To Top

Will Camilla actually be Princess Consort?

At the beginning of the year, I wrote a blog called ‘why Camilla must become our Queen‘. Since its publication, the article became the site’s single most discussed article, receiving over several hundred comments with varying views and numerous email responses to the site’s editors.

In the piece, I argued it would create a dangerous precedent for Camilla to be denied the rightful title of Queen and could create uncertainty about the future for the title of Queen Consort.

Since then, I have spent some time looking into the legality and practicalities of the matter to try and determine whether Camilla will ever be Queen or whether she is, as is widely touted, destined to be Princess Consort. Contacting several government departments and with the help of numerous individuals in the research process, I have pieced together the full story which I hope sheds a whole lot more light on the situation.

As most people know, at the time of their wedding in 2005, it was announced that upon the Prince of Wales’s accession to the throne, Camilla would take on the title of HRH The Princess Consort instead of the traditional title of HM The Queen.

Primarily taken to quell the hostility to the couple, it was a message that went widely unchallenged by the then ambivalent press and public, with many asserting it to be the right move.

Almost ten years on and whilst public opinion has now turned in favour of her becoming Queen, Clarence House’s position persists: Camilla will become Princess Consort.

Quite unnoticed in the press (and by me in my research until recently), the legality of the matter was quietly settled in a series of reports and statements from Parliament, as well as by Clarence House in statements that have been lost in the mists of time.

Based on this finding, I’m now able to confirm what I’ve suspected for a long time, that the title of Queen Consort is not actually established by law per se.

Instead, its usage is established through custom and precedent and, according to officials, there will therefore be no need for a change in law or introduction of a new law to give Camilla the status of Princess Consort instead of Queen; rather in the same way as she is currently known as Duchess of Cornwall whilst technically being Princess of Wales, she will be known as Princess Consort instead.

There is no single document which denotes that the wife of a King shall be a Queen or in fact that they should hold any title at all. The title for any wife in England derives from common law, with the wife conventionally taking her husband’s rank and style. Whilst this would in theory mean Camilla took the title of Queen, there are other factors which alter this.

It reality the royal style, with the exception of the Sovereign’s title, is subject of the royal prerogative rather than the regulation of Parliament. Hence why Diana, Princess of Wales’s style of HRH was able to be removed in 1996 by letters patent at the will of The Queen rather than through parliamentary intervention and also why Camilla is recognised as Duchess of Cornwall and not Princess of Wales.

Because of this, Prince Charles could determine any title he wished for Camilla upon his accession to the throne through the royal prerogative, though it has never been used to alter the title of the wife of the King before.

Additionally, there are almost no references (I couldn’t find any during a cursory search) to the title of Queen consort in law, and the legal status and privileges associated with Queen consorts are now virtually extinct.

Similarly, there is no requirement for the spouse of the Monarch to take the coronation oath like there is for the Sovereign (though done by many Queen consorts by tradition). Despite all of this however, the consort of the Monarch does occupy a curious and serious constitutional position with the possibility of having some responsibilities in law, such us in the occasion that the Monarch becomes incapacitated or (though not applicable now) the heir is a minor.

Although not answered directly, the inference from officials was also that Camilla would also not be crowned alongside the Prince of Wales. Rather, she will probably assume a similar place to that of the Duke of Edinburgh during the 1953 coronation.

Many people, myself included, continue to advocate the continued usage of the title of Queen by the wife of the King, not just because of personal admiration for the Duchess of Cornwall, but also to avoid the situation where denying the title to one consort may see the end to it altogether, and a consequence being no Queen Catherine as well as no Queen Camilla.

It does though seem pretty inescapable that Camilla will take on the title of Princess Consort, and those around her say she has no interest in taking on a higher title herself. The issue can only be kicked into the grass for so long, and whilst I don’t suspect there will be a U-turn on the matter, one day in the future I do think people will still react with surprise to find that we have a King with no Queen.

photo credit: Shaun Amey Photography via photopin cc

  • Leo Jones

    I understand why they did it at the time, with all those looney grannies taking sides in a personal love issue, but, now, it is not correct and should not stand. She has done her penance, she is a good wife and dutiful member of the royal family. It is clear that the Queen and government have accepted her and she does well on royal visits at home and abroad. She has not that I am aware put a foot wrong in her consort role at all.
    So, she should now be called the Princess of Wales and later the Queen. She is and will be those things and to deny her alone them is ridiculous and, if you consider the people in history who have had them, very unfair. The way some sections of the public are behaving you would think we are the most moral and virtuous age there has been, but, well, we know the truth of that.

    • Juan Jesús Ladrón de Guevara

      The author seems to forget a remarkable fact, Camilla is undoubtedly married to the next British King, that is Crown Prince Charles, but she is NOT the mother of the following King in line, that is Prince William. We must not forget that the primary mission of the Queen Consort is not only to accompany the King as his wife, but also (and I dare say most important engagement) to produce a heir to the Throne. In Spain, we have a precedent of this. King Alfonso XII’s first wife, María de las Mercedes, would become Queen Consort on her marriage, but as she died only a few months later without having the opportunity of giving birth, she was not buried at the Royal Pantheon of El Escorial, thus being somehow “deprived” of her status of Queen as she was unable to produce a heir for the Spanish Crown.

