In a follow on from my ‘Why Camilla must become our Queen’ post last week, a lot of comments raised the question of why Prince Philip isn’t king, despite the wife of a king being a queen. On the face of it, it seems bizarre, almost sexist, though in this post I’ll explain exactly why Prince Philip isn’t king and why the wife of a king is always a queen.
Under English common law, a wife traditionally takes her husband’s name and rank upon marriage and as a title legally forms part of one’s name in most cases, titles within the Royal Family work in much the same way as if an untitled couple were to marry and the wife took her husband’s name as her own.
Perhaps the best example of this in action is with Prince Michael of Kent and his wife. Upon his marriage to the then Marie Christine von Reibnitz in 1978, she assumed the female form of his title and became Her Royal Highness Princess Michael of Kent.
Other titles in the Royal Family work on a similar basis. For example, the wife of The Duke of Cambridge is known as The Duchess of Cambridge. Had Prince William not been granted the Dukedom for his marriage, she would have become Princess William of Wales.
On the other hand, when a female Royal marries, the case is much different. If the woman’s title ranks higher than her husband’s already, she retains this title. This is the case for Her Royal Highness The Princess Royal. If she didn’t hold her own title, she would be styled as Lady Laurence as her husband is a knight though because knights rank (way) below the Royal Family, Princess Anne retains her title.
The instance of Princess Anne also demonstrates how the use of titles by marriage is very much a one-way-street. A husband cannot generally take the male form of his wife’s title on marriage, whatever her rank.
It’s a quirk of common law that goes right the way to the top. Prior to acceding to the throne, The Queen held the title HRH The Duchess of Edinburgh which was the female form of her husband’s title, though as the title of Queen ranks higher than Duchess (and because the Sovereign cannot hold peerages and the like), she no longer used the title of Duchess of Edinburgh, whilst The Duke of Edinburgh – to whom the title was issued – continued without any change to his own title.
Whilst this is not the only reason why the husband of a Queen isn’t a King, it is certainly the main one. There is also the issue of rank. Queen Victoria thought that the title of “Duke” was the ‘proper title’ for a holder of a title, which is why Her present Majesty is known as Duke of Lancaster and not Duchess.
Whether or not the status quo should be maintained in terms of titles is a matter which has reached right into Parliament on numerous occasions. A bill in the House of Lords at the moment, the Equality (titles) Bill seeks to give husbands of female peers their own courtesy title, though interestingly not one in parallel with their wife’s – rather they will receive the title of ‘The Honourable’ as things stand.
The issue of making the wives of Kings, Princess Consorts to equalise the issue was discussed during the Succession to the Crown Act readings in the Commons though never made it into the final bill.
As things stand, The Duchess of Cornwall will automatically become Queen when Prince Charles accedes to the throne – with Clarence House still pushing forward with the idea that legislation will be passed to reduce her to the title of Princess Consort.
The matter of titles and how the use of them is regulated is, however, ongoing and new questions are being raised over their use all the time. Who’s to say future consorts of Queens might not end up as Kings?
Give your view in the comments box below. Should the wife of a king be a queen? Or even, should the husband of a queen be made a king?
photo credit: Mikepaws via photopin cc
There seems to be no Equality
It seems throughout history that the female monarchs did not grant their husbands the title king for the simple reason that as the rightful successor to the throne they out ranked all others. Therefore granting their husband’s the title of King would put them in a lesser position and give them equal authority. Perhaps that was one of the reasons Elizabeth1 chose not to marry. Even as recently as the 1950s when the current Queen ascended the throne the notion that the wife was somehow inferior, and her father gave her her orders before Phillip so she would out rank him. It appearsthat the specific title is granted by the sovereign and is not automatic. Even Victoria did not grant her beloved Albert the title of King.
I admire him quite seriously! But frankly he’s lucky to be a prince and a duke. He’d be a long retired navy officer from a disenfranchised royal family, title of prince he had then actually meaning literally nothing, without King George and Queen Elizabeth II. All of his four sisters married Nazi’s and George VI and Queen Elizabeth weren’t all that fond of the idea of Philip marring their daughter. He has been a wonderful consort, however.
He was granted the title of Prince of the United Kingdom
Only three of his sisters married Nazis and they paid heavily for doing so. One was widowed by 1944, another sister’s husband got involved with Claus Von Stauffenberg. Whilst a third was killed in an air crash in 1937 with all her family. Even her daughter, left at home, died shortly afterwards.
