# Piper Cub thinks there's something hinky going on at Buckingham Palace **URL:** \ **Category:** Miscellaneous and Personal Stuff I Must Share\ **Created:** [June 3, 2016, 11:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/piper-cub-thinks-theres-something-hinky-going-on-at-buckingham-palace/756433 "2016-06-03T23:01:26Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![glee](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/b5a626/32.png) [@glee](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/glee)\ **Post date:** [June 5, 2016, 11:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/piper-cub-thinks-theres-something-hinky-going-on-at-buckingham-palace/756433/21 "2016-06-05T11:27:04Z")
> [@SanVito](#): > > A) you really need to let it go, everyone else in the UK has, Are you absolutely sure about that? A majority of the public does not want Camilla to become queen if Prince Charles succeeds to the throne, a poll for the Daily Mail reveals today. And the nation is completely split on whether Charles should become king at all. Nevertheless, Camilla apparently won’t be styled Queen. This is for the same reason that she uses the title Duchess of Cornwall: the ghost of Lady Diana Spencer refuses to pass on, and public is still angry over Camilla’s supposed role in the break-down of the Wales’ marriage. surveys have consistently suggested the British public are not keen on the idea of Charles as king or his wife, the Duchess of Cornwall, as queen – a title that a ComRes poll in April last year found 55 per cent of people to be against. > [@SanVito](#): > > B) that’s not how the succession works. Charles will be King. Are you absolutely sure about that? In 1936, a constitutional crisis in the British Empire arose when King-Emperor Edward VIII proposed to marry Wallis Simpson, an American socialite who was divorced from her first husband and was pursuing a divorce of her second. … The widespread unwillingness to accept Simpson as the King’s consort, and Edward’s refusal to give her up, led to his abdication in December 1936 ---
**Author:** ![glee](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/b5a626/32.png) [@glee](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/glee)\ **Post date:** [June 5, 2016, 11:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/piper-cub-thinks-theres-something-hinky-going-on-at-buckingham-palace/756433/22 "2016-06-05T11:32:49Z")
> [@Aspidistra](#): > > Bah humbug. If you start disqualifying monarchs on the basis that they had an affair, how many have you got left? I agree that Royals seem to ‘put it about a bit’. 😉 However as our Monarch also becomes ‘Supreme Governor of the Church of England’, I think any Heir to the our Throne should make more of an effort to avoid adultery. (After all Charles and Camilla had a lengthy affair - inlcuding 9 years when they were both married to other people. :smack: ) ---
**Author:** ![Dangerosa](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/22d042/32.png) [@Dangerosa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dangerosa)\ **Post date:** [June 5, 2016, 12:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/piper-cub-thinks-theres-something-hinky-going-on-at-buckingham-palace/756433/23 "2016-06-05T12:07:22Z")
There were more problems with Edward and Wallace - starting with huge problems with Edward. He was irresponsible, not terribly bright, and admired Hitler. He thought the King should have more power in the UK than had evolved over time. He had no children, and Wallis was still young enough to produce an heir. And Wallis was not trusted to be faithful, twice married, known to have lovers. (Though there was reason to believe both of them infertile when they married). He was young and likely to be King for a long time. Charles has two heirs and Camilla is well past the age where she will have children. Charles is kind of a goof, and sometimes says things that overstep, but he really isn’t interested in recreating a powerful monarchy. He is pretty responsible, and he isn’t stupid. He’s already 67 years old - and while his family likes to live a long time, it isn’t likely to be more than a twenty five year reign. Moreover, it was 1936. Wallis was an American, a divorcee and a commoner - all those things were important in 1936. Heck, they were important when Charles married Diana in 1981. But now, those things are much less important. As to Camilla being styled Queen, the palace has no official position on it at this time. I suspect it will be a bridge crossed when it needs to be crossed. Its the monarchy, while the public opinion is important, in the end Charles will get to decide what title his wife uses. ---
**Author:** ![Musicat](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/musicat/32/20189_2.png) [@Musicat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Musicat)\ **Post date:** [June 5, 2016, 12:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/piper-cub-thinks-theres-something-hinky-going-on-at-buckingham-palace/756433/24 "2016-06-05T12:10:39Z")
I hear they’re changing the guard at Buckingham Palace. C.R. went down with Alice. ---
