Not especially a surprising development for a country of which the national church’s founder insisted that his second wife be styled Queen within his first wife’s lifetime, but a disappointing possibility nonetheless:
"Camilla Parker Bowles can become queen after all, despite earlier statements by Prince Charles that she will take a lesser title after marrying him, the government said Monday.
"Replying to a question from a lawmaker, Constitutional Affairs Minister Christopher Leslie said in a written statement that the marriage of Charles and Parker Bowles would not be ‘morganatic’ — in which the spouse of inferior status has no claim to the standing of the other.
"’This is absolutely unequivocal that she automatically becomes queen when he becomes king,’ said Andrew Mackinlay, the lawmaker who raised the question.
"The Department for Constitutional Affairs confirmed that interpretation, saying that legislation would be required to deny Parker Bowles the title of queen. Similar legislation apparently would be required in more than a dozen countries — such as Australia, Jamaica and Canada — in which the British sovereign is the head of state."
Now I happen to be an Anglophile with a particular love for the British monarchy. (My knowledge of British history is primarily focused after the Norman conquest in 1066.) But if I were a Brit, I’d be sorely tempted to vote for any measure that would abolish the monarchy after Queen Elizabeth II passes away. The soap-opera foibles of the Windsors may be entertaining, but surely less expensive and more professional entertainment can be found.
Since I’m not in a position to vote, all I can do is shake my head and sigh over the demise of the once-majestic legacy of the British monarchy.
The British monarchy has run its course. So has the C of E, for that matter. It was cobbled together to suit the exigencies of Henry Tudor’s penis, and a church needs more than that to hold together.
I imagine Camilla (whatever title she uses) will live the life of a minor Royal, cutting ribbons and attending fundraisers for this or that worthy cause. It doesn’t sound like much fun. And my impression is that the Brits like their Royals domestically-minded and well-behaved, and that Camilla will be about as popular as Anne Boleyn was in her day.
Hey Michelle,
I know precious little about the British monarchy, but it does seem interesting. I think that tales of palace intrege would be particularly interesting. Could you recommend a book or two on the subject? Thanks!
I have always stated that the Royal Family and all its trappings are great for Great Britain – or more specifically, England, but have no relevance in our part of the world. When I was young, when we went to the movies, before the films started they would always play “God Save the King (Queen after 1953)” and everyone would stand up to attention.
From the time I was about twelve, I would not stand, and encouraged my friends to follow, which some of them did. I guess its that part of my ancestry that is Irish that makes me a bit republican/bolshie, but I call it free thinking.
After about 1968 they stopped playing the British anthem in New Zealand theatres.
That is not to say that I feelthe same about the system of parliamentary democracy, justice and other things that have made NZ a unique country, much inherited from Britain. My paternal grandfather was a Londoner, and my maternal grandfather a Cornishman(of Scottish descent) Its just the monarchy which I think is an anachronism – all very well for the British, but not down here thanks.
Just skip over Charles and go straight to William.
The monarchy never really recovered after Henry VIII–yes, yes, I’ve heard of Elizabeth, and even Victoria. But Henry was the most destructive man in English history. It just takes some things longer to disappear than others, once they’ve been mortally wounded.
Michelle,
I’m very much inclined to agree with you. I think that the British monarchy has run its course. I’m a fan of royalty also. But, if it were possible to go from Elizabeth to William, I’d give it one more generation.
I like to think of the Queen Mum stepping over the rubble left by bombs in wartime London. The reign of the Royals of the ’40s (after the Duke of Windsor and Wally sailed off in their yacht), and the gov’t of Winston Churchill, by inspiring London during the Blitzkrieg and overseeing Britain’s “finest hour,” represented one of the few bright spots in the dull to dumb to slapsticky British history that Henry VIII and his apostasy begat.
The traditional response would be to look for a better royal house, as was done with the Bloodless Revolution in 1688.
The elimination of the monarchy poses an interesting political question – if the royalty were eliminated, what would the United Kingdom and the other countries do to fill the “Head of State” position? What would happen if the nominated head of state was an activist, trying to usurp the authority of the country’s Prime Minister?
I’m a gung-ho monarchist. I also don’t want lawyers trying to figure out “what’s crown land?” when there’s no crown any more.
This kind of low comedy does not help.
It is apparent that some people are still confused as to the status of Camilla Parker Bowles after her marriage to the Prince of Wales. Andrew Mackinlay (A Thurrockly odious MP) has ‘revealed’ that Camilla would automatically become Queen on the accession of the Prince of Wales to the throne. This ‘revelation’ is not new, and shows the opportunist nature of many politicians, and the danger of politicians and others commenting on technical matters of which they are ignorant or ill-informed.
The wife of a King automatically becomes Queen, not because any Act of Parliament, but because this has been the custom and practice for a thousand years. In the ordinary course of events Camilla would have become Queen Camilla on the accession of Charles to the throne. However the spouse of the Sovereign need not use the title to which she is entitled – and the wives of Kings in Saxon times didn’t generally use the royal title, being styled “Lady” instead. It was announced at the outset that Camilla would not use the title of Queen, just as she will not use the title of Princess of Wales. No change in the law was anticipated, nor is any change needed, either here in the United Kingdom or any of the Commonwealth realms, for either usage. The various Royal Titles Acts in the United Kingdom, Australia, Canada, New Zealand and elsewhere are not relevant, since they deal only with the title of the Sovereign, and not with that of the Consort or members of the Royal Family. These latter titles are regulated by custom and the royal prerogative, not by parliamentary legislation. The position in Australia, Canada and New Zealand is no different to that here in the United Kingdom. To formally deny Camilla the title and status of Queen in any realm would require an Act of Parliament in that realm, but this is not necessary – and indeed would be inappropriate – since it is sufficient for the lesser titles to be used in practice.
A distinction must be drawn between the right to the royal style and title on the one hand, and the possession of constitutional powers and authority, which is vested solely in the person of the Sovereign. The Princess of Wales has no constitutional role or authority as their title is derived solely from their marriage to the Prince of Wales – just as with any marriage to a prince or peer. The Queen Consort has no formal constitutional role or authority, and only some insignificant and largely obsolete legal privileges apart from the customary entitlement to the royal style and title. This is equally true in Australia, Canada, and New Zealand as it is here in the United Kingdom.
The suggestion that Clarence House had deliberately mislead the public is incorrect, as they were simply stating what the intention was. Certain commentators may have drawn incorrect inferences from what had been said, but that is immaterial. The official position is simply that Camilla will be styled Princess Consort upon the accession of the Prince of Wales.
In Saxon times, there were no consort titles in England. This is why the wife of an earl is a countess. They preserved the pre-Conquest title for the noble, but they had to import one for his wife — she wouldn’t have one prior to that.
(In my pseudo-Anglosaxon fantasy, I replaced all references to the queen with “the king’s wife” and a prince with “the king’s son.” 🙂
Which is to say, the Saxon practice is — not entirely relevant.
please make a comment