Keep in mind, Victoria wanted Albert to be granted the title of King, but the government was very much against it.
Although there are always exceptions, Queen Mary granted Philip of Spain the title of King of England, and William of Orange was granted the title of King through his wife Queen Mary II, and continued to rule as King after her death
Queen Mary lived at a time where King Philip had equal rights to her so he was a sovereign king of England and had equal rights in ruling the country on their marriage as for William, he was King in his own right they were both given the crown not just Mary II
Philip didn’t have equal rights to the English Throne, she specifically had to grant him the Crown Matrimonial giving them to him, and they ended with Mary’s death. William was only invited BECAUSE he was married to the legitimate Protestant Heir Mary Stuart, they were invited to become Joint Monarchs because of her lineage, not his. His army was what they wanted and sweetened the deal for him.
King William had a legitimate claim to the throne being that in addition to being married to Mary Stuart he was also a grandson of Charles I. Therefore they were first cousins. That’s why he was able to rule in his own right after Mary died.
In the case of William and Mary it’s not so much an exception. William III was made king in his own right by Parliament. Philip of Spain however wasn’t. He was king-consort and not a reigning king.
That is what Parliament – yes there was one then – objected to. Philip of Spain was already King there, but the sovereign in England was Mary I and so he had to defer to her. After James II was deposed as king, his daughter, Mary II was a ruling Queen, married to William III, whose mother, Mary of Orange, was the eldest daughter of Charles I. Therefore William III had a good claim to the throne, himself, and was the military leader Mary could not be. The Netherlands att that stage was a Republic headed by a
No Queen Mary didn’t. She would have liked to but Parliament wouldn’t let her. Interesting that William III of England was also William III the Stadtholder of the Netherlands.
You’ve got it in the main, I think. But King George VI only created them Duke and Duchess of Edinburgh, which gave Philip a title, whatever he was called. Just as Camilla still can be called Duchess of Cornwall, whatever else she is called. There were a couple of ruling Queens whose husbands were Kings. Mary 1 did have a husband who was King, but he was already King of Spain. Perhaps Royal central might remind us of how Phillip II of Spain got to be in that position, and what he made of his situation in England? He also proposed to Elizabeth I, who made short work of his offer.
The reason the husband of a Queen Regnant is not a King Consort is pure sexism. It assumes that “king” is automatically higher than “queen” because “king” is masculine.
Don’t think so. The trouble is that a lot of men like to be head of their households. Having a ruling queen as a wife can go against the grain. Philip II was a king in his own right, and he was more interested in Mary Tudor for political advantage, which was against what the English wanted. Even William III, who did have a legitimate claim to the throne, tended to give orders. Of the three Prince Consorts, Prince Albert was probably the most influential in his day. Even the Duke of Edinburgh has protested against the limitations placed on him by his position.
When Mary I married, her husband Philip of Spain was known as king consort. When Mary Queen of Scots married Darnley, he was titled King. It wasn’t until Queen Anne that the English Queen’s husband was not styled king. (Mary II’s husband was actually offered the throne with her.) One (of many) reason attributed to Elizabeth I not marrying was that her advisers did not want any of her romantic interests to become king.
James Stuart, Lord Darnley, was officially King Consort, but had no actual power. Which rather pissed off the impetus lad. He got all hotheaded, and look where *that* got him? Philip of Spain was King Consort of England, but he was enormously unpopular and did little to rock the boat. Thought, he did help keep Elizabeth Tudor alive. Queen Anne husband, Prince George of Denmark and Norway, was a younger son. She wasn’t expected to be Queen, and thus, the marriage contract made no provision for a kingly title. Prince Albert was a second son of a very small German duchy. And not a popular choice. Lord Melbourne advised the Queen not to grant him the title of King Consort, and Parliament wouldn’t grant him a peerage.
I suppose the reason male royal consorts aren’t kings boils down to; it wasn’t a good idea at the time.
I think we may be starting to see some of these kinds of things phase out, and I certainly expect it to speed up as time goes on. I don’t know how Charles will be as King (though I suspect he’ll be more traditional – in today’s sense – like HM), but William has shown a desire to update these kinds of rules, starting with having the laws of succession changed so that his first born child, whether male or female, would be the heir to throne. I think that’s a fairly good glimpse into how William will run the monarchy.
There was a push to change succession laws, which started with Gordon Brown’s government, and which was a main topic at the 2011 Perth CHOGM. There was a bit of a sense of urgency before 23rd July 2013, when Prince George was born. But now everything has died down, since this baby is 3rd in line to the throne, whoever else is born . Could we please have an article on the current state of this bill of accession? I’d like to know if it has been ratified across the Commonwealth, for example.
