The Royal Forums Coat of Arms


Join The Royal Forums Today
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #61  
Old 07-24-2005, 02:28 AM
Warren's Avatar
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 15,303
Who knows?

Quote:
Originally Posted by HMQueenElizabethII
For me, I just want to know how Her Majesty feels about Camilla; does she like Camilla or dislike her?
Unless Her Majesty puts out a Press Release or tells us how she feels by writing her own post on TRF, the answer to your question is "we don't know". We can speculate endlessly (as we are doing) and still come up with "we don't know".
Perhaps it's best to leave it at that. Otherwise the question becomes just another vehicle for those with axes to grind.
.
__________________

__________________
Reply With Quote
  #62  
Old 07-24-2005, 03:13 AM
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: ***, United States
Posts: 16,897
Quote:
Originally Posted by HMQueenElizabethII
For me,i just want to know how Her Majesty feels about Camilla,does she like Camilla or dislike her?
You aren't honestly expecting that she's going to say anything in public about how she feels about Camilla, are you? The Queen doesn't talk about her feelings in public.
__________________

__________________
Reply With Quote
  #63  
Old 07-24-2005, 03:20 AM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 8,368
Quote:
Originally Posted by tiaraprin
Yes I am aware of Queen Alexandra's support of the those suffering from leprosy and I apologize to the memory of Queen Alexandra. She was a great lady.

However, after Queen Alexandra's death in 1925, I don't think a royal has taken up the plight of lepers.
In the 1950s the Queen visited an African country (can't remember which) with a large leper community and both she and Prince Philip visited the colony and she touched them, showing that they could be touched. The government of the day didn't want her to do so but she insisted.

People forget the huge following the she had in the 1950s - with crowds in their 100,00s coming to see her. She accepted the adulation as part and parcel of her job without letting it go to her head and didn't court the celebrity that she could have done.

Throughout history royalty have been the leaders in areas like this e.g. Queen Victoria having a smallpox injection making it more acceptable and common for the people to have one - she was a young princess at the time.

Many people think that Diana was the first to do these types of things when in fact she was just following the lead of others.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #64  
Old 07-24-2005, 03:35 AM
HMQueenElizabethII's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Ryde, Australia
Posts: 3,773
Quote:
Originally Posted by Elspeth
You aren't honestly expecting that she's going to say anything in public about how she feels about Camilla, are you? The Queen doesn't talk about her feelings in public.
No,no Elspeth,i do not mean that to expect the Queen to say her personal feelings in public,i know Her Majesty does not say her feelings in public.In my previous post,i just mean that i still not sure,wondering a lot that Her Majesty's relationship with the Duchess of Cornwall,sometimes maybe show she has good relationship with the Duchess but sometimes not.
__________________
"God save our Gracious Queen,
Long live our Noble Queen,
God save The Queen"
God save Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II
Reply With Quote
  #65  
Old 07-24-2005, 11:25 AM
ElisaR's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: ., Italy
Posts: 612
Quote:
Originally Posted by chrissy57
In the 1950s the Queen visited an African country (can't remember which) with a large leper community and both she and Prince Philip visited the colony and she touched them, showing that they could be touched. The government of the day didn't want her to do so but she insisted.

People forget the huge following the she had in the 1950s - with crowds in their 100,00s coming to see her. She accepted the adulation as part and parcel of her job without letting it go to her head and didn't court the celebrity that she could have done.

Throughout history royalty have been the leaders in areas like this e.g. Queen Victoria having a smallpox injection making it more acceptable and common for the people to have one - she was a young princess at the time.

Many people think that Diana was the first to do these types of things when in fact she was just following the lead of others.

