LoveItaly

Hi, I am confused and hope someone here can answer a question.

I have been reading that when Prince Charles marries Camilla and if and when he becomes King that Camilla is automatically "Queen".

Have read that the English (GB?) law would have to be changed in order for her not to be considered "Queen".

Now, Prince Phillip is married of course to Queen Elizabeth. He is not "King"
Why is that? Was there some law passed after Elizabeth and Phillip married?

I hope my question does not sound to ignorant but if so I am in California so perhaps I could be excused? LOL.

Thank you.

Kiwi_acct

Hi LoveItaly

There are other more expert people versed in constitutional and heraldic law but in a potted version it goes like this.

The old laws written eons ago favoured succession by the male heir. They do allow for female heirs to succeed to the throne if no males are available. Specifically they provide that if a female ascends the throne, her consort (husband) does not take the title of King. Whereas is a male gets the throne his wife is entitled to be called queen.

No the law was not changed when Queen Elizabeth was crowned. Another example of the husband being Prince not King was with Victoria and Prince Albert.

This is the same when honours are given to people. For instance. When a man is knighted his wife is thenforth called "Lady ...." But if a Woman is "knighted" (Made a dame) her husband is not entitled to call himself sir.

Actually in an aside. New Zealand got rid of titles about four years ago and replced them with local honours, though to be honest they don't have the same ring to them.

Another piece of information. Not only will the law in England have to be changed if Charles and Camilla do not want Camilla to be Queen, but the laws of 17 other countries for which the Queen/King is head of state will also need to be changed . That includes New Zealand and Australia.

Hope some of this helps. Others no doubt will chime in as well.

Steve

mpoll

I will probably stand corrected but...

The monarchy has to follow the royal line. If the King marries, there is no problem calling his wife Queen, as King is superior to Queen. However, if the Queen marries, her husband can't be a King, as he's not from the royal line and can't be superior to the Queen that is. So Prince it is.

mpoll

ps

the reason they want to change the law so Canmilla won't be queen is that in her particular case, it would be unpopular for her to be queen, being his second wife and former mistress.

margo_oz

Off with their heads, I say!

LoveItaly

Thank you so much, I appreciate your answers and understand. Up until now I was confused as were several of my friends. But it all makes sense now.
Take good care.

LoveItaly

Hi margo, LOL! That is what my dear father would have said!

Neil_Oz

Hi, LoveItaly. Steve has summmarised the situation well, I think. As a historical sidelight, one of the reasons why Elizabeth I doggedly resisted pressure from her advisors and Parliament to marry and produce an heir was that, although her husband would not have assumed the title of king, she feared that her authority (fragile for all but the most determined female in those days) would be fatally compromised.

I suspect that Australia will be a republic by the time Charles accedes to the throne. If we're not, I doubt that anybody would be interested in passing legislation to strip the ageing Queen Camilla of her title - this would be seen as churlish.

alice13

Alan - you are so right. I mean, for heavens sake, who cares? Camilla's future title has no impact on anything.

But it would be extremely bizarre to see the Australian parliament debating legislation to overturn it, should it happen.

Australia should be a republic, no doubt. The last referendum was cleverly manipulated, though I am not saying that the method to be used to find a head of state is inconsequential.

Meantimes life goes on as before. QE2 being Queen of Australia is an absurdity that both Oz and the UK can handle with a sleight of hand. They are both mature democracies with a culture that appreciates the subtle and can see the funny side without getting at all hung up about it.

ALF

I don't know what bearing this would have on Australia. The only Queen I know about there would be Priscilla.

Neil_Oz

alice13, did Alan post something so scurrilous that the Fodors police zapped it? This sounds quite out of character.

LoveItaly, I think many Americans assume that the monarchy looms larger in the national life than it does. It provides fodder for the crummier end og the media, and I know a few devoted subjects out there - mostly getting on in years and nostalgic for what seems a simpler time (I'm related to a couple).

But for most people, when they bother to think about it at all it's seen as a harmless sideshow, and as the British foot the bill, a nearly free one into the bargain.

I agree with Alice that the republic referendum was cleverly manipulated by the monarchist side - the issue of how the president would be elected (directly by the people or by Parliament) greatly confused the masses, and a majority ended up voting for "the devil you know". Nothing of substance would change anyway - it's mostly about symbolism - and only a monority of misfits like me think it's important, so apathy rules.

I can see why Americans would find it hard to relate to this scenario - in the US the British monarchy is traditionally seen as an oppressive force that required a war to break free of. After 1776, though, democracy emerged in the UK by evolution rather than revolution, the monarchy's influence in public affairs declined to its present state and Australia and New Zealand gained self-government with little fuss.