      • Percy

        The six wives of Henry VIII were all queens, even though only three of them produced an heir.

        • Chloe Howard

          Interestingly though, only his first 2 were crowned – Katherine and Anne

    • Richard gray

      Well said

    • Michael Steven Chavez

      I concur.

    • Collette C. Kilbourne

      I think it has been the “loony grannies'” position that Charles and Camilla came about as the result of an adulterous affair on both sides. They are both divorced, but Camilla had a living ex-husband. It is, I agree, hypocritical to brand Camilla as an adulterous and not Charles an adulterer, but such has been in the past, the way of things. He was born and raised to be King. As for her penance, I don’t look at it that way at all. She is a good and faithful wife to Charles. Just not a Queen. I like the title of Princess Consort. Its a lovely title and sounds so young.

    • esperanza

      And what a short memory you have or have forgotten the respect that is dued to Diana that she did not deserve to be through this kind of life and how it ended. Charles is divorced because of Camilla and the title was given to Diana so the Queen did not give Camilla that title , it would be in poor taste for Camilla to be Queen of anything at all.

      • Ricky

        The Queen did not give Diana the title Princess of Wales. Diana acquired it automatically when she married the Prince of Wales, as English common law and tradition both dictate.

        Your judgement on the Wales’ marital issues do not affect this.

  • Richard gray

    Camilla sould become our queen bless her.x

    • Queen Adulteress

      Hail! Our Queen of adultery and deceipt!

      • Richard gray

        Di was doing the same.

  • anon

    I do not think the final answer will be given until Charles acends the throne. It sounds like it is his decision.

  • Dameon Huber

    I don’t know typical British custom, but as Diana was the lawful wedded wife of Charles and produced an heir, I should think she would have been Queen. As Camilla, however wonderful she is viewed, did not produce William (the next in line) she should not be Queen (Consort or whatever) but Princess Consort. This is why arranged marriages should have been outlawed long ago. Charles should only have married for love not duty. Not blaming him for anything, he did what was required of him.

    As to this author stating that if Camilla was denied the title of Queen Consort that somehow Katherine would as well, is illogical. Katherine has produced the next heir to the throne – George; and therefore would enjoy the right to the title Queen upon William’s ascension to the throne. Not to mention when Charles ascends to be King, she would be the next Princess of Wales.

    • Jim Duffy

      Being queen is not linked to the production of an heir. It is linked simply to being the wife of the king. Your theory is incorrect Dameon.

      • esperanza

        But Diana was before Camilla and had the title of Princess of Wales so therefore she cannot have that title and is not the mother to the future king, Prince William.

        • Ricky

          The chronologic order of the marriages have no bearing on any of this. Nor does the issue of Diana being Prince William’s mother affect this in any way.

        • Guest

          Diana ceased to be Princess of Wales on her divorce so Camilla is actually now the Princess of Wales even if she doesn’t use the title.

  • Robert Lewis

    I am an American; so, take my thoughts with a grain of salt. May Queen Elizabeth II continue to live a long and healthy life. I do not wish to offend the Royal Family nor the people of the Commonwealth by my speculation. I can see why Camilla should not be The Princess of Wales…and why they did what they did regarding her title. Diana was The Princess of Wales and Camilla was wise and prudent not to assume that title. Diana and Charles divorced, nor is Diana living among us in this world. Diana never had the title of Queen Consort. Camilla would not be “upstaging” that title from Diana or vice versa. When the moment comes and Charles is king, Camilla rightfully should be called queen consort.

    • Ricky

      Whether or not Camilla uses the title Princess of Wales, legally she is now the rightful holder of that title. When Charles becomes King, Camilla will automatically become Queen.

      It would require an act of Parliament to downgrade her status after Charles’ accession. Even if something of that nature made it’s way through Parliament, it would still require Royal Assent (the monarch’s signature).

      I’d hate to be the courtier to present the papers to King Charles III, saying “Your Majesty, please sign this document to deprive Her Majesty the Queen of her title.”

      One can imagine his reaction.

      • John Mills

        There is no written constitution for Great Britain as noted in the original article. It is therefore by decree of the reigning monarch what titles will be borne by the royals. There is no need for an Act of Parliament. The Duchess of Cornwall, as previously determined, will be styled Princess Consort on the accession of Charles as King.

        • Ricky

          When using the term “constitutionally,” as it relates to the UK, it refers to tradition and precedent.

          There is a book, “The English Constitution,” by Walter Bagehot which discusses the concept that Britain has an unwritten constitution based on these things. This is what I had in mind when I mentioned this.

          • Leo of London

            I think it might be the case that King has it in his power to his wife any title he would like Ie Queen/ Princess Consort – So i don’t think their is any need for a Act of Parliament at all.

      • esperanza

        But I think Queen Elizabeth has already planned this before she leaves and understands the gravity of it all not just for her son but for her grandson.

        • Ricky

          Monarchs of the United Kingdom do not choose their successors the way some of the Arab kingdoms do.

          There are clear rules for the succession of the throne, and you keep making inaccurate statements even though you obviously don’t understand how this works.

          Having studied royal history for many years, I know what I’m talking about. I don’t mean to be unkind, but I urge you to educate yourself, then come back and post comments.

