# Any political consequences on the Queen's snub of Charles' wedding? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [February 24, 2005, 3:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/any-political-consequences-on-the-queens-snub-of-charles-wedding/291709 "2005-02-24T15:36:43Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 15\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![AncientHumanoid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ancienthumanoid/32/278_2.png) [@AncientHumanoid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/AncientHumanoid)\ **Post date:** [February 24, 2005, 3:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/any-political-consequences-on-the-queens-snub-of-charles-wedding/291709/1 "2005-02-24T15:36:43Z")
Ugly American here, looking for a UK point of view. Does it invalidate the ceremony somehow? A further possible block to his becoming King? When Edward VIII married Wallis Simpson, he abdicated, right? What’s different about this current situation? Finally, does it really mean anything at all? ---
**Author:** ![GorillaMan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/50afbb/32.png) [@GorillaMan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GorillaMan)\ **Post date:** [February 24, 2005, 3:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/any-political-consequences-on-the-queens-snub-of-charles-wedding/291709/2 "2005-02-24T15:44:27Z")
What’s different from Edward VIII? In the 1930s, divorce was taboo. Therefore, the monarch marrying a divorcee was unacceptable. Attitudes have changed, so this is no longer an issue. The Queen’s presence or otherwise at the wedding is irrelevant. There are questions being raised over whether it is legally valid for the heir to marry in a civil ceremony, as opposed to a C of E one, but it’s all a storm in a teacup. No, it doesn’t really mean anything at all. ---
**Author:** ![tagos](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/bbe5ce/32.png) [@tagos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tagos)\ **Post date:** [February 24, 2005, 3:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/any-political-consequences-on-the-queens-snub-of-charles-wedding/291709/3 "2005-02-24T15:48:11Z")
> [@NoClueBoy](#): > > Ugly American here, looking for a UK point of view. > > Does it invalidate the ceremony somehow? A further possible block to his becoming King? > > When Edward VIII married Wallis Simpson, he abdicated, right? What’s different about this current situation? > > Finally, does it really mean anything at all? It means nothing - and the whole ‘snubbing’ thing is just as likely to be the usual tabloid shit stirring. She gave perfectly reasonable reason why she ain’t going to that part of the marriage process. She’s attending the reception etc etc., so she’s hardly snubbing them. Simpson was a divorcee, an American to boot and it was a 70 years or so ago. The Govt didn’t want to approve as public opinion wouldn’t wear it. We don’t get that excited about Royalty or divorce anymore, they’re just another set of Reality TV celebrities. ---
**Author:** ![owlstretchingtime](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/958977/32.png) [@owlstretchingtime](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/owlstretchingtime)\ **Post date:** [February 24, 2005, 3:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/any-political-consequences-on-the-queens-snub-of-charles-wedding/291709/4 "2005-02-24T15:49:59Z")
She’s paying for a 700 person reception and lending him her gaff. That’s not a snub. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [February 24, 2005, 3:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/any-political-consequences-on-the-queens-snub-of-charles-wedding/291709/5 "2005-02-24T15:51:34Z")
According to news reports I’ve read, Camilla will legally be the Princess of Wales but won’t use the title. And when Charles becomes king, Camilla won’t be queen – she’ll have the newly-coined title of “princess consort.” According to this – [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Camilla\_Parker\_Bowles](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Camilla_Parker_Bowles) – Camilla Parker Bowles is a baron’s granddaughter. Why isn’t she good enough to be queen? ---
**Author:** ![AncientHumanoid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ancienthumanoid/32/278_2.png) [@AncientHumanoid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/AncientHumanoid)\ **Post date:** [February 24, 2005, 3:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/any-political-consequences-on-the-queens-snub-of-charles-wedding/291709/6 "2005-02-24T15:52:52Z")
Wow! That was easy. I almost could’ve put this in GQ. 😉 Thanks for the clearing up of the Edward VIII thing. That really had me confused, but the answer is so simple! Just needed a UK POV, I guess. ---
**Author:** ![owlstretchingtime](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/958977/32.png) [@owlstretchingtime](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/owlstretchingtime)\ **Post date:** [February 24, 2005, 3:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/any-political-consequences-on-the-queens-snub-of-charles-wedding/291709/7 "2005-02-24T15:57:45Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > According to news reports I’ve read, Camilla will legally be the Princess of Wales but won’t use the title. And when Charles becomes king, Camilla won’t be queen – she’ll have the newly-coined title of “princess consort.” According to this – [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Camilla\_Parker\_Bowles](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Camilla_Parker_Bowles) – Camilla Parker Bowles is a baron’s granddaughter. Why isn’t she good enough to be queen? She isn’t automatically anything - titles have to be conferred by the Crown - Prince Charles wasn’t born “Prince of Wales” he was inaugerated as such back in the 60’s (for about 20 minutes). “Queen” isn’t automatic either - The Queen’s husband is the Duke of Edinburgh. “Princess Consort” (which sounds like a car) partly acknowledges that she isn’t the mother of the future king. ---
**Author:** ![GorillaMan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/50afbb/32.png) [@GorillaMan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GorillaMan)\ **Post date:** [February 24, 2005, 3:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/any-political-consequences-on-the-queens-snub-of-charles-wedding/291709/8 "2005-02-24T15:58:00Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > she’ll have the newly-coined title of “princess consort.” I’ve heard criticism of this term - to me, it seems no different than the unique use of ‘prince consort’ for Prince Albert. ---
**Author:** ![tagos](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/bbe5ce/32.png) [@tagos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tagos)\ **Post date:** [February 24, 2005, 4:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/any-political-consequences-on-the-queens-snub-of-charles-wedding/291709/9 "2005-02-24T16:00:35Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > According to news reports I’ve read, Camilla will legally be the Princess of Wales but won’t use the title. And when Charles becomes king, Camilla won’t be queen – she’ll have the newly-coined title of “princess consort.” According to this – [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Camilla\_Parker\_Bowles](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Camilla_Parker_Bowles) – Camilla Parker Bowles is a baron’s granddaughter. Why isn’t she good enough to be queen? Because she’s not Saint Diana and the buffoons that pass for Royal Advisers think making Camilla Queen and Princess might piss off SD’s fanbase. I really don’t think most people give a toss. ---
**Author:** ![Giles](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/giles/32/60_2.png) [@Giles](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Giles)\ **Post date:** [February 24, 2005, 4:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/any-political-consequences-on-the-queens-snub-of-charles-wedding/291709/10 "2005-02-24T16:02:52Z")
> [@owlstretchingtime](#): > > She isn’t automatically anything - titles have to be conferred by the Crown - Prince Charles wasn’t born “Prince of Wales” he was inaugerated as such back in the 60’s (for about 20 minutes). Charles did automatically become Duke of Cornwall when his mum became Queen, and his wife automatially becomes Duchess of Cornwall. That’s something that goes with being the oldest son of the monarch. ---
**Author:** ![eleanorigby](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/ee7513/32.png) [@eleanorigby](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/eleanorigby)\ **Post date:** [February 24, 2005, 10:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/any-political-consequences-on-the-queens-snub-of-charles-wedding/291709/11 "2005-02-24T22:20:54Z")
Some titles are inherited, and some are bestowed. I see no reason for her not to be Queen (even though it’s none of my business)–I personally dislike her (if one can be said to dislike someone you have never met), but I gotta say…this “Princess Consort” thing: it sounds like a high end call girl to me. Just call her the Royal Concubine and be done…Queen at least has dignity as a term. big mouthed American shuts up. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [February 24, 2005, 10:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/any-political-consequences-on-the-queens-snub-of-charles-wedding/291709/12 "2005-02-24T22:25:24Z")
> [@GorillaMan](#): > > I’ve heard criticism of this term - to me, it seems no different than the unique use of ‘prince consort’ for Prince Albert. “Unique”? I thought Prince Philip was styled prince consort as well as Duke of Edinburgh. But Camilla will be the first king’s wife in English/British history to be styled princess consort rather than queen consort. ---
**Author:** ![Mk\_VII](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/5f9b8f/32.png) [@Mk\_VII](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mk_VII)\ **Post date:** [February 26, 2005, 11:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/any-political-consequences-on-the-queens-snub-of-charles-wedding/291709/13 "2005-02-26T23:37:37Z")
he is not styled ‘Prince Consort’, there has only ever been one of those. He is a Prince of Greece and Denmark by virtue of descent from his father, Prince Andrew of Greece. ---
**Author:** ![LavenderBlue](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/e95f7d/32.png) [@LavenderBlue](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LavenderBlue)\ **Post date:** [March 1, 2005, 6:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/any-political-consequences-on-the-queens-snub-of-charles-wedding/291709/14 "2005-03-01T06:40:23Z")
> [@Mk VII](#): > > he is not styled ‘Prince Consort’, there has only ever been one of those. He is a Prince of Greece and Denmark by virtue of descent from his father, Prince Andrew of Greece. But didn’t he give up those titles when he married Elizabeth? ---
**Author:** ![Mike\_H](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/ecd19e/32.png) [@Mike\_H](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mike_H)\ **Post date:** [March 1, 2005, 5:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/any-political-consequences-on-the-queens-snub-of-charles-wedding/291709/15 "2005-03-01T17:53:10Z")
> [@lavenderlemon](#): > > But didn’t he give up those titles when he married Elizabeth? Yes he did. However, he’s still a Prince. From [here](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prince_Philip,_Duke_of_Edinburgh): > [@](#): > > His Royal Highness The Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh (Philip Mountbatten), styled HRH The Duke of Edinburgh (born June 10, 1921), is the consort of Queen Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Originally a Greek citizen, holding the titles of prince of Greece and Denmark, he renounced these titles and his citizenship to marry Elizabeth. He now holds the titles of Duke of Edinburgh, Earl of Merioneth and Baron Greenwich. Philip was also created a British prince and holds the style His Royal Highness.