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
 
  #161  
Old 02-15-2009, 11:06 PM
Ella Kay's Avatar
Courtier
Royal Blogger
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Anywhere, United States
Posts: 952
Quote:
Optimism though...always optimistic! And It's my sincere hope that the transition is a smooth one.
I think it will be a smooth one. Mourning for The Queen is going to be intense in Britain and abroad ... it's amazing to think that the vast majority of people in the world have never known another queen but Elizabeth II. I think that people will unite with Charles in their grief, and perhaps identify with him very much in that moment.

But I hope none of that has to happen for long time to come!
__________________

__________________

"I have to be seen to be believed."
HM The Queen
Reply With Quote
  #162  
Old 02-16-2009, 04:32 AM
Menarue's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Cascais, Portugal
Posts: 2,155
Quote:
Originally Posted by scooter View Post
I never considered her to be cute or cuddly. Just someone who had high standards. Of course she had to. The only reason she was Queen was that the prior King, her BIL, was absolutely not allowed to marry The Divorcee and retain his right to the throne and his income. Nor was The Princess Margaret if she actually married Peter Townsend, nor was Prince Michael, and they were way further down the succession. But, now we have Camilla and Charles, allowed to marry, retain the right to be heir to the throne AND keep the $Zillions. Meh. Oh I forget. I was being unattractive, and ignorant, mentioning this pesky reality of history.
Edward VIII abdicated so naturally he couldn´t keep the income, it was not his to keep, it was the income meant for the King of England.
His father didn´t mention him in his will as he had no idea that his son would abdicate and thought he would be well provided for. By a lot of manoeuvering it was decided that Edward should be given compensation and he was, he "sold" what was decided to be private property to his brother King George VI and also received a very generous income for the rest of his life. The way he lived should prove that. The French Government was very generous to him, he lived in a wonderful mansion in the best possible area for a symbolically ridiculous amount.
He lived the rest of his life as a millionaire which is only natural, he was a millionaire.
When Prince Charles becomes King he will also receive the income due to the King of England and quite rightfully so.
BTW you say Edward was not allowed to marry Wallis, this is not strictly true, he was advised that he should wait until after his coronation to marry her and although it would have caused a crisis (this never seemed to bother Edward very much) he could have done so. it was his insistence that he marry her before his coronation that caused the most trouble. At the time he was said to announce to Stanley Baldwin that he intended to marry Wallis she was legally still a married woman, that was not very well received either, he should have waited until after her divorce was final. He was the kind of person who "wanted" and "wanted now" and if he had been wiser things would have turned out quite differently.
__________________

__________________
Reply With Quote
  #163  
Old 02-16-2009, 04:39 AM
Stefan's Avatar
Super Moderator
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Esslingen, Germany
Posts: 2,314
Quote:
Originally Posted by Elspeth View Post
...I believe that Princess Michael's first marriage was annulled so Prince Michael wasn't marrying a divorcee.
But her first marriage was only annulled in the earlý 80's after her marriage to Prince Michael.
__________________
Stefan

Royal Travel and Events

Reply With Quote
  #164  
Old 02-16-2009, 04:54 AM
Skydragon's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: London and Highlands, United Kingdom
Posts: 10,943
Quote:
Originally Posted by scooter View Post
I never considered her to be cute or cuddly. Just someone who had high standards. -------- But, now we have Camilla and Charles, allowed to marry, retain the right to be heir to the throne AND keep the $Zillions. Meh. Oh I forget. I was being unattractive, and ignorant, mentioning this pesky reality of history.
That's just it scooter, those times are history. Women were not allowed to vote, women were not allowed to wear trousers, women were their husbands property, etc, etc.

Does any right minded person really want to go back to those times, when a woman tied into an unhappy marriage was stuck there for the rest of her husbands life, (such as it is in some countries still). Just because a woman has an affair, (more than one would be different), I wouldn't judge her to be without standards, especially if she married the man.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #165  
Old 02-16-2009, 05:46 AM
MARG's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Christchurch, New Zealand
Posts: 3,886
Quote:
Originally Posted by Skydragon View Post
Does any right minded person really want to go back to those times . . . . . . . ?
You bet your bootees they do! But, only when the Divorcees concerned are the Prince of Wales and Camilla Parker-Bowles. Them they want to "Kick out of the Kingdom", everyone else can go on their merry way marrying and divorcing in this brave new 21st Century.