    • esperanza

      Diana is not living but her kids are and one of them is future king Prince William and out of respect that won’t happen, she should just be happy with the princess title.

  • Janet Slaten Mohr

    I would like for prince william ‘s wife to be named Queen. The title for Camilla should not be Queen as in repect for his first wife Diane. My thoughts.

    • minty

      Awful scenario: the future King Charles dies many many years from now leaving Camilla as “Queen Mother” after William and Katherine ascend the throne. !!!! She should not be styled that way since she is not William’s mother. Princess Consort is as good a status as Prince Consort, the one faithful Prince Phillip holds.

      • LauraS

        Camilla can become “Queen Dowager” i.e. “Queen Widow” but never “Queen Mother” as that is only the position of a widowed Queen whose child is the current monarch. The last time that has happened was with the death of King William IV – his wife Queen Adelaide was Queen Dowager but his niece Victoria was Queen. (Also, Queen Victoria’s mother remained simply “The Duchess of Kent” and not “Queen Mother” as she herself had never been Queen.) From February 1952 to March 1953 there were three Queens in the UK: HM Queen Elizabeth II; HM Queen Elizabeth The Queen Mother; and HM Queen Mary – who was Queen Dowager. Mary HAD been “Queen Mother” during the reigns of her sons Edward VIII and George VI, but was not during that of her granddaughter.

        • Cheryl Webb Clair

          I don’t think Queen Mary was ever called the Queen Mother. I think she was always referred to as the Dowager Queen Mary.

          • HM Queen Mary was referred to as “Queen Mother” after the accession of her two sons to the throne. Once HM The Queen acceded to the Throne, she became the Queen Dowager so that HM’s mother, HM Queen Elizabeth, the Queen Consort, could then be called HM, The Queen Mother.

          • Cheryl Webb Clair

            Queen Mary died shortly before the coronation of Queen Elizabeth II so she wasn’t known as anything but the late Dowager Queen.

          • simhedges

            Whatever the offical rules, my parents used to refer to Queen Mary as Queen Mary. The Queen Mother (Elizabeth Bowes Lyon) was universally referred to as the Queen Mother (after her husband died) because otherwise we would have had two Queen Elizabeths.

          • Cheryl Webb Clair

            Sorry Jarrod, I misread your post. I understand what you mean.

        • Ricky

          Queen Alexandra would have been entitled to be known as Queen Mother after King Edward VII died in 1910, which put her son, King George V on the throne. I don’t know if she ever used that title, though.

          • The title of Queen Mother was created by Elizabeth II to differentiate between herself and her mother. Everyone knew who Queen Alexandra was. Everyone knew who Queen Mary was, but a differentiation add to be made between the Queen Consort and the Queen Regnant. It was another consequence of the abdication of Bertie’s brother David. Had they known, Bertie would have never married an aristocratic commoner and had they known, they would have not given the future Queen the same name as her mother. Hindsight is 20/20.

          • Guest

            Elizabeth didn’t create the title Queen Mother, It is a title that has been in use for centuries. My aunt had a book that was brought out to celebrate the silver jubilee of King George V and Queen Mary and each chapter was dedicated to a different year of their reign. At the start of 1925 it states “in this year the Queen Mother died” and that was Queen Alexandra. Queen Mary’s official title after the death of George V was Queen Mother but she she never used it as she didn’t like the title. It is not even a title unique to the UK. Queen Emma of the Netherlands, the mother of Queen Wilhelmina was known as the Koningin Moeder which means Queen Mother.

          • Glasgow1975

            1925 isn’t ‘centuries’ and it wasn’t in popular use. Centuries ago Mother of The King or My Lady The King’s Mother were the more usual form taken.

      • Casey

        Any male consort holds the title of Prince Consort, i.e. Prince Albert and Prince Philip. Any female consort is titled Queen Consort. It has nothing to do with one being better than the other, just the way it’s always been.

        • Glasgow1975

          This is largely to put them in their place, ie HM The Queen is The Monarch, the man is just somebody she married, NOT The King. This of course differs from earlier times when the husband of The Queen automatically became King, and often ruled jointly, as ‘women’ weren’t seen as fit to rule – hence Elizabeth I refusing to marry – William of Orange was invited to rule jointly with his wife Mary – the legitimate Protestant Heir, and indeed continued to rule as Monarch in his own right after her death. Prince Albert was seen as a provincial Princeling, as was Prince Philip, neither of which The Establishment wished to be King

          • Great points, Glasgow1975

          • SmartySpice

            Very true, but it’s also true that William had a pretty good claim to the throne in his own right.

        • Not true. It is up to the King to decide what to style his wife. There is no requirement for her to be Queen consort. This has been said in the news many times.

          • esperanza

            Well if Camillia keeps nagging Charles he probably won’t give her a title, she waited so long for this that she made sure she would ruin Diana’s relationship.

          • Ricky

            Your moral judgements have no bearing on the legalities of royal titles. Get your own life in order before passing judgement on people you’ve never met.

          • S p

            Read the history buddy

          • Ricky

            I’ve been studying the history of European royalty for almost 30 years, and I understand it far better than you do.

            Your opinion comes from reading gossip served up by the popular press, and you’ve chosen to adopt in order to pass judgement on people and an institution you don’t understand.

            Pick up some serious literature and educate yourself.

