Even though this was a joke, it does point to something relevant. In pre-modern ages, when political power was based on the personal standing of rulers and the feudal loyalties owed to them by their subjects, inter-marriage between dynasties was often intentionally pursued to consolidate power. But with the shift towards the modern nation-state, the idea began to gain hold that this state is distinct from the person of the ruler, and that foreign thrones held by the same ruler did not quite fit into the system. Take, for instance, the personal union between Britain and Hanover that existed between 1714 and 1837. Obiously, Britain was by far the more important throne than Hanover, so that’s where the kings resided, and they were hardly familiar with their German subjects. Hanover law made it clear that the government and administration of this kingdom had to be well separated from those of the UK, and run by Hanover citizens. Despite the personal union between the crowns, the two states were constitutionally and administratively very distinct. Nowadays I would doubt that even a personal union of this sort would be tolerated. (The personal union between the UK and the other Commonwealth realms is, of course, not an issue - this one is intended.)
By the way, the reason why this personal union ended was another quirk in the rules of succession, which differed between the two kingdoms: Hanover did not allow women in the line of succession, so Victoria could succeed to the British throne in 1837 but left the Hanover throne to her uncle.
Thank you for the clarification! It sounds like it was the case then, but if the same situation were to happen today, and she had a younger brother, she still would have become queen regnant.
Was it necessary for the queen to make this statement? Won’t Camilla be queen consort automatically?
On the contrary, why would anyone care about a “personal union”? Excepting, of course, republicans. For example, Elizabeth is the head of state of the Isle of Man because she happens to be the lord or duke or whatever you want to call it, but that does not make it part of the United Kingdom or the British Commonwealth.
That is ultimately up to the king, isn’t it? As far as giving out titles.
Yes, because there had long been speculation that, due to negative public perception about Camilla, she would have taken the title “Princess Consort” instead. As described in this BBC article:
Why does Elizabeth get to decide this? If she dies and Charles becomes King, don’t his wishes prevail?
Sure, but it makes a big difference as far as public opinion is concerned to know that the Queen has endorsed it.
Because she’s the monarch at the moment, and
Yes, but if it comes with his Mama’s authority now, it’s likely to avert any possible PR problem when the time actually comes.
Legally the Isle of Man is not part of the UK (same for the Channel Islands), but for practical purposes it is. Most importantly, the Isle of Man does not have its own foreign and defence, or monetary, policy - the UK handles those matters on behalf of the Isle of Man. So from the perspective of other countries it is, for practical purposes (though not legally) part of the UK with internal autonomy. The situation would be very different if the British monarch, or the spouse of the British monarch, held the throne of a truly independent foreign country. That would, in the present situation, not be advisable, and I am certain that to prevent this, the person in question would be urged to renounce all claims to the foreign throne. The exception to this are the Commonwealth realms, which are intended to be joined with the British crown in a personal union (a perfectly common term, by the way - no need to degrade it with quotation marks). Hence the coordination of the 2013 amendment to the law of succession among all the realms.
OK, I was just wondering if any historical or legal reasons were involved as well.
She doesn’t. Camilla would become Queen Consort by law. The government are the only people who can change that. Hence QEII said it was “her sincere wish”. But nobody is going to argue with the Queen.
Camilla could just claim to be a hurricane
I like the French system; they all get the title “citizen” before their heads drop into the basket.
A republic, in other words.
Doesn’t the new law specify that it does not apply to royal heirs that are already born? Thus, even if Charles had an older sister, Charles would still be first in line. And even if William had an older sister, William would be next in line after Charles. Is that correct?
IIUC, the law first applies to William’s son George – who, being the oldest and a son, isn’t affected anyway. The first time the law may actually affect the royal succession is not yet on the horizon.
It’s all just theatre. Charles wanted to marry Camilla and there was a lot of ill will at the time. People hated the idea of Queen Camilla, so the royal family invented a fiction that she’d be “Princess Consort” to reduce the grumbling. Now years have passed and there are very few people left with strong feelings against her, the Queen has made a statement about wanting her to be Queen Consort to help smooth the way.
It was always going to end with Camilla as Queen Consort, but the royal family managed to buy themselves 20 years.
Liz just might outlive Charles anyway.
And may I say that HerMa was clever in picking her accession jubilee day, after the year she lost her consort, to make this announcement. Thank you for your appreciation, can we all finally bloody move on about this?
Yes, as I understand it, it was set so as to not disturb any already existing line of succession.