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
 
  #441  
Old 12-30-2012, 01:40 AM
Nice Nofret's Avatar
Nobility
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Zürich, Switzerland
Posts: 435
Quote:
Originally Posted by VictoriaB View Post
That sleeping with the wife of the Prince of Wales should be punishable by death (I know it no longer is but only since Parliament recently "meddled")?
oh what a shame, parliament meddled with that particular law - It would have been a field day, if that law had been applied to Dianas lovers

We wouldn't have had to read all this Hewitt-Stories in the years past.
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #442  
Old 12-30-2012, 03:12 AM
Roslyn's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Tintenbar, Australia
Posts: 3,096
Quote:
Originally Posted by VictoriaB View Post
Why is it insane? More and more women nowadays choose to be known by their maiden names, especially professionally. I see nothing wrong with abolishing the idea that a woman's identity is subsumed into her husband's on marriage. To me, that is the insanity.
I think it would be an excellent idea to formally provide for the spouse of the monarch to be prince or princess consort.
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #443  
Old 12-30-2012, 04:07 AM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 9,034
The law still exists - it is treason to sleep with the wife of the heir to the throne but the penalty is no longer death.

It is equally treason to conspire to commit treason so for Diana to voluntarily sleep with any man other than Charles, while his wife, was equally treason (it is why both Anne Boleyn and Catherine Howard were executed) and she even went further than either of them and admitted it.

There was a question asked many years ago, while she was still alive I think, by some person doing some research asking why both she and Hewett weren't being charged with treason and the answer went something like 'they weren't caught in the act'.
Reply With Quote
  #444  
Old 12-30-2012, 06:14 AM
Nice Nofret's Avatar
Nobility
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Zürich, Switzerland
Posts: 435
Thanks Iluvbertie for this Info! Most enlightening !
Reply With Quote
  #445  
Old 12-30-2012, 08:18 AM
Courtier
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Ipswich, United Kingdom
Posts: 728
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roslyn View Post
I think it would be an excellent idea to formally provide for the spouse of the monarch to be prince or princess consort.
What an excellent idea to deny the wife the title Queen.


RIP

Kings and Queens.
Reply With Quote
  #446  
Old 12-30-2012, 08:57 AM
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: alpine village, Germany
Posts: 1,803
Sweden was very quick as a country to introduce Equal Primogeniture and they have no problem with the fact that while the wife of the king is the queen, the husband of the queen regnant is a "Prince of Sweden" and gets that title the moment he marries the heiress. Plus he shares her Royal ducal title.

I don't think Philip has a problem with being a Prince of the UK and Duke of Edinburgh and not the King consort - I personally believe his "amoebe"-comment came from the fact that his own, original name was not deemed good enough to become the name of the dynasty as it would have happened traditionally. The SHSG are after all a cadet branch of the House of Oldenburg and thus one of the oldest dynasties of Europe.
Reply With Quote
  #447  
Old 12-30-2012, 11:11 AM
Furienna's Avatar
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Örnsköldsvik, Sweden
Posts: 1,244
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kataryn View Post
Sweden was very quick as a country to introduce Equal Primogeniture and they have no problem with the fact that while the wife of the king is the queen, the husband of the queen regnant is a "Prince of Sweden" and gets that title the moment he marries the heiress.
I've wondered about that though. If a king's wife automatically becomes a queen, why can't a queen's husband become a king?
Reply With Quote
  #448  
Old 12-30-2012, 11:41 AM
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: alpine village, Germany
Posts: 1,803
Quote:
Originally Posted by Furienna View Post
I've wondered about that though. If a king's wife automatically becomes a queen, why can't a queen's husband become a king?
I think it has to do with the recognition that some things just cannot be changed through laws. It is soo customary and ingrained in people to think that man reigns over woman, that there is no real emotional readiness to accept that there can be a queen regnant with a king consort. That women have their own wealth and can do with it what they want is a rather new concept. A concept from a time when monarchy was already very fixed and defined by traditions and customs which come from a time when man was higher than woman.