Thank you for, Chrissy, for this story about the Queen. I didn't know.
__________________
I declare before you all that my whole life, whether it be long or short, shall be devoted to your service and the service of our great imperial family to which we all belong.
HRH Princess Elizabeth, Cape Town, 21st April 1947
Reply With Quote
  #66  
Old 07-24-2005, 12:22 PM
selrahc4's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: , United States
Posts: 760
Quote:
Originally Posted by chrissy57
In the 1950s the Queen visited an African country (can't remember which) with a large leper community and both she and Prince Philip visited the colony and she touched them, showing that they could be touched. The government of the day didn't want her to do so but she insisted.
Nigeria, 1956. I've read that she and The Duke of Edinburgh each "adopted" (sponsored) a child from the leper community at that time too.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #67  
Old 07-24-2005, 12:42 PM
Nobility
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Not Saying, United Kingdom
Posts: 309
LOL!

I think it should be remembered that the Soverign is the fount of honour. Soon Camilla's husband will have that right. She will be the first lady in the land and if the blood princesses don't like it they'll have to lump it!
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #68  
Old 07-24-2005, 02:47 PM
Nobility
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 386
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frothy
LOL!

I think it should be remembered that the Soverign is the fount of honour. Soon Camilla's husband will have that right. She will be the first lady in the land and if the blood princesses don't like it they'll have to lump it!
I think it would be odd anyway for the Princess Consort, or whatever Camilla will be called, as wife of the king to come behind any of the other princesses, either by blood or marriage, in precedence. Yet of course, this will have to wait until Charles is King.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #69  
Old 07-24-2005, 05:54 PM
BeatrixFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 6,843
Re:

I think that this is an obvious example of how the press interfere in the Royal Family's personal affairs and turn simple things into huge stories.

The Duchess of Cornwall chose to be known as such, and so she ranks as a Royal Duchess. She'd come before the Duchess of Argyll because she's a Royal Duchess but she'll come before the Duchess of Gloucester because she's the senior Royal Duchess.

A few people have said the Duchess isn't Princess of Wales. She is. The fact that she's asked to be addressed by a courtesy title doesn't mean that she isn't Princess of Wales. Diana is the late Princess of Wales, and Camilla is now the Princess of Wales but that in itself was a mistake.

Diana was titled as Diana, Princess of Wales before she died. She was not an HRH because she divorced the Prince of Wales not because the Queen took it from her. The Duchess of York also lost her HRH when she divorced Prince Andrew. It's standard procedure for a Royal Divorce. Diana's official title was, Diana, Princess of Wales.

As a butler, I've asked a few colleagues as to how Diana would have been addressed. She was Princess of Wales but she was not an HRH and she would have been addressed as M'Lady. The reason being that she was Lady Diana Spencer.

Diana would indeed have to curtsey to Princess Michael of Kent in theory but bowing and curtseying is no longer expected. It's nice if people do and 95% do, but it's a personal choice. Diana could have made a personal choice not to curtsey but that would be childish.

The popular press and some members on the Royal Forums and other message boards call Diana, 'Princess Diana'. This is totally incorrect because Diana never was Princess Diana. She was HRH The Princess of Wales when married and Diana, Princess of Wales thereafter. However, if she had been known as Princess ____________, she would have been Princess Charles. Females who marry into the Royal Family become Princess and take their husbands first name, hence Princess Michael. Before the death of the Duke of Gloucester (Prince Henry), the present Duke and Duchess were known as Prince and Princess Richard.

As to precedence, if Diana was alive today, then we'd be in a very different situation. She'd have been Diana, Princess of Wales until Prince Charles married Camilla, when Diana would probably be given a title (probably Duchess) and would be placed behind Camilla as the new Princess of Wales.

I don't think the Duchess of Cornwall will mind her rank because she understands that it isn't a slur but the ways of court. However, I mind very much that my future Queen is ranked behind the Princess Royal (who I have 100% support and respect for). Whether she chooses to be called Queen or not, or Princess of Wales or not, she is both and should be respected as such and take her place in precedence as such.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #70  
Old 07-24-2005, 09:57 PM
tiaraprin's Avatar
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Near NY City, United States
Posts: 1,839
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frothy
LOL!