          • S p

            Camilla is a homewrecker. And the monarchy is so jacked up they are a bunch of hypocrites. Princess Diana was A true Royal.

        • simhedges

          Not quite always. When Phiip II of Spain was married to Mary I, he was King Philip of England, and for a time Lord Darnley (husband of Mary Queen of Scots) was referred to as King of Scotland by some. It seems to have settled down as “Prince” somewhere in the ealy 19th Century with Queen Anne’s husband. Prince Philip was made a Prince of the United Kingdom by the Queen, but he is not Prince Consort. The only Prince Consort (as opposed to Prince consort) that the UK has ever had is Prince Albert.

      • Glasgow1975

        ‘Queen Mother’ was a largely invented courtesy title to avoid confusion between Dowager Queen Elizabeth, and HM Queen Elizabeth II – had HM decided to become Queen Alexandra, or even Queen Mary III it wouldn’t even have been needed. – ‘Queen Mother’ isn’t an Official Royal Title – Queen Elizabeth also felt she was a little young for ‘Dowager’ status . . .

        • Guest

          Sorry but you are wrong, the title Queen Mother has been in existence for centuries. See my post above.

          • Glasgow1975

            I said ‘largely invented’, I never said nobody in history had ever been called it! I stand by my comment, since your example, of a book, is hardly legal precedent. Furthermore it was never actually used within the family or by the public. Foreign Royals using it also doesn’t have any bearing on the discussion.

      • Agree with you totally, minty.

  • Claudia Marek

    Well, maybe Andrew Parker Bowles will kick the bucket before the Queen, then they can remarry and presto! no problem.

    • Danielle V

      That was my thought as well. Andrew Parker-Bowles is the issue. Charles was divorced from his first wife, but in the eyes of the church, he’s a widower since Diana died. Camilla’s first husband is still with us. Until he passes, as Supreme Governor of the Anglican Church, their marriage is more like a morganatic marriage. And by the way, The Duke of Windsor never had any kids with Wallis, so no chance of them trying to take the throne. If he had stayed on until his death in 1972, the current Queen was still next in line after her late father.

      • simhedges

        The Church of England recognises Prince Charles’s marriage as valid.

  • Patummas Siri

    I understand them about this.

  • Annette

    Isn’t there a big difference between Camilla and Catherine- Camilla being the second wife of a divorced king and Catherine being the one and only wife?

    • Casey

      Definitely, and it is an easy difference at the moment. But If Charles holds the throne for a long time and public attitude towards Camilla continues easing- by the time William succeeds, ‘Princess Consort’ may be the accepted normal title. Between Queen Elizabeth’s and Charles’ reigns, it could potentially make almost a century since there was both a King and Queen. By that time it could be considered outdated.

  • Michael Steven Chavez

    Hold on a second! Edward VIII was forced to abdicate because of the argument that, once married, his wife must needs be Queen, and a twice-divorced Mrs. Simpson was unacceptable as Queen to HM Government, as well as to the heads of the Commonwealth countries. This was due both to her American-ness as well as her divorced status (with 2 living ex-husbands), which was unacceptable at the time to the Church of England, of which the monarch is the supreme governor.

    It was also mooted at the time that the UK has no tradition of morganatic marriage, in which the wife bears a title inferior to her husband’s. Her Royal Highness’s current usage of the Cornwall title doesn’t count, because she is legally still the Princess of Wales.

    Should Charles accede, Camilla should be Queen. Period.

  • BS

    Am I the only one who feels the Queen should have been at Westminster
    Abbey. Our people died for King and Country and I feel passionately that
    the Kings Granddaughter should have been there not the Duchess of
    Cornwall who holds no status to do such an important symbolic act. She will never be accepted as Queen only will ever be an adulteress!

  • Emily Elizabeth Windsor-Cragg

    In this case, Wallis Simpson also could have served as Princess Consort. There’s your precedent. Either restore the Duchy of Windsor’s estate [to his children], or give Camilla the same outcome that Wallis Simpson got–Anathema and Oblivion. 🙂

    • Chloe Howard

      There was no chance Wallis could have served as consort, as attitudes at the time we so different towards divorce.
      Now attitudes have changed and Camilla is recognised by many to be hard-working, and most (in my opinion) would not object to her as Queen, nor as Princess Consort.

      • Emily Elizabeth Windsor-Cragg

        Our preferences do not matter. This is a matter of Law, the 1773 Marriage Act, the 1703 Settlement Act and English Common Law. You want to just wish the Law away and/or adopt Muslim Sharia Law when the Muslims overwhelm British Parliamentary procedure and impose that on us all? Or do you have enough respect for English Laws under which the Monarchy has been governed since the Hanoverians took over … so that you will permit our Laws to STAND and be applied accordingly?

        • Leo of London

          Wallis Simpson and the king never had any kids, did they?

          • Ricky

            I read in one of the biographies that one of Wallis’ friends asked her why she never had children. She replied that it wasn’t possible because the Duke wasn’t “heir-conditioned,” as she put it.

            The reason for this is that while the Duke was at his boarding school at around age 9 or 10, an epidemic of mumps spread through his dormitory. This is said to have interfered with his glandular development, and left him unable to father children.

          • Guest

            Another reason for no children was that Wallis was not 100% female.

