We will use your email address only for sending you newsletters. Please see our Privacy Notice for details of your data protection rights.

Camilla, Duchess of Cornwall, 72, and Prince Charles, 71, have been married for 15 years but the scandal which surrounded the start of their relationship has not been entirely forgotten. Charles’s affair with Camilla was made public when his first wife Princess Diana spoke about it in a BBC Panorama interview in 1995.

Princess Diana was known as the Princess of Wales during her marriage to Charles and the royal title stuck despite their divorce in 1996.

Princess Diana’s tragic death in a car crash in 1997 saw her elevated to the status of an icon by the British public and she became known as the “People’s Princess.”

The Princess of Wales title is still associated with Diana which is why Prince Charles’s current wife Camilla Duchess of Cornwall has never gone by it despite her right to use it.

A constitutional expert has flagged a fascinating link between Camilla, Duchess of Cornwall and Edward VIII’s wife American actress Wallis Simpson in regards to their royal titles or lack thereof.

READ MORE

• Prince Charles’s emotional message to mark painful anniversary

Edward VIII’s disgraced the British monarchy by choosing to abdicate from the throne in order to marry Wallis Simpson in 1936.

His abdication caused a constitutional crisis and brought Queen Elizabeth II’s father King George VI to the throne.

Following his abdication, Edward was known as the His Royal Highness the Duke of Windsor and while his wife Wallis was the Duchess of Windsor she was never an HRH.

One royal expert has claimed Camilla’s decision not to use her Princess of Wales title and Wallis Simpson’s lack of HRH style are both key examples of how the British constitution can be adapted according to circumstances.

Royal expert Iain MacMarthanne said: “In its extreme form nothing within the British constitution is binding.

“Royal Warrants can be issued at anytime to address any matter either arising or one requiring rectification or clarification.

“Nothing is set in stone. Consider the case of the Duchess of Windsor, or the Duchess of Cornwall, by law the former should have been an HRH and the latter the Princess of Wales, but neither were what they should have been.

“This is the nature of the elasticity of our constitution, it moves to accommodate as and when required.”

DON’T MISS

Prince Harry’s ‘calculated attack’ backfires as Duke of Sussex slammed [INSIGHT]
Prince Harry opens up on ‘challenging experience’ in heartfelt plea [VIDEO]
Camilla makes relatable confession as she shares sweet new photo [PICTURES]

READ MORE

• Camilla makes relatable confession as she shares sweet new photo

According to Mr MacMarthanne while HRH styles are the birthright of Royal Family members they may be taken away.

He added: “Consequently, what has been given, can be taken away – as it was for many former HRH’s who lost the style by the 1917 Warrant, it can also be given, or whatever practices might have been can modified.

“A present example being the children of Prince Edward, both styled as the children of a peer, when in fact they are by the 1917 Warrant HRH’s. Expediency will always win out.”

There are two periods which distinguish the rules around the styles and titles of the British Royal family – before and after 1917.

In 1917, George V issued letters patent that precisely regulated these matters.

He specified that a certain set of individuals were exclusively entitled to certain styles.

Before 1917, styles and titles were regulated by a mixture of partial rules and customs.

Source: Read Full Article