I think it should be remembered that the Soverign is the fount of honour. Soon Camilla's husband will have that right. She will be the first lady in the land and if the blood princesses don't like it they'll have to lump it!
Not if Her Majesty the Queen outlives him.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #71  
Old 07-24-2005, 11:52 PM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: , United States
Posts: 2,731
That is incorrect. Diana is not the "late Princess of Wales" because she held the name as a style of a divorced wife of a royal peer. Only the wife of Prince Charles can be "Princess of Wales". Similarily, Sarah Ferguson is correctly styled as "Sarah, Duchess of York" as the divorced wife of a royal peer. This is similar to all other divorcees of peers in the UK until they or their former husband remarries. At that time, they must reliniquish the style and revert to their birth name.

Also, there is no "standard procedure" for styling a former wife of a prince of the blood royal because such things are within the royal perogative of the Queen as Sovereign. As discussed before, the Queen considered making Diana a princess of the UK with the style of HRH in her own right after the divorce as the mother of Prince William provided: (1) she agreed to work with the Household in setting her engagements and duties; (2) she dropped her demand to be known as HRH Diana, Princess of Wales; Diana refused on both counts and relinquished her royal rank as a consequence.

The Queen did, however, make clear that Diana remained a member of the royal family and retained the precedence she enjoyed during her marriage as the mother of Prince William. As such, if she were alive today, she would have retained precedence directly after Camilla (most likely retitled by now as "HRH Princess Diana" with perhaps a secondary peerage if she had remarried and had additional children) as the mother of a future king.

Sarah, Duchess of York was in a very different position than Diana and was treated accordingly. She lost her royal rank and her precedence after the divorce and received a very small financial settlement as a consequence of her questionable behavior and tremendous debts. To her credit, she overcame these obstacles, paid off her debt and remains on good terms today with the Queen, although she is no longer royal.

Camilla is HRH the Princess of Wales, but choosing to be known by her secondary title of Duchess of Cornwall. This does not change the fact she remains Princess of Wales by virtue of marriage to the heir to the throne. She is not a royal duchess, but a princess of the UK. Court precedence is at the discretion of the Sovereign as fount of honour and has nothing to do with Camilla's official precedence after the Queen.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #72  
Old 07-25-2005, 10:45 AM
Nobility
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Not Saying, United Kingdom
Posts: 309
Quote:

As a butler, I've asked a few colleagues as to how Diana would have been addressed. She was Princess of Wales but she was not an HRH and she would have been addressed as M'Lady. The reason being that she was Lady Diana Spencer.

Actually, that is incorrect. Under Scottish divorce laws and Scottish titles, she would have remained the rights of a Duchess of Rothesay and her correct style was Your Grace. I have read elsewhere but can't confirm that Fergie is also correctly addressed as Your Grace as a divorced Duchess.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #73  
Old 07-25-2005, 10:57 AM
iowabelle's Avatar
Royal Highness
Royal Blogger, TRF Author
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Des Moines, United States
Posts: 2,405
Perhaps Henry VIII had it right, and beheading was the best alternative to have your ex wander about.

(I am just kidding. And I know that Anne of Cleves accepted the King's alternative arrangement, which was rather inventive of him and clever of her.)
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #74  
Old 07-25-2005, 01:07 PM
Oppie's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Ottawa, Canada
Posts: 537
I have a question about the titles so I hope it is ok if I ask it here.

I understand that the wives of Princes get the title Princess husband name (ie Princess Charles Princess Edward ect.) but if a Prince marries a Princess can she still use her name.

As a hypothetical example if Prince William marries Princess Theodora would she still be called that or would she become Princess William ?
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #75  
Old 07-25-2005, 01:12 PM
susan alicia's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: , Netherlands
Posts: 2,528
do not know if this story is true but if it is hope I am allowed to say:

"big deal" .