          • Ricky

            I’m sure you wouldn’t make that kind of claim without a reliable reference to cite. That is, something more credible than tabloid speculation or society gossip from the 1930’s.

            Would you care to share your source with us please?

          • Guest

            Most of what I know about Wallis Simpson is from books written about her. Apparently at birth there was confusion as to what sex she was because she had strange looking genitalia.

            The writer Michael Bloch, who lived and worked in Wallis’s house in Paris for years during the later years of her life, claimed that he’d discussed her sexuality with doctors. He came to the conclusion that she may have been suffering from Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome, or AIS, which is at the milder end of the intersexuality spectrum. A girl with AIS is born genetically male as she has the XY chromosome. But because her body’s receptors are insensitive to large amounts of testosterone she produces, she develops outwardly as a woman. At puberty, however, the build-up of testosterone can result in long legs, large hands and strong muscles that aid athletic ability — all of which Wallis possessed.

            Another possibility is that she was born a pseudo-hermaphrodite, with the internal reproductive organs of one sex and the external organs of another. Was this the case with Wallis? It certainly makes sense of an extraordinary remark she once made to a friend.
            She had never had sexual intercourse with either of her first two husbands, she confided; nor had she ever allowed anyone else to touch her below her personal ‘Mason–Dixon line’ — the name given to the border between the Southern and Northern parts of the United States. Without the benefit of a full ultrasound or scan, which hadn’t yet been invented, the condition could not have been diagnosed at her birth. So although Dr Lewis Allen, who delivered Wallis in 1898, might have noticed the baby had strange-looking genitalia, he would have done his best to reassure her parents. ‘She’ll grow out of it,’ he told them.

            And, indeed, until puberty, such girls easily pass as normal pre-pubescent females. After puberty, however, there can be a noticeable drift towards the external features of a male — such as a masculine bone structure, accelerated muscle development and a deep voice.
            On the face of it, at least, Wallis fits the bill. The biographer James Pope-Hennessy, who met her in 1958, commented in his journal that Wallis was ‘one of the very oddest women I have ever seen’.
            ‘She is, to look at, phenomenal,’ he added. ‘She is flat and angular and could have been designed for a medieval playing card. I should be tempted to classify her as an American woman par excellence were it not for the suspicion that she is not a woman at all.’

            It wasn’t just her physical characteristics that had masculine tendencies.
            A well-known German graphologist, who was given a sample of her hand-writing but not her identity, concluded that the writer was ‘a woman with a strong male inclination in the sense of activity, vitality and initiative. She must dominate, she must have authority, and without sufficient scope for her powers can become disagreeable. She is ruled by contradictory impulses.’Few who knew Wallis would argue with the accuracy of that analysis.

            Of more weight is the opinion of Dr Christopher Inglefield, a plastic surgeon specialising in gender surgery today. Through his clinical practice, in which he advises patients on corrective surgery, he has considerable experience in assessing whether an individual is predisposed to survive as one sex or the other. According to him, Wallis’s known physical and behavioural characteristics clearly fit the stereotype for intersexuality. He points out that her angular, almost square-jawed face indicates a lack of the female hormone, oestrogen.
            Her masculine traits become even more obvious, he says, when you look at photographs of Wallis posing with her girlfriends — such as her best friend from school, Mary Kirk.

            ‘Oestrogen is very softening. You can see Wallis’s condition clearly next to the very rounded face of Mary. Today, a course of oestrogen therapy can transform facial features. Had it been available in Wallis’s day, it would have dramatically changed her appearance.’
            It’s well-known, too, that a lack of ovaries affects body shape and breast development. Indeed, several successful models with an impossibly lean, rangy look are known to be women born with Disorders of Sexual Development.

            Wallis, for her part, was whippet-thin as a child. Thereafter, she became obsessed with maintaining a slim silhouette, which is of critical importance to intersexual women who want to avoid a masculine, solid appearance with no discernible waistline.

            There are yet more clues in Wallis’s behaviour. Dr Inglefield explains: ‘The problem for these individuals is: how do you confirm that you’re female if your biological responses are not like other girls?
            ‘Often, for a female lacking female organs, being boy-mad is one typical response; another is to get married as quickly as possible, thereby telling your peers you are a normal female.’

            Not only is early marriage often the norm, but so is the urge to dress in a feminising way because of the need to fit into society — and Wallis, of course, first married at 20 and later became famous for her jewels and couture clothes. ‘Look at me, I’m a woman,’ she was saying, in effect. ‘I’m not the prettiest thing you’ve ever seen, but I am so elegant. I’m the epitome of womanhood.’

            Wallis may have been born with a Disorder of Sexual Development, a term which covers a whole spectrum of conditions, from subtle sexual uncertainty through to hermaphroditism, and essentially means a mismatch between the outer gender indicators and inner reproductive organs. It’s a condition that apparently affects one in 15,000 births, and was, until fairly recently, often badly dealt with or ignored by the medical profession. There is no hard evidence that Wallis suffered from any such condition, but the fact that she never had children, despite a fairly promiscuous life at a time when contraception was very uncertain, as well as her deep voice, mannish figure and angular face, all lend some weight to the speculation.

