Does Carole Middleton in some way out rank Camilla as the grandma of the future king ?

[Inthesummertimewhen]

Seeing them together today ,it stuck me Camilla is not blood related to the royals and now carols blood flows through our future kings veins ? Obviously Camilla is queen and currently technically outranks her but does she in some way out rank her ??

In fact she actually helped create him!
Fascinating fact: A baby girl is born with all the eggs she will ever carry in her lifetime. Because of this, when a grandmother is pregnant with a daughter, she is also literally carrying the tiny eggs that may one day become her grandchildren.

I do

Of course not. They're perfectly ok as they are.
I suspect William will be cutting down on titles, not giving more out.

I’m no royalist but to be fair she is the fucking Queen! Carole is the mother of a Princess who is a future queen and grandmother of a future, future King.

Possibly but I’d say more like Elizabeth Woodville in how she was viewed. I don’t think Camilla hogs the limelight though or wants to be Queen. She does the gig for the man.

I don't think Elizabeth Woodville was a noble, was she?
Edit: cross posted!
Edit again: The Seymour's were nobility I think.

The Seymours were "lower gentry" her father was a "Sir"

Elizabeth Woodville was not a noble

Although Elizabeth Woodville’s mother was from Luxembourg duchy IIRC and previously married to Duke of Bedford

Didn't Carole grow up in a council house? That's quite a leap to being the grandmother of a future monarch.

Dowager Queen still be called Queen Mother?

Think that happenen last time because they were both called Elizabeth.

Lady Margaret Beaufort - Henry VII mother and considered a commoner at time despite being from aristocracy - was My Lady, the King’s Mother as she'd never been a Queen Consort.

Rank wise she's Queen Consort and if she outlives the King she'll end up Queen Dowager. What roles she has - as none by thereign Monarch actually has a formal role - will depend on William and his palace.

Status and family connections are different - not sure either woman actaully that keen for the spot light.

Elizabeth Woodville - is consider first commoner queen depsite her aristocratic roots - just means she wasn't a royal family member though she have royal blood in family tree.

Then it's usually consider to be Anne Boleyn then Jane Seymour then Catherine Parr all from landed title gentry and all decendent of Royal blood - all Henry VIII wives were descendants of King Edward I - and thus all related to him and each other.

Queen Camilla non-royal background, she does come from a highly privileged aristocratic background - so similar to those previous "commoner Queens".

Catherine Parr was Queen Dowager and Stepmother to Edward VI.

Yes, should Camilla outlive KC, she will be known as Queen Camilla.
The Queen Consort will be Catherine, so no name confusion.
Simply Queen Camilla and Queen Catherine.

Camilla is the Queen, Carole is not a member of the Royal Family.

Her father was modest English gentry.

Her mother was Jacquetta of Luxembourg - Jacquetta was the daughter of Peter I of Luxembourg making Elizabeth a descendant of the powerful royal House of Luxembourg. Through the Luxembourg lineage, Elizabeth was connected to French royalty and European nobility.

Unless your think Camilla’s marriage to Charles was illegal in church law as her divorced husband was still alive at the time? And the registry office they had to have didn’t wasn’t effective because he his head of Church of England? You could be right…

As a by-the-by about Queens, there's the famous "three Queens" photograph taken at the funeral of George VI containing Queen Mary (his mother and Queen Consort to George V), Queen Elizabeth (his wife and Queen Consort) and Queen Elizabeth II (Queen Regnant).

His maternal grandmother was a princess in her own right (I hope I'm right here) but there was never any suggestion that she would take precedence over Queen Alexandra, King Edward VII's wife.

I think people get a bit muddled about how things would work in their own private family as compared to how things work in the public Royal Family.
In private, Carole M. probably will be closer to, and a bigger influence on, George than Camilla but that doesn't change royal precedence.

Carole will still have to curtsey to everyone even her own grandson.
Regarding Camilla doing it for the man, I reckon she can't stand him. He madly loves her and shes never been in a position to say no so shes gone through with it all for him has now ended up as Queen something she never wanted and they live seperately most of the time.

