Charles, Prince of Wales and Duke of Cornwall

[Michael HR]

The loss of HRH was not automatic on divorce. The Queen could have left her with this status and quite frankly she should have. It placed Diana in the ridiculous situation of having to curtsy to her son's as they were of higher rank. She refused of course saying that she would only curtsy to the Queen, who she held in respect. Stripping her of that status was a mean thing to do and my god did it later explode in the face of the royal family as Diana's brother said at her funeral.

The Queen should never have stripped her of this title and it is something that annoys the British people to this day.

[CHRISinUSA]

To be accurate, the loss was automatic on divorce, based on a newly realeased Letters Patent addressing the issue of divorced royals.

On Aug 21, 1996, the Queen issued Letters Patent which decreed that a style received by a spouse of a member of the Royal Family on their marriage ceases at the point of divorce.  The Wales' divorce was finalized 7 days later on Aug 28, 1996. 

Clearly the decree was done in direct response to the upcoming Wales' divorce, but was also to set the precedent for a new bigger issue - that is, what title should remain when a non-royal woman divorces a British royal prince?  The only previous 3 senior royal divorces of the 20th century - The Princess Royal in 1992, Princess Margaret in 1978, and Victoria of Edinborough in 1901 - all were different cases because the wives in question were HRH by birth, not marriage.  They simply kept their pre-marriage titles.

The Queen and her advisors obviously decided that - in an era of 50% divorce rates - it was better to nip this issue in the bud before there were numerous ex-wives with HRH titles running around.  And I think that was a smart move, for lots of reasons. 

First, a divorced woman is no longer part of the royal family (Diana was an exception as the mother of the future king), and can do whatever they wish.  The Court doesn't have much control over their actions, behaviors or words anymore.  But if they kept HRH, their actions would be directly reflected on the crown, which could cause lots of problems if the ex-wife in question was a loose cannon.  Let's say Sarah York kept her HRH, but decided to become an advocate for - I don't know - abortion rights.  Now you have a royal princess/duchess taking a stand on a highly charged political issue, and the Crown can't really do anything about it.  Very bad indeed.

Second, what happens upon remarriage?  Does the woman give up her HRH title then? 

Third, I believe holding the status of HRH conveys lots of perks and priveledges - such as royal security, right of use to Queen's flight, right of use to diplomatic resources when travelling abroad, diplomatic immunity as a member of the royal family.  None of these things should be accorded to a person who is not a working royal.

[Michael HR]

I may be wrong but I think only the Queen has Diplomatic immunity as head of state. All other members of the family are the same as everyone else.

Diana was an exception as the Mother to a future King and should have kept the status on that basis alone.

I agree the thought of Sarah being HRH after the divorce from Andrew chills the blood but as it turns out she has been quite well behaved and is now respected by the public unlike a few years ago. If divorced there are little if any perks and there would be no right to security, Queens flight etc unless the Queen allowed it for some reason. Sarah of York is a good example of that as she walked away with no perks what so ever

[CHRISinUSA]

I suppose Charles will need the support of the Church, who would not be happy with a divorced woman as Queen Consort and of course the heads of the Commonwealth who also have a say in the matter as Charles will be head of state of many members of the Commonwealth. If they say no and also the Church reject her he would have a serious problem coupled with the hostility of the people and may have to title her as he has already suggested.

Charles received the consent of the church when he remarried.

Under current law in each Commonwealth realm, Charles automatically succeeds the Queen on her death.  It isn't a matter of a council in each realm assembling on the Queen's death and saying "Hmm, shall we accept Charles or not?"   So if any of those realms wish something different to happen, they must pass a law before the present Queen dies.  Or - they will have to vote to remove their King after the fact.

[Michael HR]

When Edward Duke of Windsor was briefly King did not the Commonwealth refuse to accept Wallis and this was one reason he felt he had to abdicate?

Charles was not married in a Church but a registry office and I do not think the consent of the church was needed for that ceremony. The head of the Church of England in the form of the Archbishop could refuse to crown him but that would also be a constitutional crisis if it ever happened.  It is Camilla that many do not want as Queen consort and that is the main problem.

[Adagietto]

'Diana was from the peoples point of view the best thing that ever happened to the Windsor's and of course he managed to blow that completely. He must take responsibility for his actions and follow the will of the people by whoms consent he would reign.' Who are these 'people'? I am British, and I don't take such a simplistic view of the breakdown of the marriage or of Diana's character, nor do half the people whom I speak to of the matter.

As for whether Camilla becomes Queen, I am sure that Charles would like her to, but if it is not thought at the time that it would not be broadly acceptable, she will be called Princess Consort (even if she is technically Queen). It is as simple as that.