**Author:** ![Chronos](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chronos/32/134_2.png) [@Chronos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chronos)\ **Post date:** [June 5, 2016, 12:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/piper-cub-thinks-theres-something-hinky-going-on-at-buckingham-palace/756433/25 "2016-06-05T12:25:20Z")
The problem here isn’t the title of “king”, but of “queen”, which is used to mean two very different things. It can mean “female monarch”, or it can mean “female spouse of a monarch”. What Elizabeth is is more similar to what her father was than to what her mother was. Now, where it would get really sticky would be if we had a lesbian monarch. If both the monarch and her spouse are female, the current convention would give them both the same title, even though one would be monarch and the other merely decorative. ---
**Author:** ![Dangerosa](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/22d042/32.png) [@Dangerosa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dangerosa)\ **Post date:** [June 5, 2016, 12:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/piper-cub-thinks-theres-something-hinky-going-on-at-buckingham-palace/756433/26 "2016-06-05T12:28:03Z")
> [@glee](#): > > I agree that Royals seem to ‘put it about a bit’. 😉 > However as our Monarch also becomes ‘Supreme Governor of the Church of England’, I think any Heir to the our Throne should make more of an effort to avoid adultery. (After all Charles and Camilla had a lengthy affair - inlcuding 9 years when they were both married to other people. :smack: ) Nine years is nothing in terms of mistresses to the King of England. Nell Gwynne had 18 years and Louise de Kérouaille shared fifteen of them. Alice Keppel had twelve. Of course, the sons of Farmer George were notorious, but most of them weren’t married to other people while they had long term mistresses and families. And Diana’s own parents had a lot of marital infidelities between them. Some speculate that Diana was chosen because with her parent’s scandals she would “understand these things.” ---
**Author:** ![Lord\_Feldon](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lord_feldon/32/341_2.png) [@Lord\_Feldon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lord_Feldon)\ **Post date:** [June 5, 2016, 12:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/piper-cub-thinks-theres-something-hinky-going-on-at-buckingham-palace/756433/27 "2016-06-05T12:44:31Z")
> [@Chronos](#): > > Now, where it would get really sticky would be if we had a lesbian monarch. If both the monarch and her spouse are female, the current convention would give them both the same title, even though one would be monarch and the other merely decorative. I don’t think that is the current convention. The current convention is that women share in the titles held by their _husbands_. The House of Lords [debated](http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld201314/ldhansrd/text/140224-0001.htm) the issue in 2014, and the government’s position was that no change to that was forthcoming: > [@](#): > > My Lords, while the Government recognise the equality issues surrounding the use of courtesy titles, we have no plans to alter their use due to the complexity of the system and the likelihood of confusion arising from alteration to the long-standing custom and practice governing this matter…The rapid changes in the relationship between the sexes and in marriage over the past 50 years have, of course, left us with a number of anomalies, of which the Government are well aware, but we are not persuaded that it is urgent to adjust them now. ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [June 5, 2016, 3:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/piper-cub-thinks-theres-something-hinky-going-on-at-buckingham-palace/756433/28 "2016-06-05T15:30:07Z")
I wonder what title they’ll create for Camilla if she outlives Charles. It would be an unusual situation to have her as a dowager queen when she’s not related to the new king. ---
**Author:** ![Northern\_Piper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/northern_piper/32/5304_2.png) [@Northern\_Piper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Northern_Piper)\ **Post date:** [June 5, 2016, 4:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/piper-cub-thinks-theres-something-hinky-going-on-at-buckingham-palace/756433/29 "2016-06-05T16:57:55Z")
That was the case with Queen Adelaide in 1837. She was the Quern Dowager after William IV died and Victoria became Queen. ---
