Talk:Princess consort

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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

Contents

[edit] 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))

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)
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)

[edit] 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))

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)

[edit] 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)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../p/r/i/Talk%7EPrincess_consort_783e.html"