Fortunately those fully paid up memebers of the Flat Earth Society do not speak for the Nation or the Commonwealth. That being the case I am hoping that Ella Kay's view of the future prevails.
__________________
MARG
"Words ought to be a little wild, for they are assaults of thoughts on the unthinking." - JM Keynes
Reply With Quote
  #166  
Old 02-16-2009, 01:45 PM
Mermaid1962's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: NearTheCoast, Canada
Posts: 5,129
Speaking for myself, I think that I will be very, very sad.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ella Kay View Post
I think it will be a smooth one. Mourning for The Queen is going to be intense in Britain and abroad ... it's amazing to think that the vast majority of people in the world have never known another queen but Elizabeth II. I think that people will unite with Charles in their grief, and perhaps identify with him very much in that moment.

But I hope none of that has to happen for long time to come!
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #167  
Old 02-17-2009, 12:01 AM
scooter's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: katonah, United States
Posts: 2,281
Quote:
Originally Posted by Skydragon View Post
That's just it scooter, those times are history. Women were not allowed to vote, women were not allowed to wear trousers, women were their husbands property, etc, etc.

Does any right minded person really want to go back to those times, when a woman tied into an unhappy marriage was stuck there for the rest of her husbands life, (such as it is in some countries still). Just because a woman has an affair, (more than one would be different), I wouldn't judge her to be without standards, especially if she married the man.
Im not suggesting we should go back to before women had the vote. I am however suggesting that the Royal Family which enjoys a huge amount of luxury, priviledge and prestige should be, at the very least, an honorable example to England's subjects for the $zillions they receive. Are the chioces, to your mind, truly: accept the less than exemplary Camilla as Queen or go back to not having the vote?
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #168  
Old 02-17-2009, 12:15 AM
scooter's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: katonah, United States
Posts: 2,281
Quote:
Originally Posted by Elspeth View Post
Haven't we all been through this before and corrected the impression that Prince Michael lost his right to the throne for marrying a divorced woman? The reason he was bumped from the succession is that he married a Catholic - and I believe that Princess Michael's first marriage was annulled so Prince Michael wasn't marrying a divorcee.

As for Princess Margaret's case, it seems that there was a pretty widely held opinion that she was treated with quite unnecessary cruelty over the Townsend affair. That treatment very probably had something to do with the fact that Princess Anne had an easier time of it when she wanted to remarry after a divorce and that the same happened to Prince Charles when he wanted to marry a divorcee. For the heir to the throne to have to give up his position in the line of succession and all his royal income and privileges in order to marry a divorcee would seem so extremely bizarre in the 21st century when so many marriages end in divorce that it might do the institution more harm than good.
Elspeth I love you to death but, yes IMO they should have given up the place and priveldge and become the 2nd Duke and DUchess of Windsor to paint watercolours in Tuscany, in which case I would have had respect for them, for doing the right thing. Also, I have never recieved a reasonable answer as to why Charles and Camilla would have 'chosen' to have a civil ceremony, bucking every tradition for TRF if a church wedding was at all possible. The BRF is about nothing except tradition...dont sit in that chair Granny Victoria sat there, etc.

Sorry if I'm a bit grumpy, but I was extremely personally insulted by Warren calling me snide and unattractive a few days ago because my posts dont worship Camilla. I am certainly not the only person who holds unloving feelings towards Camilla.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #169  
Old 02-17-2009, 01:24 AM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 8,350
Quote:
Originally Posted by scooter View Post
Elspeth I love you to death but, yes IMO they should have given up the place and priveldge and become the 2nd Duke and DUchess of Windsor to paint watercolours in Tuscany, in which case I would have had respect for them, for doing the right thing.

Why would giving up his duty to the people of Britain be the right thing?

Edward's failure to do his duty is why he is condemned and now you wish to condemn Charles for doing the opposite - his duty - to be in the public eye and put up with the abuse that is his lot.

He is luckier than his great-uncle - he is able to have the woman he loves by his side. Fortunately Britain has grown up a lot since the 1930s whereas some posters seem to feel that the BRF should live like they were in the 1930s instead of the 21st C.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #170  
Old 02-17-2009, 01:27 AM
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: ***, United States
Posts: 16,897
Quote:
Originally Posted by scooter View Post
Elspeth I love you to death
Very glad to hear it!

Quote:
but, yes IMO they should have given up the place and priveldge and become the 2nd Duke and DUchess of Windsor to paint watercolours in Tuscany, in which case I would have had respect for them, for doing the right thing. Also, I have never recieved a reasonable answer as to why Charles and Camilla would have 'chosen' to have a civil ceremony, bucking every tradition for TRF if a church wedding was at all possible. The BRF is about nothing except tradition...dont sit in that chair Granny Victoria sat there, etc.
Well, I'm sorry you feel that way because I thought I gave you a reasonable answer. While under the more relaxed rules of the CofE regarding remarriage of divorced people a church wedding was at least theoretically possible, it would almost certainly have been a PR disaster with people claiming that Charles and Camilla had received special treatment. The notion of remarriage of divorcees is left somewhat to the discretion of the clergy concerned, which would leave the royal family open to any amount of criticism that they were being allowed to do something that regular people weren't. I can fully understand the Queen not wanting to have her family embroiled in that sort of controversy.