**Author:** ![Baker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/bb73d2/32.png) [@Baker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Baker)\ **Post date:** [June 5, 2016, 5:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/piper-cub-thinks-theres-something-hinky-going-on-at-buckingham-palace/756433/30 "2016-06-05T17:20:03Z")
> [@Northern\_Piper](#): > > That was the case with Queen Adelaide in 1837. She was the Quern Dowager after William IV died and Victoria became Queen. Good call. There’s very few things that don’t have a precedent when it comes to the British monarchy. ---
**Author:** ![Musicat](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/musicat/32/20189_2.png) [@Musicat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Musicat)\ **Post date:** [June 5, 2016, 5:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/piper-cub-thinks-theres-something-hinky-going-on-at-buckingham-palace/756433/31 "2016-06-05T17:22:16Z")
> [@Chronos](#): > > Now, where it would get really sticky would be if we had a lesbian monarch. If both the monarch and her spouse are female, the current convention would give them both the same title, even though one would be monarch and the other merely decorative. Title: Co-Queen. However, a Co-King might be misinterpreted. ---
**Author:** ![chappachula](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/d2c977/32.png) [@chappachula](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/chappachula)\ **Post date:** [June 5, 2016, 6:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/piper-cub-thinks-theres-something-hinky-going-on-at-buckingham-palace/756433/32 "2016-06-05T18:11:47Z")
> [@Chronos](#): > > Now, where it would get really sticky would be if we had a lesbian monarch. ahhh…but here’s another important question ( in keeping with the most pressing issue in American politics right now ): What would happen if you had a trans-gendered King/Queen ? If there was a Royal visit to America, which restroom would he/she use ? 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![Zakalwe](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/zakalwe/32/270_2.png) [@Zakalwe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zakalwe)\ **Post date:** [June 5, 2016, 9:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/piper-cub-thinks-theres-something-hinky-going-on-at-buckingham-palace/756433/33 "2016-06-05T21:22:12Z")
> [@Lord\_Feldon](#): > > The House of Lords [debated](http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld201314/ldhansrd/text/140224-0001.htm) the issue in 2014, and the government’s position was that no change to that was forthcoming: And how did you vote? 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![Shagnasty](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9dc877/32.png) [@Shagnasty](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shagnasty)\ **Post date:** [June 5, 2016, 9:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/piper-cub-thinks-theres-something-hinky-going-on-at-buckingham-palace/756433/34 "2016-06-05T21:57:19Z")
> [@Chronos](#): > > Now, where it would get really sticky would be if we had a lesbian monarch. If both the monarch and her spouse are female, the current convention would give them both the same title, even though one would be monarch and the other merely decorative. Oddly, the respective titles would be exactly the same as your scenario if they were both really flamboyant gay men. ---
**Author:** ![ctnguy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/6de8d8/32.png) [@ctnguy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ctnguy)\ **Post date:** [June 6, 2016, 12:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/piper-cub-thinks-theres-something-hinky-going-on-at-buckingham-palace/756433/35 "2016-06-06T00:37:10Z")
> [@Chronos](#): > > Now, where it would get really sticky would be if we had a lesbian monarch. If both the monarch and her spouse are female, the current convention would give them both the same title, even though one would be monarch and the other merely decorative. Another really sticky issue in that situation would be the Commonwealth realms (which share a monarch with the UK) that don’t recognize same-sex marriage. Indeed, of the 16 realms, the only ones which have SSM are the UK, Canada and New Zealand. ---
