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
 
  #121  
Old 02-07-2013, 12:50 PM
DukeOfAster's Avatar
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Pembroke, United States
Posts: 181
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roslyn View Post

If we're going for equality between the sexes, why should the wife of the Prince of Wales lose her own identity on marriage and take on his style and title? Husband and wife are no longer one person in the eyes of the law, so they should have separate styles and titles.

The Prince of Wales' wife could be made a Princess in her own right. In William and Kate's case they could be called TRHs Prince William, The Prince of Wales, and Princess Catherine. Likewise, if their firstborn is a girl named Diana, her future husband would be made a Prince in his own right and they could become, in due course, TRHs Princess Diana, The Princess of Wales, and Prince (first name). This proposition also provides for the couples to eventually be HM King William and HRH Princess Catherine and HM Queen Diana and HRH Prince (first name) respectively. Perhaps the consort could have the style of "Majesty" rather than "Royal Highness" to distinguish them.

Radical, but more in line with modern trends towards equality of the sexes.
But then by giving them the Majesty you are giving them the ID of their spouse and not their own. If they are to keep their own ID and the spouse has a title of their own and it has HRH next to it then until they are moved to a title in their own right with a Majest
__________________

__________________
Reply With Quote
  #122  
Old 02-07-2013, 12:57 PM
DukeOfAster's Avatar
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Pembroke, United States
Posts: 181
The spouse should only get Majesty if they receive it in their own right. If the position they hold has a HRH with it then HRH is what they get until they earn the Majesty. They do not get it because the spouse holds it.
__________________

__________________
Reply With Quote
  #123  
Old 02-07-2013, 01:08 PM
Artemisia's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
Royal Blogger
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Yerevan, Armenia
Posts: 5,427
How exactly is a spouse supposed to "earn" the Majesty?
As far as I know, royal titles aren't earned: you get them because you were either born to the "right" people, or married them.
Reply With Quote
  #124  
Old 02-07-2013, 01:55 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Toronto (ON) & London (UK), Canada
Posts: 5,262
If a woman is to retain her own identity, should it not then be a case of HM The King and Ms Donaldson for example......Donaldson of course being her own fathers name so that might be sexist as well, but even her own mothers name would of course have been that of her maternal grandfather so I guess there is no way around it.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #125  
Old 02-07-2013, 03:09 PM
Roslyn's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Tintenbar, Australia
Posts: 2,461
Quote:
Originally Posted by Artemisia View Post
As far as I know, royal titles aren't earned: you get them because you were either born to the "right" people, or married them.
No royal titles are "earned" these days. There was a time that a monarch was elected, and to that extent "earned" their title, but these days people get royal titles because of accident of birth or marriage to someone who has a title because of accident of birth.

I was hesitant to suggest a sovereign's spouse be made a "majesty", and I've changed my mind. "Majesty" refers to the position of sovereign and there is only one sovereign. I don't see why a woman who is married to a king gets to become a "majesty" and a man married to a queen doesn't. I think the sovereign's spouse should stay as HRH Princess or Princess (first name). Everyone will know they are married to the monarch so they will still have precedence over everyone else of their gender.

Just my thoughts on the matter.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dman View Post
I was just stating the facts that the palace released. The fuss over Camilla's future Queenship isn't something I'm looking forward to in the future.
I'm not looking forward to it either. I think it will seem rather petty and somewhat distasteful since the debate will arise as a direct and immediate result of the death of the much beloved Queen Elizabeth II. The moment HM is pronounced dead, Charles will become King, and people will not know what to call Camilla. Technically she will become Queen Consort at the same moment, but that's not what TPTB have said she'll be "known as". There won't be a transition period to allow the matter to be resolved with clear heads and no emotion. The issue will arise immediately, while everyone is in shock and grieving. As everyone who remembers what happened after Diana's death knows, it could get nasty.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #126  
Old 02-07-2013, 06:43 PM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Los Alamos, United States
Posts: 1,008
As state by Cepe and others, the issues of the monarch's religion and of equal primogeniture must be separated. If they are not, chaos and confusion will reign in the minds of parliaments who must vote on this issue.
To say that William's children will inevitably be C of E is to look askance from the glaring defection of the Duchess of Kent and several of her children from the C of E to the RC.
True, they aren't the direct line to the crown, but William's children might at some point decide they want to be RC. Or one of them might decide this, so it would be important which one was the first in line to the throne. If it was the second in line, maybe it would not matter.
As Cepe states, RC members are expected to raise children RC, and this becomes most explicit when an RC person (male or female) marries a non-RC. The non-RC person must swear to raise the children Catholic.
I do not know if Princess Michael thus was forced to swear...perhaps she was not. Perhaps this custom which was strong in the US is not as strong in England.
Having been a member of both RC and of C of E, I can tell you that there are strong dividing things between them, even if their liturgy is very very similar, and their core beliefs (as in the Nicene Creed) very similar. If this thing is mixed up with primogeniture, it will mean that the people voting on it do NOT take their religion seriously, either RC or C of E. Both are Christian, both should get along, but both will have trouble if a royal heir defects.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #127  
Old 02-08-2013, 08:30 AM
DukeOfAster's Avatar
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Pembroke, United States
Posts: 181
Quote:
Originally Posted by Artemisia View Post
How exactly is a spouse supposed to "earn" the Majesty?
As far as I know, royal titles aren't earned: you get them because yotex sou were either born to the "right" people, or married them.
From my understanding the Queen did not have to give the heir to the throne title to Charles it was her choice. so he must have earned it. my point is that do not say lets make all the same and then say to make the spouse to the monarch special lets make them a Majesty. if you are going to let them be a prince or princess or a Duke or Duchess like Philip then let them be a HRH and only the Monarch is the Majesty.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #128  
Old 02-08-2013, 08:36 AM
DukeOfAster's Avatar
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Pembroke, United States
Posts: 181
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roslyn View Post

