Charles and Camilla current events 7: Dec 2005-Jan 2006

[Queen Mary I]

Originally Posted by BeatrixFan

Scandals? Oh really. Everyone knows what went on. It happened as Charles - being George won't change it and I'm sure HRH knows that.

And for the 10,00000000000th time - CAMILLA IS PRINCESS OF WALES AND DUCHESS OF CORNWALL.

There is no need to shout.

You may choose to acknowledge her as a Princess. I do not. I am sorry if that upsets you.

[BeatrixFan]

Sorry, I didn't realise that messages were relayed in audio.

To be perfectly frank, it doesn't really bother me if you acknowledge her as a Princess or not -60 odd million people in the UK alone do so I doubt the odd stick-in-the-mud matters much.

[Queen Mary I]

Originally Posted by BeatrixFan

Sorry, I didn't realise that messages were relayed in audio.

To be perfectly frank, it doesn't really bother me if you acknowledge her as a Princess or not -60 odd million people in the UK alone do so I doubt the odd stick-in-the-mud matters much.

Usually on the internet when a message is highlighted in bold letters such as you did-well in internet protocol it is usually taken as a shout out.

If it does not bother you I wonder that you took the trouble to answer my post in the manner you did at all.

I did not realize someone has taken the trouble to actually count the 60 odd million people in the U.K. who allegedly do acknowledge Camilla as a Royal anything. You are entitled to your opinions-and I to mine which is that the majority of people-judging from unscientific polls-still do not like that Camilla has a title of any kind. Period.

[ysbel]

Monarchs chose different names back when royalty was known by their titles - not their names. Nobody referred to a Prince Edward or a Prince George.

Edward VIII was always just the Prince of Wales and his brother was referred to always as just the Duke of York. There was only one Prince of Wales or Duke of York so there was no chance that just using the title would cause an identity crisis.

I'm reading right now a marvelous short story by Isak Dinesen about a singer who shared the same tutor as the Crown Prince of Denmark and for the life of me, I can't figure out which Crown Prince she's talking about. Back then, the titles were all that mattered.

In an age where the royals were just known by their titles, it was easy enough for a newly ascendant King to substitute one name for another. A George for an Albert, etc. But now its different - Charles is Prince of Wales but nobody refers to him as just the Prince of Wales - he's Prince Charles. He's called Charles on the news, in the forums, everywhere. It would be a big jump to go suddenly from being known as Prince Charles to King George.

[ysbel]

Originally Posted by Queen Mary I

There is no need to shout.

You may choose to acknowledge her as a Princess. I do not. I am sorry if that upsets you.

Queen Mary I,

It hardly matters whether you acknowledge Camilla as the Princess of Wales or not. She is the Princess of Wales. You could just as easily refuse to acknowlegde that the sun will rise tomorrow morning and it is your right to refuse to do so, but that's not going to stop the sun from coming up tomorrow morning.

[Queen Mary I]

Originally Posted by ysbel

Monarchs chose different names back when royalty was known by their titles - not their names. Nobody referred to a Prince Edward or a Prince George.

Edward VIII was always just the Prince of Wales and his brother was referred to always as just the Duke of York. There was only one Prince of Wales or Duke of York so there was no chance that just using the title would cause an identity crisis.

I'm reading right now a marvelous short story by Isak Dinesen about a singer who shared the same tutor as the Crown Prince of Denmark and for the life of me, I can't figure out which Crown Prince she's talking about. Back then, the titles were all that mattered.

In an age where the royals were just known by their titles, it was easy enough for a newly ascendant King to substitute one name for another. A George for an Albert, etc. But now its different - Charles is Prince of Wales but nobody refers to him as just the Prince of Wales - he's Prince Charles. He's called Charles on the news, in the forums, everywhere. It would be a big jump to go suddenly from being known as Prince Charles to King George.

I do know that Monarchs have occasionally taken names other than the one they were known by-such as Bertie/George VI.