            According to Christopher Wilson’s book “Dancing with the Devil” Dr john Randell, consultant psychiatrist at Charing Cross Hospital in London and an expert in differences between men and women, told one of Wallis’s biographers, Michael Brock, “I want to tell you something extraordinary about her, to keep at the back of your mind. The Duchess was a man. There is no doubt about it, for I’ve heard the details from a colleague who examined her. She was a man.” It was suggested by a colleague of Dr. Randell’s that what he referred to was “a rare condition known as Androgen Insensitivity Syndrom (AIS) where a child is born genetically male with the male XY chromosome. However, the body does not respond to the male sex hormone and develops as a female. When they reach maturity, such women exude certain male characteristics and can have strident personalities; they cannot bear children and, unless aided by surgery, cannot experience sexual intercourse.”

          • Ricky

            In your own words, what you wrote consists of claims, possibilities, opinions, hearsay, and clues. But no verifiable facts to supply proof of anything.

            BTW, I’m a retired pharmacist and very well informed on medical matters, especially pharmacological issues such as hormones like estrogen and testosterone.

        • Carole

          Wow, xenophobic or what? Madam, you come across as a bigot and a rather nasty one at that.

          HRH The Duchess of Cornwall has proved herself to be a hard working, loyal wife and member of our Royal Family. Her predecessor, sadly, was too young and far too inexperienced to take on the role she ‘inherited’ upon her marriage. Had HRH The Prince of Wales followed his heart originally, this conversation would never have arisen. I feel for both women, neither were ever going to ‘win’ in this argument. Of course, an interesting question would arise should our current PoW predecease his Mother as too what title his wife should bear if the Crown passed to our current Monarch’s grandson.

          As for the Duchess becoming Queen when her husband inherits the Throne, personally I hope she does. That, however, appears to be in the pervue of her husband, the then Monarch.

  • Joao Rozo

    I have to disagree with the author here on one point .. The Duchess of Cornwall IS also The Princess of Wales .. legally! She has chosen NOT to use this title because of Prince Charles previous marriage to Diana, Princess of Wales .. (a title Diana “earned” upon her divorce from the Prince) .. seemed to me there are issues with this article that need editing ..

    • Ricky

      I don’t understand why you would take exception to anything the author has written here. The article clearly states in the 9th paragraph that while Camilla is known as the Duchess of Cornwall, she is technically the Princess of Wales.

      I didn’t see anything else that appeared to need editing, but if you’d care to elaborate about the “issues” you mentioned, I’d be interested to know what you meant.

    • Royal Central

      There is some considerable debate over this. From my research, the Duchess of Cornwall is not the Princess of Wales. Rather she is merely legally entitled to the use of that title. Similarly to how Lord Severn and Lady Louise Windsor may be entitled to the title of Prince and Princess. It’s well established that the royal prerogative may be used to regulate titles (except that of the Sovereign) and, just like in the case of Lord Severn and Lady Louise, the title has been suppressed by the royal prerogative.

      If Camilla is legally the Princess of Wales, find me a legal document where she is referred to as thus. Even in a list of her full titles, the title of Princess of Wales is never listed.

      • Ricky

        I’ve read comments on other articles here at Royal Central that stated the royal ladies’ titles are governed by common law. In other words, they take the female form of their husband’s title.

        If that’s the case, since Camilla is the wife of the Prince of Wales, wouldn’t that alone make her the Princess of Wales?

        It seems to me that this kind of thing illustrates one drawback of the UK not having a written constitution. Issues like titles can be a murky area, since tradition and precedent are the usual guides.

        • Royal Central

          The use of all titles (except the Monarch’s own) are regulable through the royal prerogative. Diana’s style of HRH being taken away after her divorce (1996 letters patent) – which she was ‘legally entitled to’ – is one example of this regulation, despite common law.

          The Queen’s will is just as easily applied in this case to suppress Camilla’s title of Princess of Wales. My understanding therefore is Camilla is legally entitled to the title of Princess of Wales, but does not hold it.

          • Elle

            Again: splitting hairs. “Does not hold it” is just another way of saying; “isn’t allowed to use it publicly”.

            ‘Suppressing’ isn’t the same as ‘stripping’. If she’s still legally entitled to it, then literally all the Queen has the power to do is ask Camilla not to refer to herself as Princess of Wales publicly. That doesn’t mean she ‘isn’t’ the Princess of Wales.

            You could get an injunction to stop me from using my birth name in public. It’s still my name and I’d still use it privately.

      • Elle

        Isn’t that splitting hairs though? You may own a house, e.g. in Coventry, but not live in it. Therefore, there would exist only one document stating your legal entitlement to use said house (deed etc.) and there would be no further documents (bank statements, credit cards, employment details, online accounts) stating your Coventry address to refer to as evidence that the house was yours but that wouldn’t change the fact that it was (or that you were legally entitled to use it).

        We don’t know what goes on behind closed doors: we’re being told that Camilla ‘doesn’t want a higher title’ (to affect public opinion?) but actually, from what I’ve read, it’s the royal prerogative regarding which title to use, so who’s to say Prince Charles doesn’t refer to Camilla as Princess of Wales at home? Not stating this title on public documents doesn’t prove the title isn’t used. If she legally ‘owns’ it; it’s hers. Whether we’re told about it or not.

