Mention of Camilla as Future “Princess Consort” Removed from Couple’s Website

engeland_camilla_70_charles_mario_testino

Clarence House overhauled the official website for the Prince of Wales and Duchess of Cornwall, and in doing so removed all reference to Camilla becoming known as the “Princess Consort” once Charles ascends the throne. This particular style of address was first announced back in 2005 when the couple married, by way of a concession to their unpopularity in light of all things “Diana.” As such, Camilla is known as the Duchess of Cornwall instead of the Princess of Wales, a title still closely associated with Diana.

For years now there has been speculation that Charles intended to make Camilla queen regardless – indeed, there are those who believe he never intended for her to ever be known as Princess Consort, but rather it was a move meant a temporary bandage as public feeling dissipated.

It’s particularly significant that they did this, in my view, so soon after the 20th anniversary of Diana’s death last summer – less the timing in and of itself, but rather the news coverage that made it abundantly clear that feeling over the “War of the Waleses” remains quite passionate.

Britain's Prince Charles and Camilla, Duchess of Cornwall sample wines produced at Oranje Tractor Wines in Albany

I’ve shared my personal opinion on this matter before, but suffice to say I am firmly in the camp that believes Camilla should absolutely be known as queen when Charles is king. She will legally be so regardless and this bizarre title fix strikes me as beyond ridiculous, particularly after 13+ years of hard work as a member of the Royal Family.

And if that’s not enough, then perhaps it’s worth going by the moods of the Duke of Cambridge and Prince Harry – Diana’s sons. Both appear to have friendly relationships with their stepmother and this arrangement is good enough for them, then it’s good enough for me.

1Camilla_Kate_William_Reuters

You can read about the issue in (much) more detail in some of the prior posts on the subject. Here is a point-by-point rebuttal of an opinion piece on the issue with which I disagreed last year and here is more context on how Clarence House handled Charles’s re-branding and marriage.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

w

Connecting to %s