The cynical side of me just can't help thinking that Charles's motives are something other than the fact that his grandfather was so popular. But that is just imo. I could be quite wrong. I remember reading in a book that when she ascended the throne Elizabeth was asked what name she would take and she replied 'why my own name' or something to that effect. I thought it quite charming.

In an aside I read in an article in the Tampa Tribune that speculating on names, etc. while the reigning monarch was still alive was grounds for treason-in the past. I don't think Lilabet will have her boy's head on Tower Bridge anytime soon though lol.

[Queen Mary I]

Originally Posted by ysbel

Queen Mary I,

It hardly matters whether you acknowledge Camilla as the Princess of Wales or not. She is the Princess of Wales. You could just as easily refuse to acknowlegde that the sun will rise tomorrow morning and it is your right to refuse to do so, but that's not going to stop the sun from coming up tomorrow morning.

She is not to me. But that is my opinion and my perogative. I don't even believe C & C's civil union is legal. But that is another thread. After all "Bonnie Prince Charlie" was not considered King by some-but he was by the Jacobites. By all rights he should have been King but he 'wasn't' acknowledged as such by those who did not want a Roman Catholic monarch. I will never call Camilla Princess or Queen anything. To me she is still married to Andrew Parker-Bowles. That is my belief-no one has to agree with me.

[ysbel]

Originally Posted by Queen Mary I

But that is another thread.

Yes it is another thread. The discussion of Camilla's titles have been discussed ad nauseum in the Title for Camilla thread and any member can go back and read the messy results.

Let's not derail this discussion on Charles' and Camilla's current events into an argument about Camilla's titles.

And take your personal comments to other members offline by private message. Its annoying to the rest of us.

ysbel
British forums moderator

[Princejohnny25]

Beatrix were happy your back but lets keep things calm like they have been recently. Some people have personal religious beliefs that makes them believe Camilla and Andrew are still married. But, church and state are different. There civil marriage is legal, has been proven, and she has all his titles and will be Queen. Refusing to realize that is a bit Childesh. Now let people believe what they want to. It doesnt affect the royals. They are still doing what they do best and are helping the country. That is all that matters. Now back to the current events. Have Charles and Camillas engagments for the New Year been posted on the Royal Website. I know they both have engagments on the 6th but thats all I know. Also, there may be trouble if Charles chooses to be Charles III. Scots started a riot when Elizabeth became Elizabeth II and I know there arent Jacobites anymore but there might be problems somehow. Anyway, I think George is such a regal and strong name. I would love to see a George VII but we will figure out when that sad and joyous day arrives.

[ysbel]

Originally Posted by Princejonnhy25

Also, there may be trouble if Charles chooses to be Charles III. Scots started a riot when Elizabeth became Elizabeth II and I know there arent Jacobites anymore but there might be problems somehow. Anyway, I think George is such a regal and strong name. I would love to see a George VII but we will figure out when that sad and joyous day arrives.

Good point princejohnny but I think the law was passed so that any future monarch would take the highest number from either the Scottish or English kings. There wasn't a King Charles of Scotland to my knowledge so a Charles III wouldn't cause the same problems in Scotland as Elizabeth II did.

But we'll have to wait and see.

[chrissy57]

Originally Posted by Queen Mary I

After all "Bonnie Prince Charlie" was not considered King by some-but he was by the Jacobites. By all rights he should have been King but he 'wasn't' acknowledged as such by those who did not want a Roman Catholic monarch.

How can you say that 'By all rights he should have been King but he wasn't acknowledged as such by those who did not want a Roman Catholic monarch' when is was an Act of Parliament that deprived him?


Are you suggesting that Parliament doesn't have the right to reflect the views of the people and pass appropriate legislation?

[Princejohnny25]

Yes but some might say that he is Charles IV and not Charles III. What is the story behind Bonnie Prince Charles. Was he ever officaly named King or was it just by his supporters. Why was he supposed to be the right heir and not the Hanovrien Kings.