I personally have no problem with Victoria being "The Crown Princess" and her husband being "Prince Daniel", while together they are the "Crown Princess Couple" - this is really rather sweet. But then Victoria chose a husband who is male through and through but has no problem to openly "serve" his future queen like a true knight all the while showing that she is in public his superior and his future monarch. So he accepts the old customs of king- and queenship as well.
Reply With Quote
  #449  
Old 12-30-2012, 12:10 PM
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Atlanta, United States
Posts: 1,731
The Queen offered a title to Mark Phillips when he married Anne. They refused it. Tony Armstrong-Jones refused a title when he married Margaret but took it when she became pregnant. King is a higher title than Queen that why Phillip isnt King. Monarchy isn't about fairness. I keep thinking that the Cambridge baby will be a boy because they are changing the rules and it would be ironic.
Reply With Quote
  #450  
Old 12-30-2012, 01:58 PM
padams2359's Avatar
Nobility
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: New Orleans, United States
Posts: 395
I think they only want to change the ability of a first born child to accend to the thrown no matter the sex of the child. I don't believe they are trying to change the entire make up of the British Monarchy. People are reading too much into this thing. Same as all the brouhaha about Edward VIII's grandchildren, which could not exist because HE HAD NO CHILDREN. This was to close a loop hole in LP of 1937, and if an abdication would occur in the future.
Reply With Quote
  #451  
Old 12-30-2012, 04:42 PM
Furienna's Avatar
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Örnsköldsvik, Sweden
Posts: 1,244
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kataryn
It is soo customary and ingrained in people to think that man reigns over woman, that there is no real emotional readiness to accept that there can be a queen regnant with a king consort.
Yeah, it must be something like that.
Reply With Quote
  #452  
Old 12-30-2012, 05:13 PM
AnnEliza's Avatar
Nobility
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Seattle, United States
Posts: 324
What a ridiculous article. Is all this flack about Camilla being Princess Consort instead of Queen Consort because she's divorced? I think that's ridiculous. Henry VIII was the monarch to first be named Defender of the Faith, and it was given to him by the Pope. Then he kept the title when he broke with the Church of Rome, divorced Catherine of Aragon and married Anne Boleyn and crowned her Queen Consort. There's tradition. There have been divorces and remarriages and there's never been a Princess Consort. And as someone pointed out, monarchy is not about fairness. Anyway, if anyone thinks that the U.S. holds all its citizens as equals just because we don't have titles or a monarch, that our "democracy", which is actually a republic, is somehow more fair, that's very naive.
Reply With Quote
  #453  
Old 12-30-2012, 05:27 PM
Roslyn's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Tintenbar, Australia
Posts: 3,096
Quote:
Originally Posted by Furienna View Post
I've wondered about that though. If a king's wife automatically becomes a queen, why can't a queen's husband become a king?
This is a complex issue, with the reasons rooted in millenia of history and culture.

In the Anglo-Saxon period, the head of the English nation was its elected chief and representative: the king. All the old Teutonic kingdoms were elective. The witan (council) elected the most competent member of the royal family to discharge the functions of king. They didn't elect a queen, they elected a king. The consort of the king was his wife, known as the queen. She occupied a very exalted position; women in that culture were held in high regard and had power.

Things changed after the Norman invasion and the status of women was diminished further and further until eventually they were regarded legally and socially as nothing more than the property of men, especially when they were married. A husband and wife were one legal person, with the wife merely being an extension of the husband. She took his status and titles, but could not have greater status than him, and king is a greater status than queen so the husband of a queen regnant cannot become king.
Reply With Quote
  #454  
Old 12-30-2012, 06:27 PM
Courtier
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Ipswich, United Kingdom
Posts: 728
The more time passes the more people accept Camilla will be Queen. The Monarchy is suposed to be continuity. To suddenly have Princess Consorts after 1000 years is inconsistent.
Reply With Quote
  #455  
Old 12-30-2012, 06:39 PM
cepe's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 4,881
I welcome this request by this MP because it might prevent Prince Charles from going ahead with this daft idea of "Princess Consort" if he realises he is setting a
precedent.

Camilla should be Queen Consort.
__________________

This precious stone set in the silver sea,......
This blessed plot, this earth, this realm, this England,
Reply With Quote
  #456  
Old 12-30-2012, 06:55 PM
Courtier
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: NN, Lithuania
Posts: 819
This is not clever idea. "Queen" is more attractive than any "princess" and generates more money for a country.
Reply With Quote
  #457  
Old 12-30-2012, 07:20 PM
Roslyn's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Tintenbar, Australia
Posts: 3,096
I think in the interests of gender equality it is a good idea. Why should a woman who is married to a monarch enjoy a benefit - the status of Majesty - that a man married to a monarch does not? Why should she not just be HRH Princess -, The Princess Consort, and the man be HRH Prince -, The Prince Consort? They are both merely consorts, without any formal role in the government.