I thought that it was a done deal but it came to the house at the next sitting to be looked at again. So it is not totally passed. This floored as everyone made the assumption that it was signed and sealed. I would say it would be sure to past because they will be stormed.
The change in succession was not of William’s doing, actually, though I’m sure he’s happy about it.
Actually titles are not regulated by law or by Parliament, the monarchy, who is the “font” is in charge of titles, and requires nothing more than to issue Letters Patent in order to be able to decide on titles. For example, when Edward VII abdicated and was retitled “HRH The Duke of Windsor” upon marriage Wallis would have automatically became “HRH The Duchess of Windsor”, but King George VI, under pressure from his wife and his mother Queen Mary issued the letters denying Wallis the use of the HRH before her name but allowed her to be Her Grace instead. Just as Sarah, Duchess of York upon her divorce was for a short period of time still able to be HRH Sarah, Duchess of York, but on the day that Diana and Charles divorced, the Queen issued Letters revoking the HRH of Sarah, and not extending them to Diana, but effectively changed her title then to Diana, Princess of Wales (the first and so far ONLY time in British history of a non-royal title of Princess). Neither of those required the government to do anything. Just as the Queen legally still retains the right and power to issue a title to any person without consent of Parliament. That is her prerogative, and one of her remaining powers and no one can stop that. Just as she remade Philip into a Prince again- he was HRH Prince Philip of Greece and Denmark, he renounced the title to become Lt. Philip Mountbatten, on his wedding day he was given the title HRH The Duke of Edinburg- making him royal again, but not a Prince, after she became Queen, HM issued letters and renamed him Prince Philip the Duke of Edinburgh. A courtesy she also extended to two of her aunts, once their sons had married instead of remaining the dowager duchess of ….. She allowed them to be called Princess Marina Duchess of Kent (which she legally retained the right to be Princess anyway as she was born Princess Marina of Greece and Denmark) and Princess Alice Duchess of Gloucester, both were allowed to use change their name with the Queen’s blessing only.
Whilst you’re right that the Sovereign is the font of all honour, Parliament does regulate titles (as Parliament can regulate for anything) and has done in the past. For example, the title of Duke of Cornwall is legally ascribed the the heir & eldest son of Sovereign, Queen cannot change this herself. The title of Queen Consort is also laid down by law.
If you ever get old demon camilla as queen, I will feel sorry for you all, I notice that you put such nonsense on prince philp page and not on the queen page! old demon camilla parker bowles most had her touchcy friend prince philip to do it. and poor hen peck charles jush follow. most of all charles mistake is because he does what demon camilla tell him to ! He look like he is honor his mother trying to get on the good side but when he get in he will be like a warlock and put both queen elizabeth and prince philp away
Well, it is a hereditary title. Don’t suppose Parliament can change it either…
Like I said, Parliament can regulate for anything – including titles.
but the law never changed
Wow, quite insightful and brilliantly researched.
What about Alice, Princess of Greece and Denmark? That is to say, Philip’s mother and Elizabeth II’s mother-in-law?
When Charles accedes the throne his wife should be the Duchess of Cornwall.As leader of the Church of England he needs to lead in Church behaviours-. He took Camilla to wife,in the physical sense when his wife, Diana was alive. While recognising that this kind of behaviour seems acceptable these days, the leader of a church….whther queen,pope or whatever,needs to uphold the standards of that church.
Oh relax. The only reason he didn’t marry Camilla back then was that his mother wouldn’t allow it and forced him to marry Diana. He didn’t even like her that much and look what a mess that became. Charles should have married Camilla in the late 70s because that’s who he was in love with. They’re clearly soul mates, they’re still together after all this time. the title is ultimately unimportant. They’re not going to be king and queen for very long. Just let them have it and let it go.
the reason he could not marry camilla was because she was anot virgin
I know. We can see how forcing those out-dated ideas didn’t work out. can’t we? You should marry the person you love… not the person half your age your mother chooses for you.
As long as she’s not the village bike!
Meh. Guys are allowed to ball their way across Europe and be cool, why not women?
Thats fine, no problem with that as long as they don’t object to being called a slapper and understand why no one wants “shop soiled goods”.
I’d much rather have a woman who knows what she wants than some uptight frigid shrew who’s too timid to get it or uptight to enjoy it.
