The Royal Forums Coat of Arms

Go Back   The Royal Forums > Reigning Houses > British Royals

Join The Royal Forums Today
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #841  
Old 01-02-2013, 09:34 PM
Artemisia's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
Royal Blogger
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Yerevan, Armenia
Posts: 5,427
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iluvbertie View Post
...
No one seems to have mentioned that the title Prince of Wales can be held by someone other than the eldest son of the monarch e.g. George III was created Prince of Wales after his father's death. He was, of course, the heir apparent but he was never Duke of Cornwall as he was never the eldest son of the monarch. His father had held both titles.
The Prince of Wales title is not unique in that respect; the same is true about The Earl of Chester title - it is not automatic and has to be created for the Heir Apparent (whatever his degree of kinship to the King). Baron of Renfrew and Prince of Scotland titles can all be held by any Heir Apparent, again, without taking into consideration his relation to the Sovereign.

Of the traditional titles of the Heir Apparent to the Throne:
- The Prince of Wales is not an automatic title and can be created for any Heir Apparent to the Throne (whatever his degree of kinship to the Sovereign).
- The Duke of Cornwall is an automatic title that belongs to the Heir Apparent to the Throne who is also the Sovereign's surviving eldest son. If either of the conditions aren't met, the title remains vacant.
- The Duke of Rothesay is an automatic title that belongs to "the first-born Prince of the King of Scots". Like the Duke of Cornwall one, it can only be held by the Heir Apparent who is also the Sovereign's eldest surviving son. And similarly, if either of the conditions aren't met, then the title remains vacant.
- The Earl of Chester is not an automatic title and can be created for any Heir Apparent to the Throne (whatever his degree of kinship to the Sovereign).
- The Earl of Carrick is an automatic title with exactly the same conditions as the Duke of Rothesay one.
- Baron of Renfrew title is automatically held by the Heir Apparent to the Throne, whatever his degree of kinship to the Sovereign.
- Lord of the Isles is a title that belongs to the surviving son of the Sovereign and no one else. If the Heir Apparent is not the Sovereign's son, he cannot hold the title.
- Prince of Scotland is a title automatically held by the Heir Apparent to the Throne, whatever his degree of kinship to the Sovereign.
- The Great Steward of Scotland is a title held by the Sovereign's eldest surviving son. If the Heir Apparent is not the Sovereign's son, he cannot hold the title. *


* Mary, Queen of Scots has used the title despite (obviously) not being the son of the Sovereign.
Also, Prince and Great Steward of Scotland titles are traditionally (but not always) used together.
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #842  
Old 01-02-2013, 10:27 PM
Queen Camilla's Avatar
Nobility
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Chicago, United States
Posts: 429
Since the new rules are to take effect with the child of William & Kate. It makes sense to leave Camilla as Queen Camilla and Kate to become Princess Consort.

When the intent for Camilla to be known as Princess Consort was suggested, the intent might have been for Camilla not to perform any royal duties.
__________________

__________________
Reply With Quote
  #843  
Old 01-02-2013, 10:45 PM
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 8,129
There was never any intention that Camilla woudn't be carrying out royal duties.

The 'intention' of being Princess Consort was purely and simply to appease the Diana fanatics.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #844  
Old 01-02-2013, 10:52 PM
Roslyn's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Tintenbar, Australia
Posts: 2,478
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iluvbertie View Post
There was never any intention that Camilla woudn't be carrying out royal duties.

The 'intention' of being Princess Consort was purely and simply to appease the Diana fanatics.
I have always believed this to be the case, but it has been suggested that Camilla does not want to be Queen and only finally agreed to marry Charles if she did not have to be Queen. Do you think this is possible, Bertie, and that the decision that she will be Princess Consort was a happy co-incidence that suited everyone (except those of us who feel she should be Queen)?
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #845  
Old 01-02-2013, 11:03 PM
Gentry
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Campbelltown, Australia
Posts: 97
Is there a prohibition against the Duchess being Queen Consort due to her divorce from her first husband? Does that factor here? This may have already been asked and answered. Sorry if it has.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #846  
Old 01-02-2013, 11:21 PM
Queen Camilla's Avatar
Nobility
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Chicago, United States
Posts: 429
I just said the intent might have been for Camilla not to perform any royal duties.

