March 22, 2005

silhouette3.JPG From the desk of Jane Galt:

British Blogging

So Camilla will be queen after all.

Posted by Jane Galt at March 22, 2005 03:49 AM | TrackBack | Technorati inbound links
Comments

I'm not sure I understand this. If Camilla will be queen why is Queen Elizabeth's husband merely the Duke of Edinburgh?

Posted by: Al Superczynski on March 22, 2005 03:54 AM

WOW!!! Good question. My head hurts thinking about it. Can I stop now?

Posted by: Steel Turman on March 22, 2005 05:01 AM

There's a distinction made between the head of state (Elizabeth II, Queen Regnant) and the wife of the head of state (Camilla, Queen Consort). As Queen Consort, Camilla is queen in connection to Charles' kinghood, and is thus subordinate to the king.

However, under the rules, there is no official title for the husband of the queen, and the last time the subject of having a King Consort was considered, arguments were made that having a queen subordinate to a king is acceptable, but not the other way around.

More than you ever wanted to know about this, I'm sure.

Posted by: oi on March 22, 2005 07:34 AM

IIRC Prince Albert, as husband of Queen Victoria, was officially given the title of Prince Consort only in 1857, in recognition of his services to the country.
Trans: because Queen Victoria made her ministers lives a misery until they agreed.

I'm not sure, but I think that as the son of a German Duke regnant, Albert had the courtesy title of Prince in any case. But before the official granting of the status of a British Prince Consort, he was his Serene Highness the Prince of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha, not a Royal Highness, though he was by courtesy HRH Prince Albert as consort (but not Consort), and was not a peer of the realm, unlike Prince Philip as Duke of Edinburgh, who is both as heir to the von Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Glücksburg line (kings of Greece to 1922) and by courtesy of royal proclamation a prince and consort but not Prince Consort.
Probably.
*whew*

Posted by: John Farren on March 22, 2005 08:02 AM

I heard that The Queen blocked Prince Charles' marriage to his mistress. What changed? What has caused her to remove her opposition and allow the marriage to occur?

(1) Harry is now old enough to assume the throne.
(2) Charles is now saying Camilla will never be queen.

I believe Charles has cut some kind of deal whereby he will not assume the throne but pass it to his son. Charles reportedly never wanted to be King anyway.

Everybody wins!

Posted by: dijit on March 22, 2005 09:02 AM

So, Camilla might be the next queen after Betty Saxe-Coburg dies. Who cares?

Posted by: Rex on March 22, 2005 11:59 AM

Obviously you do, Rex: enough to read through the comments and take the time to post your opinion on queenly matters.

Posted by: oi on March 22, 2005 12:54 PM

...only if Charles becomes king, no?

Posted by: buzz harsher on March 22, 2005 01:19 PM

Oi, I have an admission to make. I practically always read all the comments on this blogsite.

Posted by: Rex on March 22, 2005 03:54 PM

Thanks, oi. I guess that makes sense even if it's not logical... ;-p

Posted by: Al Superczynski on March 22, 2005 05:55 PM

Note: Charles has apparently managed to get away with that which his grand-uncle did not.

Posted by: Ian Argent on March 24, 2005 01:22 AM

Comments are Closed.