No royal titles are "earned" these days. There was a time that a monarch was elected, and to that extent "earned" their title, but these days people get royal titles because of accident of birth or marriage to someone who has a title because of accident of birth.

I was hesitant to suggest a sovereign's spouse be made a "majesty", and I've changed my mind. "Majesty" refers to the position of sovereign and there is only one sovereign. I don't see why a woman who is married to a king gets to become a "majesty" and a man married to a queen doesn't. I think the sovereign's spouse should stay as HRH Princess or Princess (first name). Everyone will know they are married to the monarch so they will still have precedence over everyone else of their gender.

Just my thoughts on the matter.

I'm not looking forward to it either. I think it will seem rather petty and somewhat distasteful since the debate will arise as a direct and immediate result of the death of the much beloved Queen Elizabeth II. The moment HM is pronounced dead, Charles will become King, and people will not know what to call Camilla. Technically she will become Queen Consort at the same moment, but that's not what TPTB have said she'll be "known as". There won't be a transition period to allow the matter to be resolved with clear heads and no emotion. The issue will arise immediately, while everyone is in shock and grieving. As everyone who remembers what happened after Diana's death knows, it could get nasty.
agreed!!! i agree as well it is stupid not to make both male and female spouse the same. maybe it is as simple as His or Her Royal Highness The Prince or The Princess Consort is the Monarchs spouses title.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #129  
Old 02-08-2013, 08:51 AM
Excalibur's Avatar
Gentry
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Jacksonville, Florida, United States
Posts: 64
Quote:
Originally Posted by DukeOfAster View Post
From my understanding the Queen did not have to give the heir to the throne title to Charles it was her choice. so he must have earned it.
Upon the death of George VI, Prince Charles became (along with several other titles) the Heir Apparent to the throne. The Queen did not give him this title, it was his as a matter of his birth. He did not earn it. The Queen did, however, create him The Prince of Wales, but this had no effect on his position as Heir Apparent.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #130  
Old 02-08-2013, 09:07 AM
Commoner
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Manchester, United Kingdom
Posts: 47
Until this year, when the rules were changed, technically there couldn't be an Heiress Apparent as the Heiress Presumptive would have been displaced had her parents had a son, or had her mother died and her father remarried and had a son with his second wife. Princess Mary, the future Mary I, had a court at Ludlow, where Princes of Wales were usually based, for a while, but I don't think she was "officially" Princess of Wales.

I wish they'd sort something out about Camilla. As far as I'm concerned, as soon as Charles becomes King his wife becomes Queen, but there's been all this vague talk about her being "Princess Consort" and so no-one really knows what's going to happen. Hopefully the question won't arise for many years yet, but the Queen's nearly 87 and the situation's going to arise at some point.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #131  
Old 02-08-2013, 09:56 AM
Dman's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Midwest, United States
Posts: 5,549
I know, we have to face reality. Long May She Reign but Her Majesty is getting older and the Camilla topic will come up again at some point. I think the royal family is even dredding that moment, on top of everything they will be dealing with.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #132  
Old 02-08-2013, 10:41 AM
Lumutqueen's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
Royal Blogger
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Carlton, York, United Kingdom
Posts: 16,931
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mariel View Post
If Charles passed away suddenly, I guess William would become the direct heir. Charles eats organic food and may he also live long, and Camilla too.
No guessing, when Charles dies William is next in line.
When it's your time it's your time, organic food or not.
__________________
We Will Remember Them.
Reply With Quote
  #133  
Old 02-08-2013, 01:37 PM
Artemisia's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
Royal Blogger
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Yerevan, Armenia
Posts: 5,427
Quote:
Originally Posted by DukeOfAster View Post
From my understanding the Queen did not have to give the heir to the throne title to Charles it was her choice. so he must have earned it. my point is that do not say lets make all the same and then say to make the spouse to the monarch special lets make them a Majesty. if you are going to let them be a prince or princess or a Duke or Duchess like Philip then let them be a HRH and only the Monarch is the Majesty.
Prince Charles became Heir Apparent to the British Throne the moment the Queen ascended to the Throne. No one, not even the Monarch, has the say in this matter; it is regulated by laws and traditions. Prince Charles was automatically The Duke of Cornwall (a title reserved for the heir apparent only) from 1952. What the Queen did was create him The Prince of Wales as well - another of the titles of the Heir Apparent which is not, however, automatic.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Alison H View Post
Until this year, when the rules were changed, technically there couldn't be an Heiress Apparent as the Heiress Presumptive would have been displaced had her parents had a son, or had her mother died and her father remarried and had a son with his second wife. Princess Mary, the future Mary I, had a court at Ludlow, where Princes of Wales were usually based, for a while, but I don't think she was "officially" Princess of Wales.
Actually, there could be an Heiress Apparent even before the changes.
For instance, if Charles and Diana had only one daughter and Charles predeceased his mother, that girl would have been Heiress Apparent to the Throne because no subsequent births could have displaced her in the Line of Succession.
Reply With Quote
  #134  
Old 02-08-2013, 04:05 PM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: , United States
Posts: 2,731
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dman View Post
I know, we have to face reality. Long May She Reign but Her Majesty is getting older and the Camilla topic will come up again at some point. I think the royal family is even dredding that moment, on top of everything they will be dealing with.
I doubt anyone is too worried about what Camilla will be. She is Queen automatically the minute Charles is The Sovereign and I cannot imagine any Prime Minister agreeing to introduce legislation in Parliament to change that.