I personally always thought that was the case, that she would be Charles' wife with the benefits of a spouse and without the benefits/obligations of royality. Similar to Tim.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #847  
Old 01-02-2013, 11:32 PM
Roslyn's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Tintenbar, Australia
Posts: 2,478
Quote:
Originally Posted by Trillian View Post
Is there a prohibition against the Duchess being Queen Consort due to her divorce from her first husband? Does that factor here? This may have already been asked and answered. Sorry if it has.
I am not absolutely sure, but I suspect that what occurred during the Service of Prayer and Thanksgiving, or whatever it was officially called, that took place after the marriage cured any problems that might have existed with the Church, and thus with Camilla becoming Queen, because Camilla had a previous husband still living. I think this part of the service did the trick:

"All say:
ALMIGHTY God, Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, Maker of all things, Judge of all men: We acknowledge and bewail our manifold sins and wickedness, Which we, from time to time, most grievously have committed, By thought, word, and deed, Against thy Divine Majesty, Provoking most justly thy wrath and indignation against us. We do earnestly repent, And are heartily sorry for these our misdoings; The remembrance of them is grievous unto us; The burden of them is intolerable. Have mercy upon us, have mercy upon us, most merciful Father; For thy Son our Lord Jesus Christ’s sake, Forgive us all that is past; And grant that we may ever hereafter Serve and please thee In newness of life, To the honour and glory of thy name; Through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.

The Archbishop:
ALMIGHTY God, our heavenly Father, who of his great mercy hath promised forgiveness of sins to all them that with hearty repentance and true faith turn unto him: Have mercy upon you; pardon and deliver you from all your sins; confirm and strengthen you in all goodness; and bring you to everlasting life; through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen. OGOD our Father, who by thy holy Apostle hast taught us that love is the fulfilling of the law; Grant to these thy servants that, loving one another, they may continue in thy love unto their lives’ end; through Jesus Christ our Lord, who liveth and reigneth with thee in the unity of the Holy Ghost, one God world without end. Amen."

Though this is, of course, completely off topic!
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #848  
Old 01-03-2013, 12:00 AM
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 8,129
Having a living ex-husband didn't stop Eleanor of Aquaitaine from being Queen Consort and her ex-husband was King of France and she had two daughters from that marriage.

There has never been a bar on having a living ex-husband in law. There was a social stigma attached to being divorced in earlier times to the point where neither party could even be presented at court (Albert was very strict on that matter).

The CoE gave the marriage its blessing in a formal, public ceremony and they both admitted that they had done wrong (the general confession above from the 1662 Book of Common Prayer) with the general absolution given (of course only God knows how penitent any person is in their hearts when they say those words and no doubt there will be some here and elsewhere who won't believe that these two were penitent but I do and only God can grant absolution - which is what the Archbishop's prayer is - asking God to forgive the sinners). The Archbishop then said the second prayer which was in essence the Church acknowledging their love blessed that love.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #849  
Old 01-03-2013, 12:04 AM
Nobility
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Top End, Australia
Posts: 292
Quote:
Originally Posted by Trillian View Post
Is there a prohibition against the Duchess being Queen Consort due to her divorce from her first husband? Does that factor here? This may have already been asked and answered. Sorry if it has.
No the Duchess' divorce is not relevant to whether or not she can become Queen. As has been pointed out, as the wife of a King she will be Queen however she is known unless Parliament enacts legislation removing the status either as part of a general review of titles (as suggested by the LibDem MP) or to specifically deny it to her and nobody else - which seems rather mean spirited.

