Government starts effort to change succession law

[RoyalWatcher]

Very interesting indeed, Ann. It was if everything had come together at the right time and place as it was meant to be.

[RoyalWatcher]

So I have been reading various stories in the press about the possibility of the monarch's consort titled "Prince Consort" or "Princess Consort." If this measure is included in the new succession law, this would mean that both Camilla and Kate would not be titled "Queen Consort."

What is the consensus amongst this group? Do you want to see the female consort's title changed or left as is?

[Vecchiolarry]

Hi,

Personaly, I do not favour the title, "Princess Consort"...  The wife of a King is and should be "Queen"......
And as much as do not care for Camilla, she should be Queen when the time comes.  And, Catherine definitely must be Queen at her time...

As a matter of fact, I do wish Camilla would use the Princess of Wales title;  and The Queen should degree that she use this title;  even though it may upset the 'Diana bunch'.....
After all, the title is not the sole perogative of Diana.
Alexandra and Mary were Princesses of Wales in their time;  and Mary was even when Alexandra was alive(albeit as Queen by then!!).....

As for Prince Consort - I can see the husband of a Queen title thusly after some years of public service to the nation and the Commonwealth.
I do think Prince Philip should have elevated (enobled) thusly long ago...

Cheers,
Larry

[Kalafrana]

I think a feamle consort should stay Queen, and I'm happy to upset the Diana bunch by having Camilla use the title of Princess of Wales.

I have heard rumours that it was suggested some time ago that Prince Philip should be Prince Consort, but he declined.

Ann

[Paul]

'Princess Consort' reeks of morganatic marriage- a decidedly archaic institution.  A British king's wife should be a Queen Consort.

And yes: delightful though Diana was, she's gone. The Diana mob needs to move on. Charles/ Diana/ Camilla were basically three decent people who were caught up in a sad situation. Camilla doesn't deserve to be punished or publicly degraded for it.

[CHRISinUSA]

I'll add my voice to the chorus who believes Camilla should assume the title of Queen upon Charles' succession.  And I think she will.

In my opinion, it was appropriate she adopted the style Duchess of Cornwall when she and Charles wed; public sentiment simply would not have accepted her as Princess of Wales at that time, less than a decade after the loss of Diana.  And frankly, the "it is intended that she be known as Princess Consort" line was just too loosely worded to not be leaving the door open for future consideration.

Any number of things could happen between now and the next reign.  Charles could predecease his mother; Camilla could predecease Charles.  But assuming the expected order of things comes to pass, and given that she has proven herself a worthy consort in the meantime, I predict that it will be queen, not princess consort. 

[mcdnab]

The suggestion was made as has been mentioned at the time of the couple's marriage as part of an attempt to satisfy those people who were still opposed to the idea of Charles and Camilla marrying at all.
It has no standing in law - as was made very clear in the 1930's it would take a parliamentary act (in all the monarch's realmz) to introduce the idea of a wife not sharing her husband's styles and title and creating a new style of title for her.
I have absolutely no doubt that if or when Charles succeeds then Camilla should be Queen.
Personally I agree with another poster that she should be styled Princess of Wales (she is styled Duchess of Rothesay in Scotland as Diana was before her) - there is usually no delay in the title passing on apart form a short delay in creating the future George V as Prince of Wales largely because his parents (Edward VII and Alexandra of Denmark) were rather protective of the title having born it for so many decades - for several months George V was known as Duke of York and Cornwall much to his irritation (he wasted no time on his accession in creating the future Edward VIII prince of Wales).

[Grace]

'Princess Consort' reeks of morganatic marriage- a decidedly archaic institution.  A British king's wife should be a Queen Consort.

And yes: delightful though Diana was, she's gone. The Diana mob needs to move on. Charles/ Diana/ Camilla were basically three decent people who were caught up in a sad situation. Camilla doesn't deserve to be punished or publicly degraded for it.

This AGAIN!  As has been said before, it's not simply the "Diana mob" who are not comfortable with the Duchess of Cornwall as Queen Consort.  There are those who hold moral and religious objections which have nothing whatsoever to do with Diana.  Though I think the majority now accept that the Duchess will not only automatically become Queen Consort once her husband ascends, she will also be called by that title, why do we increasingly pretend that she came to her position with a blameless past?  Talk about "Saint Diana", it now seems to be "Saint Camilla"!    

[CHRISinUSA]

With respect Grace, I don't see anybody advocating Camilla's canonization.  Certainly her past is anything but blameless, but we are talking about the succession to the Crown (for both monarch and consort).  If adultery alone made someone unsuitable for the title of King or Queen, the Crown would have crumbled long ago. 

I find it interesting that whenever the topic of Camilla's suitability to be queen arises, nobody seriously argues for Charles to abdicate his claim.  Yet what crime did Camilla commit that Charles himself isn't equally guilty of? 

[mcdnab]

Personally as this is largely about the recent planned change to the succession laws I think we should leave aside any arguments about the behaviour perceived or otherwise. I agree with the previous post reference the matter.
The idea of a royal family as the embodiment of middle class values and mores was by enlarge a reaction of Victoria and Albert to their own family background and the changing world of the 19th century as made clear in the excellent BBC series Victoria's children being shown currently a view rejected by Edward vii who thought his private life was his own and reemphasised by his son George v
In many ways it worked and ensured the monarchy survived but in the 21st century of mass media instant reaction and a very different society it isn't necessary to the monarchy in the same way

[Suzanne]

Comparing the current Succession to the Crown Bill to Succession Debates in the reigns of Henry I, Henry VIII and Queen Anne

http://www.royalhistorian.com/debating-the-royal-succession/

[CHRISinUSA]

The Canadian government is introducing the bill necessary to change the succession in alignment of British law changes.  Already, the debate has begun about whether or not it is necessary to amend the Canadian constitution (a very complex process there), whether the provinces should have formal consultation, and whether or not it is an appropriate process for Canada to simply accede to a British law, or to establish its own succession laws.  Hope that's just political posturing and that the process runs smoothly.

http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2013/01/31/conservative_government_to_introduce_bill_on_royal_succession.html?

[grandduchessella]

Done deal now.

After 300 Years Britain’s Succession Laws Get an Overhaul

http://royallyspeakingblog.wordpress.com/2013/04/22/after-300-years-britains-succession-laws-get-an-overhaul/

Some highlights:

1. Children born after 28 Oct 2011 will have succession rights in order of birth, regardless of gender.
2. The Royal Marriages Act is replaced with a provision that only the top six people in line to the Throne must have the consent of the Monarch to marry.
3. The new law repeals the provision of the Act of Settlement which barred anyone from succeeding who is married to a Roman Catholic. However, it does not grant succession rights to people who are Roman Catholic themselves.

The link above goes to the whole blog which has much more detail about each listed provision.

Marlene's blog also has a good write-up:

http://royalmusingsblogspotcom.blogspot.com/2013/04/succession-to-crown-act-is-law.html

Personally, I'm glad to see the Catholic bias removed. I totally understand the monarch, as Defender of the Faith, needing to be Anglican but I'm glad they've recognized that just having a Catholic consort would've result in the kind of strife seen in the time of Mary & Elizabeth!

[edubs31]

I like it too. It's progressive policy without being too radical and going overboard. Smart and sensible without turning a back to tradition.

[Kalafrana]

I'm glad the change to gender-neutral only applies to those born very recently and in the future. The only person currently affected, and who will drop back behind his elder sister, is a grandson of the Duke of Gloucester, and way down the succession list anyway.

Ann