Quote:
Originally Posted by selrahc4
Nigeria, 1956. I've read that she and The Duke of Edinburgh each "adopted" (sponsored) a child from the leper community at that time too.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #76  
Old 07-25-2005, 01:15 PM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: , United States
Posts: 2,731
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frothy
Actually, that is incorrect. Under Scottish divorce laws and Scottish titles, she would have remained the rights of a Duchess of Rothesay and her correct style was Your Grace. I have read elsewhere but can't confirm that Fergie is also correctly addressed as Your Grace as a divorced Duchess.
No, she could not. The title is royal and flows from the Crown in honour of it. Diana could not remain Duchess of Rothesay in Scotland in her own right as it is held by Charles in Scotland as the heir to the throne. It is true, however, that Scottish divorcees are styled the same as widows, but this does not really mean much.

Diana was correctly addressed after the divorce as "Princess"
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #77  
Old 07-25-2005, 02:37 PM
Nobility
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Not Saying, United Kingdom
Posts: 309
It does mean much. After a divorce, a Scottish divorced duchess continues to use the Ducal style unless she should remarry. A Louise, Duchess of Hamilton and Brandon (for example) would be called 'Your Grace'. Diana would have been 'Diana, Duchess of Rothesay' and her correct style would have been 'Your Grace'.

There is no style 'Princess'. She asked to be called that, but it means nothing. A Princess is by definition a royal highness. 'Diana, Princess of Wales' does not mean she was then a princess; she was not. It describes a relationship with an ex-husband.

However under Scottish custom, she would have had the style of a divorced Duchess. Diana, Duchess of Rothesay would have been correctly addressed as 'Your Grace'.

Most people would have used 'ma'am' I imagine, but most people are not title trivia junkies like we are!
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #78  
Old 07-25-2005, 02:38 PM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: , United States
Posts: 2,731
Quote:
Originally Posted by Oppie
I have a question about the titles so I hope it is ok if I ask it here.

I understand that the wives of Princes get the title Princess husband name (ie Princess Charles Princess Edward ect.) but if a Prince marries a Princess can she still use her name.

As a hypothetical example if Prince William marries Princess Theodora would she still be called that or would she become Princess William ?
A princess by birth retains her style and dignity unless she marries a man of superior title and rank. She then takes on her husband's status, which takes precedence if superior to her own.

For example, if Princess Theodora married Prince William, she would be marrying a man of equal rank to her own and remain "Princess Theodora" after the marriage. In contrast, when Lady Diana Spencer married Prince Charles she became "HRH the Princess of Wales".

Another example would be Princess Caroline's marriage to Prince Ernst-August of Hanover. Caroline was born HSH Princess Caroline de Monaco, but upon marriage to Ernst, she became "HRH Princess Caroline, Princess von Hannover". She was born a princess, so she retains the right to be Princess Christian Name, but her status as "HRH Princess von Hannover" comes from her marriage and is superior to her birth rank.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #79  
Old 07-25-2005, 02:41 PM
Nobility
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Not Saying, United Kingdom
Posts: 309
You are right re: theodora.

Women of equal rank may choose to use their own names. A Lord John Smith marries a Miss Mary Jones and she becomes Lady John Smith. But if he marries Lady Mary Roberts she becomes Lady Mary Smith.

And if a Mr. John Smith marries her she is still Lady Mary Smith.

The general rule is that a woman may not be reduced in rank by a marriage, only raised in rank. Recently this was extended to allow armigerous women to keep the right to use their coat of arms (in a lozenge) upon their marriage "beneath them" as it were to a non-armigerous man. Previously a woman in this situation would have lost her right to her arms.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #80  
Old 07-25-2005, 02:56 PM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: , United States
Posts: 2,731
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frothy
It does mean much. After a divorce, a Scottish divorced duchess continues to use the Ducal style unless she should remarry. A Louise, Duchess of Hamilton and Brandon (for example) would be called 'Your Grace'. Diana would have been 'Diana, Duchess of Rothesay' and her correct style would have been 'Your Grace'.