I've read on here a few times that Camilla refused to marry Charles if she was to become Queen and I was wondering where the source of this information has come from. It really makes no sense that she would reject being Queen unless it was to assuage the Diana fanatics. Whether she is called the Queen or the Princess Consort she will be carrying out/filling exactly the same role. As far as I can see the only difference is that she would not be crowned.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #850  
Old 01-03-2013, 01:14 AM
Osipi's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: On the west side of North up from Back, United States
Posts: 3,442
Quote:
Originally Posted by VictoriaB View Post
I've read on here a few times that Camilla refused to marry Charles if she was to become Queen and I was wondering where the source of this information has come from. It really makes no sense that she would reject being Queen unless it was to assuage the Diana fanatics. Whether she is called the Queen or the Princess Consort she will be carrying out/filling exactly the same role. As far as I can see the only difference is that she would not be crowned.
From what I gathered, when Charles and Camilla started thinking marriage, Camilla was unsure of herself doing public engagements. Perhaps at that time and never having been in the royal spotlight publically, she had her fears and doubts. I know it would scare the heck out of me for sure.. especially as an older woman. Since the marriage, as we've seen, Camilla has done brilliantly in her roles as a working royal. Perhaps she's even warmed to the idea of being being Charles' Queen. Only time will tell.
__________________
“We live in a world where we have to hide to make love, while violence is practiced in broad daylight.”
~~~ John Lennon ~~~
Reply With Quote
  #851  
Old 01-03-2013, 06:46 AM
Commoner
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 18
Re the lady who did not wish to use her husband's title-I believe Lady Diana Cooper placed an announcement in the Times ot the effect that she did not wish to be known as Viscountess Norwich but would continue as " Lady Diana Cooper"
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #852  
Old 01-03-2013, 11:42 AM
GracieGiraffe's Avatar
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Giraffe Land, United States
Posts: 1,371
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iluvbertie View Post
There was never any intention that Camilla woudn't be carrying out royal duties.

The 'intention' of being Princess Consort was purely and simply to appease the Diana fanatics.
By the time Charles takes the throne, which might not be for another 15 years, Diana will have been gone for 30. I think she will take the title of Queen after all the years of public service in which she has been engaged.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #853  
Old 01-03-2013, 11:44 AM
Lumutqueen's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
Royal Blogger
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Carlton, York, United Kingdom
Posts: 16,938
Quote:
Originally Posted by Queen Camilla View Post
Since the new rules are to take effect with the child of William & Kate. It makes sense to leave Camilla as Queen Camilla and Kate to become Princess Consort.
Makes no sense at all. Queen Camilla, Queen Catherine that's how it should go.
__________________
We Will Remember Them.
Reply With Quote
  #854  
Old 01-03-2013, 11:49 AM
Artemisia's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
Royal Blogger
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Yerevan, Armenia
Posts: 5,427
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lumutqueen View Post
Makes no sense at all. Queen Camilla, Queen Catherine that's how it should go.
Precisely.
There is absolutely no sense in changing the law, be it for Camilla (Charles' reign) or Kate (William's reign). If they are hell-bent to introduce equality among male and female spouses of the Monarch, why not create a title King Consort? It certainly makes more sense than the Princess Consort nonsense.
Reply With Quote
  #855  
Old 01-03-2013, 12:37 PM
GracieGiraffe's Avatar
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Giraffe Land, United States
Posts: 1,371
The objections to Camilla being crowned Queen of course stem from her relationship with Charles during his marriage to Diana. My opinion is why exclude Camilla for something Charles did as well, and was arguably the more culpable party as he was the one who broke his marriage vows to Diana (my understanding of Camilla's marriage is that her husband had strayed long before). Given all of this, why should Charles be crowned King and Camilla relegated to an inferior position? To me it's a modern day re-telling of The Scarlet Letter.

When Charles is King, Camilla will legally be Queen. She should be known as Queen because to do otherwise is to punish her for their affair but give him pass.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #856  
Old 01-03-2013, 04:12 PM
Roslyn's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Tintenbar, Australia
Posts: 2,478
Quote:
Originally Posted by Felica View Post
Re the lady who did not wish to use her husband's title-I believe Lady Diana Cooper placed an announcement in the Times ot the effect that she did not wish to be known as Viscountess Norwich but would continue as " Lady Diana Cooper"