Good for you, if you prefer promiscuous women then no doubt they will offer you plenty of tips and experience. However I fully understand why any mother, not just the Queen, would want to keep her son away from such women and protect the reputation of the family.
Again, I say, it wasn’t the Queen. It was the harrumphing courtiers and members of Lords who insisted on this virginal princess stuff. Which is hypocritical indeed. Nobody insists on men being virginal and faithful, let alone Charles. And that is why Diana got away with her own infidelities somewhat lightly.
Shows what sexist and vile gossips men can be. If Camilla had not have been known to have had “a history” maybe she could have married Charles without all the problems that came later.
I don’t think it was the Queen. Charles met Diana when he was courting her big sister, Sarah, and met her again after Lord Mountbatten was killed. She seemed okay when he took her to Balmoral to stay with the Royal Family. But when he went fishing, taking her with him, a reporter took a photo of them (with long range lenses). The press got to hear of this new girl and what they found out about her ws innocent enough. Prince Philip had a little chat with Charles who was panicked into proposing to Diana rather too soon. To save her reputation. And the rest was history.
Actually charles and diana had known each other all her life, diana was a childhood friend of andrews and the spencer family even called her duch as they believed she would one day marry andrew, however everyone from the queen mother lady fremoy (dianas grandmother) lord spencer onwards could see the glittering prize in front of them, but none more than diana who could see the prize more than anyone, it turned out to be a tragedy, time people moved on and let diana rest in peace and allow charles and camilla to be what they should have been from the get go… Happy
No, it was because she was already divorced once and the Wallis Simpson/abdication affair was still too recent in memory for it to be brushed aside. Andrew Parker-Bowles was Camilla’s second husband.
No, Camilla was only divorced once, because of her relationship with Prince Charles. Andrew Parker Bowles was Camilla’s first husband, who remarried shortly afterwards, but his second wife died in 2010. Wallis Simpson had been married and divorced before she met her Mr Simpson, whom she was divorcing when she met King Edward VIII.
This is simple, the husband of aqueen can not ne a king bbecause he would not be royal blood, hence here in Africa, royalty only goes the male route
you are correct
I he had proposed to Camilla when they were young there probably wouldn’t be a problem. He drug his feet and went away to do his required service to his country and while gone she married Barker-Bowles. She probably thought he didn’t wish to marry her. I think he was still in love with Camilla that’s why he didn’t marry until forced by the family and probably to who. It makes sense that the head of the Church should not have a Queen who is divorced and still has her former husband living. She agreed that she would accept the title of the King’s Consort before they married and this was a part of it being allowed. I clearly remember her saying she was marry him for love not for title.
He did not marry Camilla because she married someone else before he could. Diana was not initially forced to Charles but when the press started pursuing Lady Diana, the Queen pressured Charles to marry her so that he could also save her from disgrace. Charles and Diana were in love during the first stages of the marriage, but Camilla would just not go away. It is true, Camilla is Charles’s true love, but making her queen would surely offend many people, religious or not. At worse, if called queen, Camilla may spark a dangerous kind of anger among the people. I am a Diana fan, but I am also very happy that Camilla and Charles are happily together at last. Ultimately, I think it is still wrong to call her queen… For the sake of the people, the same ones who did not react violently when they decided to marry despite everything. “Queen Camilla” is pushing it too far, in my opinion. Calling her Duchess of Cornwall is such a nice and sensitive gesture, knowing many people would be angered if she is called Princess of Wales (although in reality she is the Princess of Wales.) She should stick to Princess Consort, I don’t think she would mind, she stuck through much worse than that in the past.
I think that Camilla was invited in when his marriage to Diana had already bit the dust, sometime after Harry’s 1984 birth, probably in 1985. About that time Diana acquired a lover, herself. And I think that her famed jealousy of Camilla was also due to press interference. There was an incident before she married Charles, when the press alleged Charles took Diana aboard the royal train. The palace denied it, but surely they would say that anyway to protect Diana’s squeaky clean image. But the press were so positive that Charles had been seen with a blonde woman, they hunted around to see who it might be. Thus, even if it had not been Camilla, Diana’s attention would have already been drawn to her as a possible rival, not simply as the wife of Silver Stick in waiting or whatever her husband’s title was.
well it doesn’t matter what you want, the law is very clear , she will be Queen
Yes, but for how long do you expect prisoners of misdoing to serve their sentence? Does he get a life sentence for something that happened nearly twenty years ago? Diana has died. Even Camilla’s ex-husband’s second wife has also died. There is a place for repentance for past sinful behaviour for even UK’s sovereign, though it doesn’t have to involve sackcloth, ashes and walking barefoot through the snow to Canterbury Cathedral. However the press might refer to Camilla, she will be on most formal occasions be acting as Charles’ consort therefore she would be his queen consort as this article points out. However you regard Charles, he is scarcely the worst Prince of Wales to have ever been crowned. That title would have to belong to George IV who simply debarred his legally married wife, Caroline of Brunswick, from being his Queen, because he simply did not like her.