[CHRISinUSA]

Amazing how difficult it is to find clarification about the immunity status of the Royal Family.  What I did find is that in the Vienna Convention, diplomatic immunity extends to "Heads of State" and "Heads of Diplomatic Missions", and their "Households" in the course of official business.  Said another way, if Charles, Prince of Wales is considered a member of the Queen's Household (he is), and he is travelling on official business of the UK government (which in most cases he is), than some level of immunity extends to him.  If Charles is visiting privately, it may be another matter.

I also found a court case involving Prince Charles and some foreign national (Kilroy v. Windsor, 1978) in which a judge ruled that "The Attorney General has observed that the Prince of Wales is immune from suit.....(T)he doctrine, being based on foreign policy considerations and the Executive's desire to maintain amiable relations with foreign states, applies to even more force to live persons representing a foreign nation on an official visit."

The US State Departments documents I checked seems to imply that a foreign royal family member holds certain immunities and special privledges, but I can't seem to determine if this is "diplomatic immunity" or more informal / courtesies extended. 

But either way, if you are a British royal visiting a foreign country on official royal business, you get perks and privledges - officially or by courtesy. 

[Michael HR]

Interesting. I think that Edward VII was sued in the County Court and had to attend - something about a card game?

Perks true.

[Michael HR]

It would be interesting if there was a poll on the subject. Some take a negative view and some a positive view. What the majority view is we may found out.

I agree that Princess Consort is probably what will happen.

Being British myself I am not at all sure that I would wish her to be Queen but that's just my own view. Many friends of mine also state the same but I suppose it depends on who you talk to.

[CHRISinUSA]

When Edward Duke of Windsor was briefly King did not the Commonwealth refuse to accept Wallis and this was one reason he felt he had to abdicate?

Charles was not married in a Church but a registry office and I do not think the consent of the church was needed for that ceremony. The head of the Church of England in the form of the Archbishop could refuse to crown him but that would also be a constitutional crisis if it ever happened.  It is Camilla that many do not want as Queen consort and that is the main problem.

Yes, you are right - Edward abdicated because the Governments (of the UK and Commonwealth) didn't want Wallis as his wife and as Queen.  However, that was a somewhat different situation.  Edward wasn't already married to Wallis when he became King, and the Church of England did not recognize second marriages of divorcees at that time.  And while Charles wasn't married in the Church of England, as you say, the Church (via the Archbishop) did give consent to the marriage before it took place.  

The bottom line is - any change to the succession today would threaten the existance of the commonwealth crowns, and the commonwealth itself.  Even back in 1936-1937 the abdication could have broken up the empire and brought down the monarchy.  It just isn't worth it to open Pandora's box of legal implications, just to avoid a Queen Camilla.  Nobody in power wants that - except the republicans.

[Michael HR]

Of course the Queen cold outlive Charles if her Mother is anything to go by.

In many ways I like Charles and I hope when the time comes what ever happens is without problems for all.

[Eric_Lowe]

Really ?

[Adagietto]

I'm sure the Queen will live for years! May I just say that I was not wishing to take a negative view of anyone, just to suggest that human relationships are complicated, and that when it comes to their breakdown, it is almost always wrong to cast one party as a demon and the other as an angel. I think it is possible to acknowledge that without taking sides. Also, what on earth gives 'the British people' - or newsaper hacks - to be damned censorious (usually about Prince Charles, but one should remember, very often about Diana before her death made such attacks seem tasteless). It is not as if about a third of marriages in Britain did not end in divorce; and somehow, when one has direct knowledge of the people involved, it always seems more difficult to take a crudely moralistic view of the situation, requiring one of the parties to be cast as an utter villain.

[Michael HR]

Correction he was a witness in the case:

In 1891, Edward was embroiled in the Royal Baccarat Scandal, when it was revealed he had played an illegal card game for money the previous year. The Prince was forced to appear as a witness in court for a second time when one of the players unsuccessfully sued his fellow players for slander after being accused of cheating.

By forced I assume they mean a witness summons was served which can be backed up by the Court by contempt of Court (six months in prison).

The only member of the royal family above the law as such is the Queen. She cannot be prosecuted in a criminal court but could be taken through the County Court I believe although I am sure others will correct me if I am wrong. All others are subject to the law of the land such as Princess Anne being prosecuted for a driving offence in the 1970's and there was a recent case about her dog attacking someone.

If they were abroad on official business on behalf of the Queen they may have immunity but I am not sure.

[Eric_Lowe]

Well...In history, they don't usually proscecute the King or Queen they don't like (Charles I being the exception). They usually exile them.