Thank you so much for posting that, Felicia. The woman I had in mind is someone younger, but this is very interesting information and has given me another interesting woman to research.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #857  
Old 01-03-2013, 04:23 PM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Nova Scotia, Canada
Posts: 1,181
A daughter for Will and Kate could create a royal headache - Canada - Macleans.ca
Quote:
Is there perhaps a silent prayer sweeping stealthily across the ranks of Canada’s constitutional experts? “Please, Lord, let the Duchess of Cambridge be delivered of a fine, healthy heir. And if you could see to it, let it be a boy. Or, if it’s a girl, make sure she only has younger sisters.”
Its not a done deal yet.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #858  
Old 01-03-2013, 04:44 PM
Roslyn's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Tintenbar, Australia
Posts: 2,478
Quote:
Originally Posted by Artemisia View Post
Precisely.
There is absolutely no sense in changing the law, be it for Camilla (Charles' reign) or Kate (William's reign). If they are hell-bent to introduce equality among male and female spouses of the Monarch, why not create a title King Consort? It certainly makes more sense than the Princess Consort nonsense.
As tempting as this might seem, I can't see this as a realistic possibility. The words "King" and "Consort" just don't work together. The meaning of King and Queen is far too entrenched in history and tradition and usage to be changed this way.

I see three alternatives: (a) retain the status quo, with occasional tweaks at the edges in response to social change (e.g. the change regarding primogeniture); (b) make all Consorts Prince or Princess Consort; or, (c) completely revise the whole system.

I think it's safe to say that (c) is not going to happen. (b) might, and is my preferred option, but people seem to like the idea of having a Queen too much, so it's probably not going to happen, so the male spouse of a female monarch will continue to be discriminated against. As I raised in a previous post, I'd love to know Prince Philip's thoughts on the issue. (a) is the course of least resistance, and what will probably happen.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #859  
Old 01-03-2013, 05:32 PM
AdmirerUS's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Midwest, United States
Posts: 2,134
Quote:
Originally Posted by Duke-of-Earl View Post
It's always "easier" to continue centuries old discrimination than to end it. (see final paragraph of the article). My own country has lots of experience with this right up to and including my current President. Shame on us.
I am an outsider to the Commonwealth and am only expressing an outsider's opinion. I think it would interesting to watch the world reaction to any of the Commonwealth nations not agreeing with the change. Realistically - the rest of the world will see one republic or the other which decides to remain old fashioned because it is "easier".
It would seem quite silly from the outside to see Great Britain ruled by "Queen Eldest Offspring" while Republic B chooses to ignore said girl and select "King Younger Brother." All that while PMs and legislatures are actually running the two republics. What would be gained by Republic B by doing so - certainly not moral high ground because at base, the issue is trying to stop discrimination.
Again - I'm an outsider to the Commonwealth and am giving one outsider opinion - which I realize matters not at all. Except that it is true.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #860  
Old 01-03-2013, 06:19 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Toronto (ON) & London (UK), Canada
Posts: 5,262
^^^^^
The republics within the Commonwealth have no say in the issue. It is only the realms within the Commonwealth that HM is monarch of, like Canada, that have a say in the matter.
__________________

__________________
Reply With Quote
Reply


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
Succession Issues ladybelline Imperial Family of Japan 918 11-02-2013 12:14 PM
The Act of Settlement 1701 and the Line of Succession Elise,LadyofLancaster British Royals 912 02-04-2013 07:05 PM
Rules of Succession CrownPrinceLorenzo Royalty Past, Present, and Future 95 10-25-2012 01:55 PM




Additional Links
Popular Tags
abdication birth birthday bourbon-parma camilla charlene chris o'neill crown prince frederik crown prince haakon crown princess letizia crown princess mary crown princess mette-marit crown princess victoria danish royals dutch royal history engagement fashion genealogy grand duchess maria teresa grand duke henri habsburg hereditary grand duchess stéphanie hereditary grand duke guillaume hohenzollern infanta elena king abdullah king abdullah ii king albert ii king carl xvi gustav king juan carlos king philippe king willem-alexander picture thread pom pregnancy prince albert prince albert ii prince constantijn prince felipe prince felix prince frederik prince henrik prince joachim princess princess alexia (2005 -) princess ariane princess beatrix princess catharina-amalia princess charlene princess charlene daytime fashion princess haya princess laurentien princess letizia princess mabel princess madeleine princess marie princess mary princess maxima queen mathilde queen maxima queen rania queen silvia queen sofia royal russia state visit wedding willem-alexander 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 04:57 AM.

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]