Are you absolutely sure about that?
Are you absolutely sure about that?
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: )
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.
I hear they’re changing the guard at Buckingham Palace.
C.R. went down with Alice.
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.
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.”
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 the issue in 2014, and the government’s position was that no change to that was forthcoming:
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.
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.
Title: Co-Queen.
However, a Co-King might be misinterpreted.
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 ?
And how did you vote?
Oddly, the respective titles would be exactly the same as your scenario if they were both really flamboyant gay men.
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.
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.
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.
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.