[Queen Mary I]

Originally Posted by Princejonnhy25

Yes but some might say that he is Charles IV and not Charles III. What is the story behind Bonnie Prince Charles. Was he ever officaly named King or was it just by his supporters. Why was he supposed to be the right heir and not the Hanovrien Kings.

He was never officially King to the Protestants I believe. I have not read a book on his story for some years so my memory is shaky on this. I do know they skipped over some 50 or so Catholic heirs and crowned-was it George II? I cannot recall.

I am saying by right of the blood Royale if their is even such a thing Bonnie Prince Charlie had a claim. But of course Parliament changed that even before his birth-with the removal of King James II in favor of his Protestant daughter and son-in-law Mary II and William III. It was Parliament's right to do so-I never said it wasn't. But I still feel it was wrong that all those Princes of the Blood were passed over because of their religion imo.

I think the last Stuart Prince Henry became a Catholic priest and styled himself Henry VIIII. I believe I read he left what few Royal jewels were in his family's possession to the British Crown and Queen Victoria had a memorial erected to James II and the Stuart Princes in the Vatican?? I will have to look it up to be sure.

[ysbel]

Originally Posted by Princejonnhy25

Yes but some might say that he is Charles IV and not Charles III. What is the story behind Bonnie Prince Charles. Was he ever officaly named King or was it just by his supporters. Why was he supposed to be the right heir and not the Hanovrien Kings.

Well, in that case, it doesn't matter whether Charles is styled Charles III or not because he's not the rightful King.

My ancestors fought alongside of Bonnie Prince Charlie so I have a soft spot for him but I really don't think the Jacobites have a snowball's chance in a hot place of getting the throne back.

I was just talking about the Kings of England and Scotland that have been recognized and to my knowledge there are only 2 previous Charles' in the whole history.

[Princejohnny25]

Of coarse its wrong but it was a different time then. Its sad that laws made at that time still exist. But they are not as strict as the Scandanavian Kingdoms. I think Charles should avoid becoming King Charles III. Knowing the press they would make a big deal out of it. Some Catholics might not like it. There is just the potential for trouble. Another question, could Charles use another name besides Charles Philip Arthur George or can he only use the christian names given to him at his baptism. I think he might suprise us and choose Philip. To be Philip I and start a new era in the monarchy. I know he wants to change the monarchy so he might choose a name never used before.

[ysbel]

Originally Posted by Princejonnhy25

I think he might suprise us and choose Philip. To be Philip I and start a new era in the monarchy.

With the crummy relationship he has with Prince Philip?

Somehow I don't see him choosing Philip. Besides, when Felipe succeeds Juan Carlos there will be another King Philip and with the Armada that the first King Philip sent to destroy England, I don't think it would be a popular choice.

[Queen Mary I]

Originally Posted by Princejonnhy25

Of coarse its wrong but it was a different time then. Its sad that laws made at that time still exist. But they are not as strict as the Scandanavian Kingdoms. I think Charles should avoid becoming King Charles III. Knowing the press they would make a big deal out of it. Some Catholics might not like it. There is just the potential for trouble. Another question, could Charles use another name besides Charles Philip Arthur George or can he only use the christian names given to him at his baptism. I think he might suprise us and choose Philip. To be Philip I and start a new era in the monarchy. I know he wants to change the monarchy so he might choose a name never used before.

Actually as a Catholic I don't mind if the POW ascends the throne as Charles III. George VII would bother me just because it seems so strange to me. It doesn't 'feel' right. But a younger generation could care even less I am sure. Anyway it appears if the Queen's astonishingly good health keeps up the reign of a Charles III or a George VII will be of a short duration if it comes to pass.

[Skydragon]

Originally Posted by Queen Mary I

I will never call Camilla Princess or Queen anything. To me she is still married to Andrew Parker-Bowles. That is my belief-no one has to agree with me.

I and everyone I know in the UK and various other countries will happily welcome Prince Charles and his legal wife, Princess Camilla, whatever they decide to call themselves, when they become King and Queen.