HM could easily live another 15 years if her health holds. It will be a short reign for Charles and Camilla, assuming one or both hasn't died yet.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #135  
Old 02-08-2013, 07:37 PM
Furienna's Avatar
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Örnsköldsvik, Sweden
Posts: 1,181
Yeah, Camilla has never been as popular as Diana was, and I think that has a lot to do with it.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #136  
Old 02-08-2013, 08:24 PM
Dman's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Midwest, United States
Posts: 5,549
Canadians OK with a first-born royal daughter as their monarch, poll finds:
Canadians OK with a first-born royal daughter as their monarch, poll finds | Toronto Star
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #137  
Old 02-08-2013, 10:19 PM
padams2359's Avatar
Nobility
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: New Orleans, United States
Posts: 380
As we are all keenly aware, the palace takes serious polls very seriously, and always. Remember, once Her Majesty move to Windsor permanently, or SGC to be exact, The Palace has about a year to get a feeling on where the Commonwealth stands on the matter of Camila being crowned as Queen Consort.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #138  
Old 02-08-2013, 10:45 PM
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 8,122
What has it to do with the Commonwealth? Most of the countries of the Commonwealth are republics and those that have The Queen as Queen mostly don't have any titles for the rest of the family and only give them the courtesy of their British titles e.g. Philip is no a Prince of Australia even though he is married to the Queen of Australia. Camilla will be the same - just the wife of the King of Australia and will be accorded whatever title she has in the UK (if that body even exists by then).
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #139  
Old 02-15-2013, 01:59 AM
Dman's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Midwest, United States
Posts: 5,549
Changes to succession laws will strengthen monarchy, Lords told:
Changes to succession laws will strengthen monarchy, Lords told - Telegraph
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #140  
Old 02-17-2013, 03:48 AM
wbenson's Avatar
Super Moderator
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: -, United States
Posts: 2,213
Several posts on styles and titles have been moved to the Questions About British Styles and Titles thread.
__________________

__________________
TRF rules and FAQ
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
Frederik and Mary's Official/Business Visit to Australia; November 19th-26th, 2011 Princess Robijn Crown Prince Frederik and Crown Princess Mary and Family 294 12-31-2013 03:32 AM
The Act of Settlement 1701 and the Line of Succession Elise,LadyofLancaster British Royals 912 02-04-2013 07:05 PM
Prince Frederik and Princess Mary Official Visit to Brazil; September 16th-21st,2012 ricarda Crown Prince Frederik and Crown Princess Mary and Family 81 10-05-2012 04:15 PM
The Change of the Act of Succession - 1979 Constitution Change GrandDuchess Prince Carl Philip 253 09-05-2012 03:45 AM
The Third Succession Act (Henry VIII, 1543) Daz_Voz British Royals 4 07-25-2012 03:17 PM




Additional Links
Popular Tags
abdication birth birthday bourbon-parma camilla chris o'neill crown prince frederik crown prince haakon crown princess letizia crown princess mary crown princess mette-marit crown princess victoria danish royals 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 norway palace picture thread pom pregnancy prince constantijn prince felipe prince felix prince frederik prince henrik prince joachim prince laurent princess princess alexia (2005 -) princess annette princess ariane princess beatrix princess catharina-amalia princess charlene princess haya princess laurentien princess letizia princess mabel princess madeleine princess marie princess marilene princess mary princess maxima queen mathilde queen maxima queen rania queen silvia queen sofia royal russia sheikh state visit wedding willem-alexander william


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 04:45 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]