I totally agree with you!
British Idiots F the queen that ugly old bat
“Whilst this is not the only reason why the wife of a Queen isn’t a king, it is certainly the main one.”
The jump to same sex marriages was sudden.
I would have thought the wife of a Queen would be a Queen however this wouldn’t be the case. However the husband of a King would have to be a King – this could get complicated as it could mean two houses being in power at same time.
She is Queen through her bloodline and her husband can not be King because he is not of a higher blood line to her. She was in line to be monarch.
A bit more serious observation is that I believe the husband of Queen Mary I was known as King Philip although I believe that was because he already had the title King Philip II of Spain. Elizabeth I was never married, Queen Anne’s spouse was Prince George and Queen Victoria’s spouse was Prince Albert. It is an eccentricity in the law that needs to be corrected at some point.
The reason that Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh is not “King” is merely because his wife is “King”. That sounds strange to a PC generation .. but it is a fact. The sovereign can be male or female but the office remains the same.
First of all, HRH The Duchess of Cornwall, who is also legally The Princess of Wales, should be styled as HM The Queen, should her husband accede to the throne. All this public rancor over what should be a private matter between Diana, Charles, Camilla and Tom is silly and accomplishes nothing. Their marriage received the blessing of the Church of England following the civil marriage, so that settles any religious questions. If previous monarchs had been held to the strict morality so many seem to want to impose on HRH The Prince of Wales, the UK’s last monarch would have been Victoria, assuming we excuse the sexual peccadilloes of her predecessors on the throne.
Secondly, Scottish tradition allowed for Lord Darnley to become King Henry, but only in right of his wife. Upon her death, he would have ceased to be king, unless she granted him the crown matrimonial, for which he hankered, but which Mary denied him (smartly).
Camilla is not the princess of wales because only the person who is to become Queen can take that title. When William becomes Prince of Wales, Catherine will be the Princess of Wales exactly as Diana. Charles and Camilla had a Civil Ceremony and then walked the isle together to have the marriage blessed but it was not a Royal Wedding. This really didn’t give her any higher title. She was tremendously happy to marry the man she loved.
It is important to recognize that Camilla carries all the associated titles that Prince Charles carries. That being said, Camilla is Princess of Wales, as well as the Duchess of Cornwall and other titles. These titles pass on to the next in line for the throne once Charles becomes king. No exceptions.
She should be queen that is the proper protocol regardless of the church of England! Religion is a choice unlike being born a royal. Theoretical the church of England doesn’t agree with me my husband and child and look we are living a perfectly good life. So yes why should she have to resort to a lower title. If Charles had married as a widow the we wouldn’t be having this conversation!
My question is, if a man becomes king because of his wife’s title as queen, would they be of equal standing?
Doesn’t a Princess outrank a Duke or Duchess? If so, before ascending to the throne, why was Princess Elizabeth HRH The Duke of Edinburgh?
Before her ascension, she was titled HRH The Princess Elizabeth, Duchess of Edinburgh
Not always. Duke/Duchess is also the title of a sovereign (and sovereign is the highest rank) just like King/Queen in a Monarchy/Kingdom when the country is consider a duchy. The Queen of England is also the Duke/Duchess of Normandy. In Normandy not being part of England, the Queen is the Duchess (Duke) not the Queen in a manner of speaking. It is confusing because the title Duke is used for a rank less than sovereign in a Monarchy/Kingdom. Its kind of like asking which is higher King or Emperor (or Archduke)?
It was my understanding that there are two forms of “queen” a queen in her own right is in fact King (using the female version Queen) a consort is queen but subject to her King.
Great post with wonderful insight. Thank you! xo
there is only one real KING that believe in – King Lebron James, or “King James”….and if he marries, the wife will be called, “Lifetime Ticketholder” to the King’s games.