Carole isn't obligated to curtsey to anyone. No-one is.
It's personal choice. I've seen her curtsey to KC, which I assume is her being polite. I think it's highly unlikely she'll ever curtsey to George.
As for KC and QC? Who knows. They appear to be very content and very compatible. They have a private life and don't overshare, which is a positive, imo.

Because he couldn’t be called King Phillip because then he would outrank her. Camilla is the Queen because she’s married to the King but she, as a Queen, doesn’t outrank him.

That's true, but the underlying principle is that titles - royal or aristocratic - can only be conferred on marriage male to female, not female to male.

It's patriarchal - women are not important enough to confer status on their husbands.

(edit for typo)

Not quite that-it’s that kings outrank queens, so if Philip had been King, he would have outranked TLQ. Which obviously couldn’t happen. But Camilla can be Queen because she wouldn’t outrank Charles.

Elizabeth Bowes Lyons, who became Queen Elizabeth the Queen Mother when her daughter became Queen in 1952, was not of royal birth, they were minor nobility so she was a commoner who became Queen, allegedly had it been known that he would become King the marriage would not have happened! Mary of Teck who married George V was from minor German nobility but she was a great granddaughter of George III so could be considered royal. What defines a person as 'royal'?

With Camilla being Queen consort rather than another title, whereas QE2 had Prince Phillip DoE

First Queen Regant was Henry VIII daughter Mary - second his other daughter Elizabeth.

Till then was a grey area we could have them on English throne - I think Mary Queen of Scots was first in scotland - cousin to them and same time period. French throne couldn't even inherit down female lines - Hanoverian throne could inherit down female line but couldn't have a female ruler. Poland - they just use King for both sexes when Regant - as they couldn't have ruling queen but nothing said King had to be male they did that in 1384 King Jadwiga.

Prior to that in England had The Anarchy (1135–1153) was a devastating 19-year civil war in England and Normandy. It was a bitter succession dispute between Empress Matilda (also known as Empress Maud) and her cousin, Stephen of Blois, triggered by the sudden death of King Henry I's only legitimate male heir. Half the country refused despite oaths to have a queen regnant - compromise later was it went to her son skipping her entirely.

So it was an unclear area. Mary had to take up arms against her cousin Lady Jane Grey supporters to take throne.

Mary I had trouble with having a husband - he did have title of King Consort - but had no power in UK and was King in own right - wives were suppose to obey at time - it was a mess. Elizabeth avoided by not marrying.

Mary Queen of Scots married three times - first husband heir to French thone did become King of Scots. Second husband she did make King of Scots but she refused to grant him the "Crown Matrimonial," which would have allowed him to rule as a co-sovereign in his own right. It caused issue with marriage and in wider power struggles - just like Mary I. Third husband she didn't she made him Duke of Orkney instead.

Next Mary Queen Regnant - was co-monarch with her husband William third in line to throne anyway. She and her husband, William III, were crowned as joint monarchs of England, Scotland, and Ireland in 1689 - invited to invade called glorious revolution.

Her sister was next queen regnant - Ann's husand was a prince in own right - but she kept him away from power but gave him title of Duke of Cumberland. It's sort of then idea starts that* *female monarch's husband is titled a Prince Consort

Then Victoria was next queen regnant and she tried to give her husband King Consort title but the British Parliament and public fiercely resisted the idea.

So by time got to Prince Philp - Prince consort and a dukedom was the accepted way of dealing with spouse of a queen regnant. It's very much an evolved convention for our royal family.

Not Queen of England, the last monarch of England was Queen Anne.

What defines a person as 'royal'?

Royalty refers to blood relatives in the direct line of succession to the throne, while technically, everyone else—including wealthy aristocrats—is considered a commoner - that from quick google but is how I understood it.

So even Henery VIII wives decendants of Edward I - were not royal and it was considered shocking for him to marry a commoner at time - rather than a woman from another royal house to gain poltical alliances. He knew all his wives bar Anne of Cleves before marriage - as Queen Katherine was around as widow of his older brother.