It's worth remembering, though, that it was only in 1929 that an Australian Prime Minister, Jim Scullin, had a bitter dispute with George V over having the first Australian-born Governor-General (Sir Isaac Isaacs) appointed instead of the usual titled British nonentity. The King was not at all happy about having an Irish- Catholic-socialist-colonial insisting on the appointment of a Jewish- colonial as his representative. However, this established the principle that the Palace rubber-stamps the Australian PM's nomination for G-G.

It's reported that in the 1980s the outgoing G-G, Sir Ninian Stephen, sounded out Prince Charles about replacing him. Apparently the Prince thought it was a great idea - a real job (sort of) 20,000 km away from Mummy would have sounded like just the ticket. However, Sir Ninian hadn't consulted the PM, Bob Hawke, who promptly squelched the idea as totally inappropriate.

Hear endeth the history lesson (which Alan, as a real teacher, might have cause to correct if he's allowed back here).

LoveItaly

Hello Neil and all of you. Yes, first of all WHAT did happen to Alan's post. I know it was here yesterday. I wanted to reread it as my daughter was asking me questions. That is strange. Considering how many post IMHO maybe should be deleted when people get rude and abrasive to others.

Neil, thank you for taking the time to elaborate further. I really appreciate it. I grew up (here in CA) with my father talking about the Royals and always grumbling. You and he would have gotten together just fine BTW. So I guess I perhaps pay more attention then some Americans and yet saying that it amazes me how many Americans do follow the news regarding them. I must say the news is much more interesting then what we hear about our uhm "royals" LOL.

Maybe if Prince Charles had been allowed to come to Australia things would have been different for him (and others of course). I never envied his position in life.

Actually I never envied Queen Elizabeth's life either if the truth be known. Wouldn't certainly not have wanted her husband.

I remember when the royal yacht came to San Francisco years ago. The Queen had always wanted to go to Trader Vic's in SF. Well she did however she and her people were put in a boring private dining room with plain white walls etc. Nothing like the "rabble" were enjoying in the cocktail lounge and dining room. The word was she actaully had tears in her eyes from the disappointment of not having the actual effect of Trader Vic's. I always wondered why that private room could not have been decorated in advance for her visit. It was rather a sad story. I thought of her when we were there shortly before they closed down.

Anway, my thanks to all for your responses. Truly appreciated.

A good weekend is wished for everyone.

margo_oz

Iwanna know what Alan said to get zapped!

Of with Liz's head, too!

Roll on the republic!

pat_woolford

But there are still many avid royal-watchers in Oz, who can blame them, more entertaining than any soap. The demise of Di must have nearly put the women's mags out of business. The longest-serving Prime Minister of Australia, Sir Robert Menzies was an extreme monarchist and embarrassed both Australians and a then very young Queen Liz by reciting an ode to her which went something like "I did but see her passing by, but I will love her 'til I die". A later PM, Paul Keating was in hot water for touching the royal personage, he merely placed his hand on the small of her back to steer her in the right direction. We also carelessly let one of our PM's drown, and an ex-PM, whilst on a trip to US, turned up in a Memphis hotel foyer without his trousers. The afore mentioned Bob Hawke, an ex-trade unionist, sometimes had a little weep on TV. So maybe our PM's are more entertaining than royalty.

JohnInMiami

Heh heh heh, your politicians are VERY entertaining Pat! Who could forget Mark Latham calling PM John Howard an "arse-licker" or the shenanigans of Pauline Hanson?

pat_woolford

John, since they Pauline out of jail, I believe she's taken up selling real estate. She also features on a TV programme "Dancing with the Stars", not sure if she's supposed to be the star or she dances with one.

Neil_Oz

Sir Robert ("British to the Bootstraps&quot Menzies was a shameless groveller to the monarchy, and it was fitting that he was rewarded with the farcical position of Lord Warden of the Cinque Ports. This role allowed him to bedeck himself in Gilbertian fancy dress, including a tricorn hat, and from memory had the right of salvage of flotsam, jetsam and dead whales at Hastings and the other four ports. All this caused great hilarity back here in his native land.

I must admit though that when he was in form he could handle repartee. In the good old days when politicians had to mix it with the electors, Menzies was addressing a public meeting and was under attack from a loud and persistent heckler. "Yeah, that's right, Bob - tell us all yer know - it won't take long!" he yelled. "I'll go one better than that, my friend," replied Menzies, "I'll tell you all we both know. It won't take any longer."

Another story I read recently: when Australia's much-admired wartime Labor PM John Curtin died in 1945, 100,000 people turned out for his funeral in his home city of Perth. Menzies was one of the pallbearers and so was his deputy Sir Arthur Fadden, leader of the then Country Party. Menzies said to Fadden "Artie - when I go, I don't want to have a big production like this." Don't worry," said Fadden, "...you won't."