There is no style 'Princess'. She asked to be called that, but it means nothing. A Princess is by definition a royal highness. 'Diana, Princess of Wales' does not mean she was then a princess; she was not. It describes a relationship with an ex-husband.

However under Scottish custom, she would have had the style of a divorced Duchess. Diana, Duchess of Rothesay would have been correctly addressed as 'Your Grace'.

Most people would have used 'ma'am' I imagine, but most people are not title trivia junkies like we are!
The Crown takes precedence over all laws and customs. The title "Duke of Rothesay" is royal and held by Prince Charles on behalf of the Sovereign. A former wife cannot hold a royal peerage granted to a prince of the blood royal after a divorce. There is no question on the matter. The only title Diana could hold was one granted in her own right by the Queen, which never came to be.

"Your Grace" is not an appropriate form of address to a former princess of the UK. Neither Sarah nor Diana was ever a duchess, they were both princesses while married. Sarah was technically "HRH Princess Andrew, Duchess of York" and Diana was "HRH the Princess of Wales, Duchess of Cornwall, Duchess of Rothesay, Countess of Chester and Countess of Carrick" as the wife of Prince Charles.

Both were legally commoners after letters patent were issued by the Queen stating a former wife of a prince of the UK would not hold the dignity of Royal Highness after a divorce. Diana retained her precedence and royal status via assent from the Queen, but Sarah did not.
__________________

__________________
Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
order of precedence, protocol


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
The Danish Orders and Monograms davo Royal House of Denmark 154 06-11-2012 06:51 PM
Danish Royal Family, Current Events 1: April 2003 - March 2008 Julia Current Events Archive 506 03-23-2008 05:56 PM
Princess Madeleine at the Ball of the Order of Innocence; 2003 Josefine Princess Madeleine and Chris O'Neill 62 11-19-2005 03:27 PM




Additional Links
Popular Tags
birth charlene chris o'neill crown prince frederik crown prince haakon crown princess letizia crown princess mary crown princess mette-marit crown princess victoria current events fashion grand duchess maria teresa grand duke henri hohenzollern infanta sofia jordan king abdullah ii king carl xvi gustav king felipe king felipe vi king harald king juan carlos king philippe king willem-alexander luxembourg olympic games ottoman palace pom president komorowski prince albert prince albert ii prince carl philip prince constantijn prince felipe prince felix prince floris prince frederik prince laurent prince pieter-christiaan princess princess alexia (2005 -) princess anita princess ariane princess beatrix princess catharina-amalia princess charlene princess claire princess laurentien princess letizia princess mabel princess madeleine princess margriet princess marie princess mary princess of asturias queen letizia queen mathilde queen maxima queen paola queen rania queen silvia queen sofia royal russia spain state visit wedding william winter olympics 2014


Our Communities

Our communities encompass many different hobbies and interests, but each one is built on friendly, intelligent membership.

» More about our Communities

Automotive Communities

Our Automotive communities encompass many different makes and models. From U.S. domestics to European Saloons.

» More about our Automotive Communities

RV & Travel Trailer Communities

Our RV & Travel Trailer sites encompasses virtually all types of Recreational Vehicles, from brand-specific to general RV communities.

» More about our RV Communities

Marine Communities

Our Marine websites focus on Cruising and Sailing Vessels, including forums and the largest cruising Wiki project on the web today.

» More about our Marine Communities


Copyright 2002-2012 Social Knowledge, LLC All Rights Reserved.

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 08:00 PM.

Social Knowledge Networks

eXTReMe Tracker
Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2014
Jelsoft Enterprises

Royal News Delivered to your Email!

You can get the latest Royal News right in your inbox.

unsusbcribe at anytime with one click

Close [X]