The Unofficial British Royal Family Pages

Sunday 21 May 2006

The King's "Companion"

Just over 1200 years ago, in the year 802, there was an accidental poisoning in the kingdom of Wessex. King Beorhtric of Wessex was accidentally done in by his wife Eadburh, a daughter of King Offa of Mercia. The horrified widow went off on a pilgrimage to Rome to atone for her unintentional crime, and died along the way. Beorhtric�s cousin Egbert, ancestor of the current royal family, succeeded him as King. But the folk in England were so horrified by what had happened that it was decided no king�s spouse would ever again be honored was a �regina.� Instead, the king�s wife would simply be known as the consort or companion� the �cwen� in Anglo-Saxon parlance. Thus was the distinctively English title of �Queen� born.

What goes around, apparently comes around. The debate continues as to what the wife of the next king should be called. In 2005 it was announced that when Prince Charles eventually succeeds to the throne his wife will go by the title of �Princess Consort,� a title that in Old English would � I suspect � be roughly translated as �cwen.� Hmm. History and usage have, of course, given a much different context for the word �queen� than was intended by the Anglo-Saxons of the ninth century. But there is a certain irony in the ongoing debate over Duchess Camilla�s future title, nonetheless. And, frankly, I suspect that the lady in question is really rather indifferent to what her future title will be. She is probably quite content with the prospect of being Princess Consort, or even relieved.

Whatever one�s attitudes to happenings over the past couple of decades, a �can of worms� now best left closed, it seems fairly widely agreed that over the past year the Duchess of Cornwall has acquitted herself pretty admirably. I know a number of former foes who have at least come to a grudging respect over the period. It cannot have been easy for a woman in her late 50s who, by all accounts, has preferred a country life of jeans, horses, and dogs. I recently saw a report saying that she admitted shedding some tears when she passed by her much loved former home. In any event, the new royal has thus far deftly walked a fine line between thrusting herself forward and staying too much in the background. She is reportedly getting on well with her in-laws, and her stepsons. She has mostly dressed elegantly and well� even if some of her hats rival the size of those she saw onstage in San Francisco when she and her prince attended the musical review Beach Blanket Babylon. She also carries off wearing a tiara well, on the appropriate official occasions.

I must admit that the two things that have most engaged me over recent months are that the Duchess of Cornwall seems to have retained a basic �down-to-earth� quality, and that she so evidently loves her husband. Coverage of their wedding included a wonderful moment during the walkabout after the blessing service at St. George�s Chapel. Seeing a particular friend from Wiltshire among the gathered well wishers Camilla called out, �Oh, David, how are ya!� She leaned into the crowd to greet him, and then grabbed her bemused new husband and pulled him over to meet her friend. Accounts of similar moments of �real engagement� characterized the couple�s trip to the U.S., which included sensitive stops at �Ground Zero� in New York, and in the devastation of New Orleans. She even achieved a successful visit to the White House along the way. Notes from the more recent trip to Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and India are the same. The late middle-aged pair went sight-seeing arm in arm in Egypt. She tearfully left tributes at the graves of two of her father�s WWII comrades. In Saudi Arabia the Duchess subtly challenged the overwhelming subjugation of women through little acts such as greeting the King with her head uncovered in the full gaze of the media. And in India she sensibly knew when it was time to respect her own physical limits on a steamy hot day, effectively telling her rather hardier husband, �No dear, I�ll stay right here in the shade. Thank you very much!� Comparable anecdotes emerge from accounts of engagements around the U.K.

For myself, I find this all a great relief. Charles and Camilla are seeming like a very British royal couple. They aren�t dazzling, and may even be rather boring, but nowadays they make their rounds and support their causes with relative good humor and dignity. With both of Camilla�s children now married, it might not be too long until we actually behold them entering the role of grandparents. An interesting thought, that. �Grandpapa Fred� and �Grannie Gladys.�

At the moment the only really significant question that I see concerning Camilla�s eventual status as Queen or Princess Consort is whether or not she will actually be crowned and anointed. That is a big question both symbolically and sacramentally. And, the individual case opens up an even larger question for the more distant future.

Except for the anomaly of the co-monarchs William and Mary (who were Stuart first cousins anyway) it has never been the custom in Britain for the husband of a �Regina� to be anointed and crowned in the same way that the wife of a �Rex� has been. Even at her most besotted, the �crown matrimonial� status was one of the few things Mary Queen of Scots refused to do for her deceptively dashing young husband, Lord Darnley. She did grant him the courtesy title of �King Henry�, but he remained, simply, the Queen�s husband. Both Prince Albert and Prince Philip have been simply the consorts of their queens. (I wonder what a male �cwen� is?) At the coronation in 1953 Prince Philip participated in the ceremonies simply as a royal duke. So, if the plans announced last year are adhered to when Charles finally succeeds to the throne, the Duchess of Cornwall will in a way strike an unintended blow for the equality of the sexes� entering into a role and status more like that currently held by her father-in-law.

Historically speaking I think it would be extremely fitting that the late Queen Elizabeth, the Queen Mother, be the last-ever crowned and anointed Queen Consort, just as she was the last Queen-Empress. It would also be an interesting sort of permanent tribute to the memory of Princess Diana, whose destiny did not include becoming Queen. A permanent shift to a new title and status would be a move in line with the way in which the Wessexes chose to forego the HRH title for Sophie at the time of their marriage. It would also preserve a somewhat more elevated dignity for the much respected Princess Royal, a near parity of Princess Consort / Princess Royal. And I suspect it might be a relief to future royal spouses� perhaps like a certain Kate� to continue in a new �cwen� tradition. The �Queen Camilla� debate thus has ramifications far beyond her. It could be that an unintended constitutional evolution is once again quietly afoot in Britain.

My one caveat in all this, as one to whom ritual is a matter of deep significance, is that when the next coronation happens there does need to be �something� in the ceremony for the king�s wife. It may be appropriate for Camilla to be simply invested as Princess Consort � say with the diamond diadem that the current Queen wears to and from State Openings at Westminster � and also for her to be blessed (sans oil) with a simple laying on of hands and prayer. Such a scaled back rite would be equally appropriate (with some more masculine sort of coronal circlet) for future royal husbands. It would be more comparable to, say, the Prince of Wales Investiture than to the full historic coronation ceremony. In a way Charles and Camilla�s carefully designed marriage �blessing� provides a helpful precedent for navigating such uncharted liturgical paths. The best ceremonial traditions, after all, are those that retain the ability to flex and adapt as the times require. That�s what makes them �living� traditions, after all.

Yours Aye,

- Ken Cuthbertson