**Author:** ![Lord\_Feldon](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lord_feldon/32/341_2.png) [@Lord\_Feldon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lord_Feldon)\ **Post date:** [June 6, 2016, 12:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/piper-cub-thinks-theres-something-hinky-going-on-at-buckingham-palace/756433/36 "2016-06-06T00:47:56Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > I wonder what title they’ll create for Camilla if she outlives Charles. It would be an unusual situation to have her as a dowager queen when she’s not related to the new king. She wouldn’t really need a title created for her. She has a unique name in the family so “Queen Camilla” wouldn’t cause any confusion. ---
**Author:** ![Slow\_Moving\_Vehicle](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/slow_moving_vehicle/32/291_2.png) [@Slow\_Moving\_Vehicle](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Slow_Moving_Vehicle)\ **Post date:** [June 6, 2016, 1:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/piper-cub-thinks-theres-something-hinky-going-on-at-buckingham-palace/756433/37 "2016-06-06T01:53:34Z")
> [@bibliophage](#): > > She was a princess, but he wasn’t a prince when they got married. He was born a prince of Denmark and Greece but he gave up those titles when they got engaged several months before the wedding. He wasn’t make a prince of the UK until ten years after the wedding. (I wonder who he had to sleep with to get that). On his wedding day his highest title was Duke of Edinburgh, a position which he had held for all of one day. Hunh? Prince Phillip is still the Duke of Edinburgh. “Prince” is not a separate rank, like “Duke”, “Marquess”, “Earl” or “Baron”, it’s a title that, in British context, means “relative of the sovereign”, and is applied to all British dukes, on the theory that they are honorary cousins of the Queen. Prince Phillip is a prince because he’s the Duke of Edinburgh; Prince William’s because he’s the Duke of Cambridge; and so on. Technically, the Duke of Atholl and the Duke of Devon are princes, as well, and - according to Sir Iain Moncrieffe - at the 1957 funeral of the Duke of Argyll, he was called a “most puissant prince” by the herald who proclaimed his title. Moncrieffe’s _The Highland Clans_ is my source for this. ---
**Author:** ![Flyer](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/flyer/32/7298_2.png) [@Flyer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Flyer)\ **Post date:** [June 6, 2016, 2:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/piper-cub-thinks-theres-something-hinky-going-on-at-buckingham-palace/756433/38 "2016-06-06T02:04:12Z")
> [@Acsenray](#): > > His dukedom is higher than his prince-dom. Are you basing that assertion on the fact that he was a prince from a very minor kingdom? ---
**Author:** ![mbh](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/a6a055/32.png) [@mbh](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mbh)\ **Post date:** [June 6, 2016, 2:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/piper-cub-thinks-theres-something-hinky-going-on-at-buckingham-palace/756433/39 "2016-06-06T02:10:51Z")
> **[List of titles and honours of Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_titles_and_honours_of_Prince_Philip,_Duke_of_Edinburgh)** > > Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh received numerous titles, decorations and honorary appointments, both before and during his time as consort to Queen Elizabeth II. Each is listed below. Where two dates are shown, the first indicates the date of receiving the title or award (the title as Prince Philip of Greece and Denmark being given as from his birth) and the second indicates the date of its loss, renunciation or when its use was discontinued. > Prince Philip's British honours were read out at... > [@](#): > > Royal and noble titles and styles[edit] > 10 June 1921 – 28 February 1947: His Royal Highness Prince Philip of Greece and Denmark > 28 February 1947 – 19 November 1947: Lieutenant Philip Mountbatten > 19 November 1947 – 20 November 1947: His Royal Highness Sir Philip Mountbatten[1] > 20 November 1947 – present: His Royal Highness The Duke of Edinburgh[1] > 22 February 1957 – present: His Royal Highness The Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh[2][3] > The Prince’s style and title in full: His Royal Highness The Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh, Earl of Merioneth, Baron Greenwich, Royal Knight of the Most Noble Order of the Garter, Extra Knight of the Most Ancient and Most Noble Order of the Thistle, Member of the Order of Merit, Grand Master and First and Principal Knight Grand Cross of the Most Excellent Order of the British Empire, Knight of the Order of Australia, Additional Member of the Order of New Zealand, Extra Companion of the Queen’s Service Order, Royal Chief of the Order of Logohu, Extraordinary Companion of the Order of Canada, Extraordinary Commander of the Order of Military Merit,[4] Canadian Forces Decoration, Lord of Her Majesty’s Most Honourable Privy Council, Privy Councillor of the Queen’s Privy Council for Canada, Personal Aide-de-Camp to Her Majesty, Lord High Admiral of the United Kingdom.[5] > Royal styles and titles 1947[edit] > On 19 November 1947, the day preceding his wedding, King George VI bestowed by Letters Patent the style His Royal Highness on Philip, and on the morning of the wedding, 20 November 1947, further Letters Patent of that day created him Duke of Edinburgh, Earl of Merioneth, and Baron Greenwich of Greenwich in the County of London.