It is correct that Prince Philip should be Prince Consort, and he has done a wonderful job supporting the Queen. I can’t see this a problem. I wouldn’t like to see the Duchess of Cornwall as Queen, there are a lot of problems that come with Prince Charles and for the good of the Monarchy I wish there was a way to make William the next King as it is much less controversial and world wide the Monarchy would go down a lot better.
Did not Edward the 3rd have to abitate the thrown to Wallis Simpson a twice divorced woman? King George had to step into his place with no training and this is how Princess Elizabeth became Queen. I don’t understand how Prince Charles should not have had to do the same thing to marry the divorced Camilla.
You can not compare the Queen with Prince Charles. Yes he will become king but Camila should be Princess Consort. She is the second wife and therefore should not be entitled to the title of Queen. That title was for Princess Diana. I only hope parliament thinks the same way. Camila booted out Princess Diana by making Charles an adulterer. Camila was no better in her role in this either.
I think you should define the differense between a Female King anf a Queen,
very interesting , thank you for clearing this up.
In my opinion, Camila doesn’t deservr to be a queen, because she es a divorce woman, she was the lover fir many years, not the wife. Diana deserved to be the queen !!!!
Sincerely hope that Charles never becomes King because I could not stand Camilla being queen. If the queen lives long enough she might outlive Charles. Yes, he should have married her and not Diana but he did marry Diana and he should have been faithful to her and let his horsey Camilla go. I have no respect for either of them.
No to Camilla becoming our Queen, the rules need to be changed and she should be Princess Consort I hate to think of her taking over the title from our wonderful Queen.
1 (?): Not necessarily 2 (?): No
There is a line of succession and Prince William is second in line for the throne, not first. Prince Charles will be king and, whatever title Camilla has, she will be the King’s consort. It’s not our choice… it’s law!
The husband of a queen can not and shouldn’t be king. Comilla should never be a queen as she is a devorsee and also, no one really likes her anyway and would ruin Charles as a kightful king.
the reason he didn’t marry her back then was because she was already married to Lord Albert her first husband, it wasn’t that his mother didnt approve or allow it, she was married, when she was divorced after Lord Albert learned of the affair he was married to Princess Diana. the duchess of cornwall can’t not become Queen as England still has that law where a divorced woman can’t hold the title of Queen, i t is why the Queen’s uncle gave up the throne so he could marry his divorced girlfriend.
Camilla does not deserve to be queen she caused Dian’s divorce
Camilla should become Queen Consort when her ex-husband dies. Untill then HRH the Princess Charles, Dutchess of Cornwall.
If Queen Ellizabeth has somthinggood a Lady can’t give a tittle to no man but if she was/is protected when her dad died and made her Queen of Great Britain because that is how we all know her so when her father died she was protected as as if she has a King because she is protected good in other word’s King Phillip now become’s king due to the protection of Queen Ellizabeth if she is protected and has a husband Phillip he is protected as as King Phillip
The only case in the British islands where there was s provision of co sovereignty of the Queen and her husband was the Crown matrimonial of Scotland . I would suspect that the provisions of this case must have been incorporated in the British crown after the act of union . Henceforth should the parliament felt that the Duke of Edinburgh should co reign along the Queen there is legal basis for that . Crown matrimonial was restorted to Francis of Lorraine to co reign along with his spouse Maria Theresa of Austria and Hungary , and before in the kingdom of Jerusalem. Regarding the title of a Queen Consort vs princess consort , I would say that for the duchess of Cornwall is more appropriate the princess consort as she already uses an inferior title to that of her husband’s. As such to keep up with current arrangement the Queen consort could not be an option . This however must not apply to HRH the Duchess of Cambridge who shares her husband’s position at par and as such HM Queen Catherine the Queen Consort is the most appropriate style .
I wished Prince William got it I don’t won’t Charles and Camilla doing it but oh well I don’t live there in the country
NO! She is not Queen Material.. First of all not fair that she would get that high of a title when Queen Elizabeth’s husband is called Prince Philip,Duke of Edinburgh and does not bare the King title! What has she done to earn the title Queen really??? When Charles accedes the throne his wife should be the Duchess of Cornwall and that’s that!!!
I believe that Camilla should be queen to help HRH Charles during these new and advancing times. I truly think she is a kind soul.
I thin he is sorepost to be king know
What about William III and Mary II? He was more or less king because he was married to the previous king’s daughter, no? Yes, there was a lot of other things, the Glorious Revolution, but they were offered to be co-regents by Parliament. A very special case, agreed.
To receive the latest Royal Central posts straight to your email inbox, enter your email address below and press subscribe.
Join 661 other subscribers