Hitchens refuses to call Camilla Queen, citing church law and tradition

British author and commentator Peter Hitchens said on the Alas Vine & Hitchens podcast that he cannot bring himself to refer to Camilla Parker Bowles as Queen, citing his faith in the Church of England and what he described as “old and ancient law” that, in his view, does not recognize her as Queen consort. He said he feels provoked by outlets such as the BBC for using the title, and he framed his position as grounded in constitutional and religious tradition rather than personal animosity toward Camilla.

On the program, Hitchens argued that King Charles has modeled himself as a “strong traditionalist” within the Church of England, making it “contradictory” for him to demand that others refer to his wife as Queen. He recounted a personal anecdote to illustrate his point, saying: “The other day, I heard a story about the Queen revealing she'd been molested on a train going to Paddington some years before and fought off her attacker with a high-heeled shoe.” He added: “I thought: the Queen? She would never have had to do that. She could have frozen off any assailant with a stare. Then I realised they weren't talking about the Queen – they were talking about a lady I will always think of as Camilla Parker Bowles.” He stressed that his stance is not born of personal animosity: “I have tried [to call her Queen], out of niceness and politeness, but when I hear the phrase Queen, she doesn't come to my mind, and I don't think she ever will.”

The remarks come amid longstanding debate over royal titles and the Church of England’s role in royal life. Charles and Camilla were married on April 9, 2005, in a civil ceremony at Windsor Guildhall, followed by a religious blessing at St George’s Chapel in Windsor Castle. When Queen Elizabeth II died in 2022, Camilla was initially named Queen Consort, but the Palace later changed invitations for Charles’s coronation to refer to her as Queen. Since then, official communications from the Palace have styled Camilla as “Her Majesty The Queen,” a move Hitchens and others see as inconsistent with what he views as older legal principles that grant legitimacy to the monarch.

Hitchens asserted that this shift reflects a broader tension between tradition and modern practice. He argued that the same ancient and longstanding laws underpin Charles’s legitimacy as monarch, and he said any elevation of Camilla’s status, regardless of sentiment, should be weighed against those laws. “It is nothing to do with any kind of personal animosity,” he insisted, emphasizing that his critique centers on ritual language and legal definitions rather than affection or approval.

Colleague and co-host Sarah Vine offered a contrasting view. Vine acknowledged the sensitivity of Camilla’s status but argued that marriage under royal or religious law should have allowed Camilla to be Queen, if the monarchy’s conventions permit. She said, “Camilla Parker Bowles still has a living husband and according to the laws of God and man, you can't marry somebody while you have a living spouse.” In response, Hitchens said Charles is “having both”—a situation he framed as emblematic of a monarchy attempting to reconcile old-faith presumptions with modern realities. He stressed that Charles is King through “very old and ancient law,” and if the King expects others to respect that law, the same standard should apply in this case as well.

The debate reflects wider questions about how the royal family should present itself in contemporary Britain, and how religious institutions interact with royal protocol. It also highlights how media practices—such as referring to Camilla as Queen—can influence public perception of the monarchy’s legitimacy and the traditions it claims to uphold.

The remarks were reported in part by the Daily Mail, which published coverage of Hitchens’s podcast comments and the surrounding discussion about Camilla’s royal title.

Listeners can hear the full discussion on Alas Vine & Hitchens through major podcast platforms.