Henry, Lord Darnley, often times he was referred to as King Henry of Scots (not of Scotland, they didn't use that title, I don't think). However, when Mary Tudor married Philip of Spain, the English had their panties in a bunch contemplating King Philip of England. So, I think that's where the English took their precedence of no King Consorts from; they made that decision and ran with it.