  • As the wife of the Prince of Wales, Camilla is indeed allowed to use the title of HRH The Princess of Wales. However, she is not a princess in her own right in any way, just as HRH The Duchess of Cambridge is not a duchess or princess in her own right. It is incorrect to refer to either of them as Princess Camilla or Princess Catherine. Camilla could have chosen to be called “HRH The Princess Charles” much like the wife of HRH Prince Michael of Kent is referred to as HRH Princess Michael. But in deference to the public’s love for Diana, Princess of Wales, TRH The Prince and Princess of Wales chose for Camilla to use the title HRH The Duchess of Cornwall, because that is HRH The Prince of Wales’ second most important title. When HRH The Prince of Wales accedes to the throne, it will be his choice as to whether or not Camilla is Queen consort or Princess consort. At this point it would be proper to address Camilla as HM Queen Camilla or HRH Princess Camilla, because she would be anointed at the coronation as one or the other.

    • Ricky

      Camilla could use the title “HRH Princess Charles,” but she is not entitled to the word “the” in front of her name. That is reserved only for the children of a monarch.

  • jo

    I think if Camilla became Queen Australia would argue again for a republic as Princess Dianna is much loved still in Australia I believe she really does love Prince Charles but Dianna is queen of England until one of her children take over from Charles I do not believe Catherine should be Queen as I am a big fan of Harrys rather than William and Kate but I guess that point is moot given the birth of George

    • Ricky

      Diana was never Queen of England and couldn’t be unless she was married to Prince Charles when he inherits the throne.

      When Her Majesty’s reign ends, the next monarchs will be King Charles and Queen Camilla; when Prince William becomes King, Catherine will be Queen.

      Prince George’s birth has no bearing on that, nor does your opinion of Prince Harry. Monarchs in the UK are not determined by means of a popularity contest.

      • simhedges

        Diana could never be Queen of England unless England became an independent country. The title of Queen of England hasn’t existed since 1707.

        • Ricky

          Technically correct. But I’m sure you understood the point I was making.

          • simhedges

            Yes, I understood your point, and you are far from alone in your mistaking England for the UK.

  • jo

    sorry if prince Charles become king Camilla should not be queen in respect to
    Dianna I would also like to add that I would not like Catherine to become Queen as I do not think there is a lot of respect for her

    • Ricky

      It’s not a popularity contest, the public opinion has no bearing on royal titles.

  • jo

    I would like Charles to be king but after his death I would like to see the monarchy abolished none of them deserve the priviledges they have

  • SJ Rzeminski

    Really a moot point as we do not know how history will unravel its self. The child could die before the parent.

  • Yieshad Deacem er

    Princess of Wales title is good enough for Diana!
    Camilla is the second wife of prince of wales its not good the
    title of lated diana will be transfered to camilla …even prince william or prince harry keep silence for this we know what they feel for their mom.

  • Sean Reed

    As I think back to the unpleasantness of 1936, one of the options floated toward the end was for a morganatic marriage. As I recall it was the attorney general Sir Donald Somervell who opined that it would in his opinion require legislation to prevent the wife of the King from necessarily becoming Queen, and HMG under PM Baldwin was convinced no such legislation could be passed.

    That being said it seems as though based upon what you have written Sir Donald was wrong? Am I missing something here?

  • simhedges

    Here is what will happen. When the Queen dies, Prince William and Prince Harry will immediately comment, expressing sorrow, and also wishing the new King and Queen well for their reign. If they, as the heirs of Diana, do this, then others will follow suit, and it will be done deal.
    If, OTOH, William and Harry choose to refer to Camilla as Princess Consort, then she will be Princess Consort.

    • Ricky

      When Queen Elizabeth II dies, Prince Charles will become King, and he will be the head of the Royal Family in all matters. Not Princes William and Harry.

      • simhedges

        Of course, but Prince Charles is absolutely not the person to soften the views of the people who believe that Camilla should not be called Queen. Princes William and Harry speak to those people. Which is why it is they who need to lead on this. If, by the time Charles becomes King, 75% of people are already in the “Call Camilla Queen” camp, then this will be unnecessary.

        • Ricky

          You don’t seem to understand that none of what you propose is “necessary.”

          It’s not a matter to be decided when Prince Charles becomes King; there’s already a clear process that governs this. Even Her Majesty cannot alter this, since she won’t be around when Camilla becomes Queen.

          The King’s wife is, and has always been, the Queen. This happens automatically, and only The King can downgrade the Queen’s title afterwards. Prince Charles would never issue a Letters Patent giving his wife some lesser title because of public opinion.

          Opinion polls reflecting public sentiment have absolutely no bearing on royal titles.

          • simhedges

            It’s *all* about the public sentiment and family dynamics. They are the the reason why our current Princess of Wales uses the tite of Duchess of Cornwall, and why the announcement was originally made (with Prince Charles’s consent) that Camilla would be known as Princess Consort. If you think that the Royal Family is immune from public sentiment you are mistaken. And you yourself are mistaking what Camilla IS and WILL BE (Princess of Wales, and Queen) and what she IS and WILL BE called (Duchess of Cornwall, and ???).

          • Ricky

            I never said the Royal Family was immune from public sentiment. I said it has no bearing on what the King’s wife is called. Only the monarch can issue the Letters Patents necessary to change what happens automatically at the beginning of a new reign.