[6] Consequently, being already a Knight of the Garter, between 19 and 20 November 1947 he bore the unusual style His Royal Highness Sir Philip Mountbatten and is so described in the Letters Patent of 20 November 1947. > Debate over Prince Philip’s titles and honours[edit] > Royal title[edit] > On the popular, but erroneous, assumption that if Philip had the style of His Royal Highness he was automatically a British Prince, media reports after his marriage to Princess Elizabeth referred to a Prince Philip, with or without reference to any ducal title. This may have been influenced by the fact that he had actually been a Prince of Greece and Denmark by birth, the use of which titles he had renounced already. Although the princely title was omitted in the British Regency Act 1953, and in Letters Patent of November 1953 appointing Counsellors of State, it had been included in Letters Patent of 22 October 1948 conferring princely rank on children from Philip’s marriage to Elizabeth. King George VI, however, is believed to have been clear and intentional in having withheld the title of Prince from his future son-in-law.[N 1] > On 3 February 1953, John Diefenbaker MP made this political football by expressing to the Canadian House of Commons his desire to see Philip bear a title that alluded to The Queen’s pan-national position and put forward the suggestion of Prince of the Commonwealth.[8] In May of the following year, Prime Minister of the United Kingdom Sir Winston Churchill received a written suggestion from The Queen that her husband be granted the title that Diefenbaker had mentioned, or some other suitable augmentation of his style. Churchill preferred the title Prince Consort, but the Foreign Secretary, Anthony Eden, expressed a preference for Prince of the Realm. While the Commonwealth Prime Ministers were assembled in London, Churchill was requested by The Queen to informally solicit their opinions on the matter of HM The Queen’s husband’s title. Canadian Prime Minister Louis St. Laurent was the only one to express “misgivings,” while Philip insisted to The Queen that he objected to any enhancement of his title. The Queen thereafter contacted Churchill and told him to drop the matter.[7] In 1955, the South African Prime Minister J.G. Strijdom belatedly made it known that the South African Cabinet objected to the title Prince of the Commonwealth. When told, The Queen continued to express the wish that her husband’s position be raised, but rejected the British Cabinet’s recommendations of Prince Consort or Prince Royal. The British Cabinet then suggested simply His Royal Highness the Prince, but The Queen was advised that if she still preferred Prince of the Commonwealth, her Private Secretary could write directly to the Commonwealth Governors-General for their response, though warning that if their consent was not unanimous the proposal could not go forward. > The matter appeared left until the publication on 8 February 1957 of an article by P. Wykeham-Bourne in The Evening Standard titled: “Well, is it correct to say Prince Philip?” A few days following, British Prime Minister Harold Macmillan reversed the advice of The Queen’s previous ministers and formally recommended that The Queen reject the Prince in favour of Prince of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and Her other Realms and Territories, only to change this advice, after she consented, to delete even the vague reference to the Commonwealth countries. Letters Patent were issued on 22 February 1957 giving the Duke the style and titular dignity of a Prince of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (omitting the wording and Her other Realms and Territories). According to the announcement in the London Gazette, he should henceforth be known as His Royal Highness The Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh,[9] with the capitalised definite article normally restricted to the children of monarchs.[7] > The media cultivated speculation in early 2007 that the title of Prince Consort might be conferred to mark the royal couple’s 60th wedding anniversary in November that year; however, this did not occur. ---
**Author:** ![Acsenray](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/acsenray/32/4519_2.png) [@Acsenray](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Acsenray)\ **Post date:** [June 6, 2016, 2:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/piper-cub-thinks-theres-something-hinky-going-on-at-buckingham-palace/756433/40 "2016-06-06T02:18:17Z")
> [@Flyer](#): > > Are you basing that assertion on the fact that he was a prince from a very minor kingdom? No. He no longer has that one. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/piper-cub-thinks-theres-something-hinky-going-on-at-buckingham-palace/756433.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/piper-cub-thinks-theres-something-hinky-going-on-at-buckingham-palace/756433.md?page=3)