It think it is fair, and once done it will set a new precedent, and confirming that Camilla is to be The Princess Consort will get the ball rolling. It would be a compromise which should appease both those who claim she should not be Queen for reasons related to Diana, and also those who think she should have the same status as any woman married to the King. Times change. Equal primogeniture is coming in, and I think this change would go well with that one.
Reply With Quote
  #458  
Old 12-30-2012, 07:22 PM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 9,034
Quote:
Originally Posted by AnnEliza View Post
What a ridiculous article. Is all this flack about Camilla being Princess Consort instead of Queen Consort because she's divorced?
I don't think this idea has anything to do with Camilla but more to do with equality. The man proposing this is advocating that the spouses of monarchs be treated the same regardless of gender - to go along with equality of rights to the throne.

The Princess Consort idea for Camilla has been around since 2005 but will need legislation. This is a chance to get that onto the books now but now just for Camilla but for all future wives of Kings.

I actually think it is a good idea. If you wish to have equality over the rights of girls and boys to inherit based solely on birth order then it is only fair that their spouses are treated the same.

Quote:
I think that's ridiculous. Henry VIII was the monarch to first be named Defender of the Faith, and it was given to him by the Pope. Then he kept the title when he broke with the Church of Rome, divorced Catherine of Aragon and married Anne Boleyn and crowned her Queen Consort.
He didn't keep the title. He was stripped of that title by the Pope. Some years later he had the English Parliament confer that title on him again. To change/remove the title Defender of the Faith from the British monarch will take legislation as the title was established by legislation.

Quote:
There's tradition. There have been divorces and remarriages and there's never been a Princess Consort. And as someone pointed out, monarchy is not about fairness.

The issue isn't about divorce and remarriage - it is about Camilla being the 'third person' in Diana's marriage.
Reply With Quote
  #459  
Old 12-30-2012, 08:03 PM
Courtier
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Ipswich, United Kingdom
Posts: 728
Yes let's destroy 1000 years of history. I don't want any future concorts denied queenly style just becauces of equality. If they really want equality instead of downgrading woman's titles, they should upgrade men's titles.

I think they should create the title "King consort" if they really want eqaulity.
Reply With Quote
  #460  
Old 12-30-2012, 08:11 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Toronto (ON) & London (UK), Canada
Posts: 5,256
From the moment of conception we are unequal. Why start mucking around with the monarchy to make things "equal" when nothing else is?
__________________

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
The Act of Settlement 1701 and the Line of Succession Elise,LadyofLancaster British Royals 942 03-09-2015 10:32 PM
Prince Frederik and Princess Mary's Official Visit to Australia: November 19-26, 2011 Princess Robijn Crown Prince Frederik and Crown Princess Mary and Family 295 08-28-2014 08:34 PM
The Change of the Act of Succession - 1979 Constitution Change GrandDuchess Royal House of Sweden 276 06-30-2014 12:52 AM
Prince Frederik and Princess Mary's Official Visit to Brazil: September 16-21, 2012 ricarda Crown Prince Frederik and Crown Princess Mary and Family 81 10-05-2012 04:15 PM
The Third Succession Act (Henry VIII, 1543) Daz_Voz British Royal History 4 07-25-2012 03:17 PM




Popular Tags
abdication belgium brussels carl philip charlene crown prince frederik crown prince haakon crown princess mary crown princess mette-marit crown princess victoria current events death fashion fashion poll germany grand duchess maria teresa hohenzollern infanta leonor infanta sofia jordan king carl xvi gustav king felipe king felipe vi king harald king juan carlos king philippe king willem-alexander letizia luxembourg nobility official visit ottoman picture of the week poland president gauck president hollande president komorowski prince albert prince albert ii prince carl philip prince daniel prince floris prince henrik princess aimee princess alexia (2005 -) princess ariane princess astrid princess beatrix princess catharina-amalia princess charlene princess madeleine princess mary princess of asturias queen fabiola queen letizia queen mathilde queen maxima queen rania queen silvia royal royal fashion sofia hellqvist spain state visit stockholm sweden the hague visit wedding willem-alexander



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 01:30 AM.

Social Knowledge Networks

eXTReMe Tracker
Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2015
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]