Time for God to save our next Queen
By Simon Heffer
26/05/2007
The Telegraph
The Duke and Duchess of Cornwall: Except for rare occasions, the Royal Family is always popular in Britain, but it is infinitely more popular than it was just 10 years ago
There are two reasons why it is still so hard to have a rational discussion of the effects of the phenomenon of Diana, Princess of Wales, who died nearly 10 years ago at the hands of a drunk driver employed by Mohamed Fayed. The first is that her place in the memory of a certain section of the public is such that any attempt to deal with the question sensibly is met with some degree or other of hysteria.
The second is that one or two down-market newspapers still rely on the princess's posthumous appeal to buoy their circulations, and pump out drivel about her accordingly.
The Royal Family is infinitely more popular now than it was a decade ago. This even applies to the late princess's husband, who has had difficulties on the public relations front over the years. However, the House of Windsor now quite sensibly takes nothing for granted, and proceeds warily in respect of public opinion. This sometimes leads to downright over-caution, which was the cause of the constitutionally ridiculous "deal" that was done concerning the style and titles of Camilla Parker Bowles when the Prince of Wales married her two years ago.
As I wrote here last week in another context, the woman we are now expected to call the Duchess of Cornwall is, of course, really Princess of Wales. In an appeal to sentiment rather than to reason, it seems to have been decided that, for the foreseeable future, there could only be one Princess of Wales, even though she happened, regrettably, to be dead. So it was that we have someone called the Duchess of Cornwall: she certainly is, but that is not all she is (she's also the Duchess of Rothesay. Likewise, her husband is the Prince of Wales, the Duke of Cornwall, the Duke of Rothesay and Prince Charles of Edinburgh).
Similarly, it was said at the time of the marriage - though not definitively or absolutely - that the Duchess would not one day be Queen: the idea is that when the Prince of Wales becomes King and Duke of Lancaster, she will move north and become Duchess of Lancaster. Call me an old bore if you like, but I failed to see at the time how this could be possible. The King would be legally married to his wife.
Under our constitutional custom and practice, his wife has the same rank as he does. Therefore, whether the public like it or not, the Duchess would, on her husband's accession to the throne, become Queen of England (for the husband of a Queen, it's different. He does NOT become King, which is why Phillip is the Duke of Edinburgh and not the King).
It was a reassuring blast of common sense earlier this week, therefore, to hear that there is talk at court about the Duchess becoming Queen. I suppose this was inevitable: not just because absurdity cannot prevail for ever, but also because the Duchess has turned out to be a remarkably successful and popular consort of the Prince of Wales. She is not the hydra-headed monster or black widow that the gutter press has loved to portray her as: rather a largely harmless and genial woman from the shires who behaves refreshingly normally, does good works, does not stand on her honour and is, in short, an ideal future Queen.
And the further fact of the matter is that if you asked anybody - whether the proverbial man in the street or the most elevated constitutional expert - to give you a good reason why the Duchess should not become Queen Consort one day, they couldn't. They could pour out bile and prejudice if they chose, but no solid or intelligent point to bar her from being crowned Queen when her husband is crowned King could be admitted - for the very good reason that there isn't one.
I think the Queen's next Prime Minister, when he takes office next month, should advise the Sovereign that this is so, and an announcement should be made accordingly. Those who wish to be upset by it can enjoy themselves for a few days of whining, and then it will all be forgotten. And we can have, in the interim, the Princess of Wales not just that we deserve, but that every precedent in our law and customs demands.
telegraph.co.uk
By Simon Heffer
26/05/2007
The Telegraph
The Duke and Duchess of Cornwall: Except for rare occasions, the Royal Family is always popular in Britain, but it is infinitely more popular than it was just 10 years ago
There are two reasons why it is still so hard to have a rational discussion of the effects of the phenomenon of Diana, Princess of Wales, who died nearly 10 years ago at the hands of a drunk driver employed by Mohamed Fayed. The first is that her place in the memory of a certain section of the public is such that any attempt to deal with the question sensibly is met with some degree or other of hysteria.
The second is that one or two down-market newspapers still rely on the princess's posthumous appeal to buoy their circulations, and pump out drivel about her accordingly.
The Royal Family is infinitely more popular now than it was a decade ago. This even applies to the late princess's husband, who has had difficulties on the public relations front over the years. However, the House of Windsor now quite sensibly takes nothing for granted, and proceeds warily in respect of public opinion. This sometimes leads to downright over-caution, which was the cause of the constitutionally ridiculous "deal" that was done concerning the style and titles of Camilla Parker Bowles when the Prince of Wales married her two years ago.
As I wrote here last week in another context, the woman we are now expected to call the Duchess of Cornwall is, of course, really Princess of Wales. In an appeal to sentiment rather than to reason, it seems to have been decided that, for the foreseeable future, there could only be one Princess of Wales, even though she happened, regrettably, to be dead. So it was that we have someone called the Duchess of Cornwall: she certainly is, but that is not all she is (she's also the Duchess of Rothesay. Likewise, her husband is the Prince of Wales, the Duke of Cornwall, the Duke of Rothesay and Prince Charles of Edinburgh).
Similarly, it was said at the time of the marriage - though not definitively or absolutely - that the Duchess would not one day be Queen: the idea is that when the Prince of Wales becomes King and Duke of Lancaster, she will move north and become Duchess of Lancaster. Call me an old bore if you like, but I failed to see at the time how this could be possible. The King would be legally married to his wife.
Under our constitutional custom and practice, his wife has the same rank as he does. Therefore, whether the public like it or not, the Duchess would, on her husband's accession to the throne, become Queen of England (for the husband of a Queen, it's different. He does NOT become King, which is why Phillip is the Duke of Edinburgh and not the King).
It was a reassuring blast of common sense earlier this week, therefore, to hear that there is talk at court about the Duchess becoming Queen. I suppose this was inevitable: not just because absurdity cannot prevail for ever, but also because the Duchess has turned out to be a remarkably successful and popular consort of the Prince of Wales. She is not the hydra-headed monster or black widow that the gutter press has loved to portray her as: rather a largely harmless and genial woman from the shires who behaves refreshingly normally, does good works, does not stand on her honour and is, in short, an ideal future Queen.
And the further fact of the matter is that if you asked anybody - whether the proverbial man in the street or the most elevated constitutional expert - to give you a good reason why the Duchess should not become Queen Consort one day, they couldn't. They could pour out bile and prejudice if they chose, but no solid or intelligent point to bar her from being crowned Queen when her husband is crowned King could be admitted - for the very good reason that there isn't one.
I think the Queen's next Prime Minister, when he takes office next month, should advise the Sovereign that this is so, and an announcement should be made accordingly. Those who wish to be upset by it can enjoy themselves for a few days of whining, and then it will all be forgotten. And we can have, in the interim, the Princess of Wales not just that we deserve, but that every precedent in our law and customs demands.
telegraph.co.uk
Last edited:
