Talk:Princess consort

message: THis article needs to be rewritten. (Alphaboi867 19:58, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

message: :she will legally become queen-consort the moment Charles ascends the throne.
Could we have some more detail on this, please? I thought the point of the whole foofaraw was that she wouldn't become queen consort. - Montréalais
: I think the idea is this: Unless Britain and all the Commonwealth countries change their laws, Camilla will legally be the queen consort when she marries Charles, because that's the title given to the wife of the king. However, she won't be addressed as such. --JohnnyB 18:43, Feb 15, 2005 (UTC)
::There is no specific law that says Camilla will become Queen. However tradition says that the wife of a King will be Queen. Only an Act of Parliament can prevent the Queen consort from styling herself that. For example when King George IV ascended the throne, his estranged wife, Caroline of Brunswick became Queen consort, and used this title offically. George IV persuaded parliament to bring forth a law, the Pains and Penalties Bill 1820 to strip Caroline of her title of Queen (and to divorce her). However the bill failed to pass its first reading and then Caroline died. Astrotrain 21:38, Feb 16, 2005 (UTC)
::::George IV never was validly married to Caroline of Brunswick. He was married to Maria Fitzherbert. --217.251.78.118 (talk) 18:55, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Camilla is allready Princess of Wales, and will become Queen when Charles succeeds - it's just that neither he nor her will refer to her as such for publicity reasons. - Matthew238 22:55, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: legally become queen consort

message: why does she have to become Queen when Charles ascends? can she not stay Duchess of Cornwall ?. Prince Philip remained Duke of Edinburgh after his wife became Queen and for more than fifty years it has been "HM The Queen and HRH The Duke of Edinburgh.." so why could it not be .."HM The King and HRH The Duchess of Cornwall.."  If you ask me, they are both morganatic marruages.....
*Phillip is a man, Camilla is a women.   Different rules apply to them.   A women automatically takes the feminine form of her husband's titles.  By contrast a man doesn't get the masculine form of his wife's titles.   England had only one king consort, Phillip II of Spain.   Phillip was created Duke of Edinburgh his his own right.   Camilla is Duchess of Cornwall (she's also Princess of Wales) because her husband is Duke of Cornwall.   When Charles ascends the throne William will automatically become Duke of Cornwall and his wife will be Duchess of Cornwall.   Neither Camilla or Phillip are in morganatic marriages.   The concept is totally foreign to British law and custom.   Plus the offspring of a morgantic marriage have no succession rights.   The Queen's children are all in line to the throne and in theory if Charles and Camilla were to have a child s/he would be after Prince Harry in the line of succesion. (Alphaboi867 18:17, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Queen

message: While it has been announced that Camilla will be known as "Princess Consort" when Charles becomes King, is there any particular reason to believe this will happen?  Should we state this as a fact?  Beyond this, shouldn't we mention Princess Maxima, in the Netherlands?  It is my understanding that, because of the lack of Kings for a hundred years in the Netherlands, the Dutch have become deeply confused about the way these things work, and have determined that the wives of reigning kings should only have the style of "Princess" (or alternately, have decided that the difference between the sexes is, er, sexist, and have decided to follow the female model for male rulers, instead of the male model for female rulers), and that thus, Princess Maxima will remain Princess Maxima even after her husband becomes King.  This seems like a more clear-cut case than the ad hoc nature of Camilla's supposed status in this respect - there seems to be a general understanding in the Netherlands that this is a rule that will be in place for the indefinite future.  Any thoughts? john k 14:58, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think modifying it to make it clear that it has so been announced, but with the doubt that it may not come to pass, it perfectly appropriate.  The Dutch model is somewhat different, given that ex-Queens, such as Juliana, revert to the title of Princess.  They follow their own rules.--Wehwalt 14:03, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

text: I think WP:Crystal ball applies here wonderfully well and that any reference to her possible future title is irrelevant enough to be removed until there is some sustainable fact to support it as really effecting her life story. It would be more relevant in her mother-in-law's article, if the Oueen actually has made the (bizarre?) Princess anouncement, and then as an idiosyncracy in the perfect sense of the word. If only some populist (?) politicians (having assumed that everybody hates this woman and won't stand for her being Queen) are behind that announcement, why not let's ignore it? If it is a genuine attempt to start a permanent new tradition of gender equality in Britain (as the Dutch plans seem to be), let's not ignore it and see if we can find a reliable source to describe it as such. SergeWoodzing (talk) 17:03, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Camilla, and so forth 

message: 1) The source says "when"
2) All consitutional mechanisms are in place to immediately proclaim Charles as King once the Queen dies.  "If" is therefore the violation of WP:CRYSTAL, NOT "When." 62.190.148.115 (talk) 13:33, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  When, not if