            As for family dynamics, I’m not privy to their personal feelings since I don’t listen in the corridors of the royal residences. However, I’ve studied British Royal history for over 20 years and I’ve learned a few things along the way.

            But apparently you have inside information that I lack, so I must defer to your familiarity with their personal sentiments regarding family issues.

          • Kenneth Hammer

            I think the intent behind that statement re William and Harry is, while it will be officially declared by then King Charles, I would assume they would have discussed this as a family, and they would have come to an agreement on what Camilla would be called. William and Harry giving a public statement would be a subtle way to help ease the transition to Camilla. Basically, while there will probably always be those who are set in their views on Camilla, for those who are more nuanced in their views, having William and Harry giving a public statement calling Camilla “Queen Camilla”, would likely serve as a public endorsement of her having the title of Queen, and ease a lot of the public opinion against it. They wouldn’t be setting public policy, or going against their father, just, “unofficially” announcing what Camilla would be called. It would also, if there was extreme outrage against Camilla being called Queen, serve as, essentially, a trial balloon of public opinion.

          • Ricky

            I understand the point you’re making, but my own points are based on law and precedent.

            The Royal Family is always keenly aware of public opinion as it relates to them, but there have been very few times when any of them have made public statements about their relatives.

            Opinion polls show a steady increase in the number of people who support Camilla having the title of Queen, and they now represent a majority. A coordinated effort to promote the idea by means of comments from other royals is unnecessary, and the Palace doesn’t make statements to the press about their personal opinions anyway.

            Of course anything is always possible, but I doubt William and Harry would ever involve themselves in the issue of Camilla’s (or anyone else’s) title, or make statements about their opinions about it.

  • Not a bad decision as Camilla is the second spouse of the future king and not the mother of a future regent. The removing of Diana’s HRH was understandable as she kept her title, somewhat, but relinquished the HRH upon the negotiated divorce. It would be pretty darn nice if King Charles revoked his mother’s letter of patent and restored the future regent’s mother to the status of HRH posthumously. It would be a positive gesture from the jackass adulterer who caused all this confusion in the first place. The responsibility resides with Charles.

    • Sean Reed

      I rather hope its King George VII instead of Charles III

      • Guest

        Charles has said that he will take the name George when he becomes King.

    • Ricky

      Who is the “future regent,” and from which official source did you receive this information, please?

      And while I’ve got your attention, why is a regency be needed? If you have knowledge of Her Majesty being incapacitated, please enlighten us.

  • VikkiB

    The author says initially that calling Camilla Princess Consort is setting a dangerous precedent – it isn’t! The big difference is that she is a divorcee, and in the past she and Charles would not have been allowed to marry AND become hers to the throne. Princess consort is fine, that was what was agreed when she married Charles.

    • esperanza

      It was my understanding that divorcee’s aren’t allowed to be King or Queen and that the title would go to the next in line which would be Prince William and Catherine, they produced heirs.

      • Ricky

        Can you cite your source for this?

    • Ricky

      The Duchess of Cornwall made no such agreement upon her marriage to the Prince of Wales. That business about her using the title of Princess Consort was a statement made by Clarence House to quell some of the public hostility toward her at that time.

  • Marcello1099

    How utterly ridiculous. If Camilla is married to the king, then she’s the queen (consort). Idiocy with this “princess consort” nonsense.

    • Ricky

      At last, someone with some sense! There seem to be many self-appointed experts who really have no understanding of how royal titles work. Then there are others who feel qualified to deny Camilla her legal title because of their own personal moral judgement.

      When a Prince of Wales becomes His Majesty the King, his wife’s title is Her Majesty the Queen. It’s always been, and will continue to be, this way.

      This is automatic when Prince Charles inherits the throne, and it would take an act of Parliament to downgrade Camilla’s status afterwards. I think that extremely unlikely.

  • twincitiestodd

    I think much of this is conjecture as much as anything concrete. My theory (and it’s just a theory) is that Prince Philip still rules the family with an iron fist. The Queen may be the monarch, but Philip is most definitely the one in charge in that family. So with that, I think there are two things that he is influencing. 1) Andrew and Sarah wish to remarry, but Philip so hates Sarah that they need to wait until Philip passes away. 2) Philip saw first hand in the early days of his marriage to the Queen the lingering affects of the abdication in 1936, and I believe that as long as he is alive, the official “word on the street” and on the monarchy’s website will continue to say Camilla will be Princess Consort. But I think Charles fully intends for Camilla to be Queen Consort. He could have continued to have her as a mistress in perpetuity if he so chose. Instead, he married her. I think he wants her as his Queen. I wouldn’t be surprised to see Andrew and Sarah remarry after Philip’s death, and I also wouldn’t be surprised to see the mention of Camilla being Princess Consort quietly but quickly fade away.


    Camilla,Faced with the Maori Warriors, Challenge,she looked not the least bit worried,i would welcome her and Charles back here again.Aotearoa, New Zealand.

More in Insight

Royal Central is the web's most popular source for the latest news and information on the British Royal Family and the Monarchies of Europe.

Subscribe via Email

To receive the latest Royal Central posts straight to your email inbox, enter your email address below and press subscribe.

Join 31,631 other subscribers.

Copyright © 2017 Royal Central, all rights reserved.