The fact that both the church and the state have relaxed requirements for divorcees over the last few decades, along with the high divorce rates among the population at large, means that divorce isn't the social and religious taboo that it was back in the 1930s or even the early 1950s. That's probably one of the unintended consequences of World War II and the growth of a prosperous middle class throughout the 1950s and 1060s. Personally I think it'd be highly distasteful for a country where every second or third marriage ends in divorce, extramarital affairs seem to be the rule rather than the exception, and most divorcees are remarried, to point the finger at Charles and say "you aren't fit to be king because of your marital and extramarital antics." The main function of a monarch is as a part of the government, not as a symbol of how people think they should behave but don't.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #171  
Old 02-17-2009, 04:51 AM
Kotroman's Avatar
Nobility
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: -, Bosnia and Herzegovina
Posts: 463
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stefan View Post
But her first marriage was only annulled in the earlý 80's after her marriage to Prince Michael.
It doesn't matter when it was annulled. Once it's annulled, the marriage is considered to have never existed in the first place.

Anyway, I hope that British people will get to like The Duchess of Cornwall and that she would be crowned Queen of the United Kingdom - not because I like her, but because it would be awkward for The Prince of Wales to be crowned alone and acompanied by "The Princess Consort" or anything similar. It would be too much non-traditional.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #172  
Old 02-17-2009, 05:48 AM
MARG's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Christchurch, New Zealand
Posts: 3,886
Quote:
Originally Posted by scooter View Post
. . . . . yes IMO they should have given up the place and priveldge and become the 2nd Duke and DUchess of Windsor to paint watercolours in Tuscany, in which case I would have had respect for them, for doing the right thing.
Whew! And here I was thinking it was only Camilla you loathed.

Quote:
Originally Posted by scooter View Post
. . . . . . . I am however suggesting that the Royal Family which enjoys a huge amount of luxury, priviledge and prestige should be, at the very least, an honorable example to England's subjects for the $zillions they receive. Are the chioces, to your mind, truly: accept the less than exemplary Camilla as Queen or go back to not having the vote?
You are joking aren't you scooter? I mean "morals for money", not to mention who would get to set the fees!

Quote:
Originally Posted by Elspeth View Post
Personally I think it'd be highly distasteful for a country where every second or third marriage ends in divorce, extramarital affairs seem to be the rule rather than the exception, and most divorcees are remarried, to point the finger at Charles and say "you aren't fit to be king because of your marital and extramarital antics." The main function of a monarch is as a part of the government, not as a symbol of how people think they should behave but don't.
A thoroughly reasoned and reasonable reply Elspeth although I think you would have done as well to have done the written version of "saving your breath to cool your porridge" for all the good it will do.
__________________
MARG
"Words ought to be a little wild, for they are assaults of thoughts on the unthinking." - JM Keynes
Reply With Quote
  #173  
Old 02-17-2009, 05:49 AM
Skydragon's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: London and Highlands, United Kingdom
Posts: 10,943
Quote:
Originally Posted by scooter View Post
Im not suggesting we should go back to before women had the vote. I am however suggesting that the Royal Family which enjoys a huge amount of luxury, priviledge and prestige should be, at the very least, an honorable example to England's subjects for the $zillions they receive. Are the chioces, to your mind, truly: accept the less than exemplary Camilla as Queen or go back to not having the vote?
The point I was trying to make, , is that times are so different now from QEQM's day. Divorce was a shock to the system, only 'loose' women, ever did anything so outrageous. 'We' cannot expect to have all the freedoms this time offers and deny them to one family. By comparrison to a great many families, Charles and Camilla handled their affair and the subsequent fall out with discretion and courage. It can't have been nice to have so many people saying the awful things they did, sounding like a record with the needle stuck, (probably before your time). Along with the privilege and prestige, comes a scrutiny of their private lives, many would not put up with it. I don't find Camilla 'less than exemplary', I see her as a charming, lovely, loving woman who has been badly treated, by her first husband, by Charles' first wife and some members of the public. I often wonder if any of their lives would be seen as exemplary, IMO, probably not.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #174  
Old 02-17-2009, 06:22 AM
HRHofNothing's Avatar
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: somewhere in, Canada
Posts: 208
Things are going to be different after lilibeth passes on.....

I don't see the Commons going through the trouble of passing a law that would make Camilla a Princess Consort..... more than likely Camilla will be HM The Queen legally but will chose to be called Princess Consort (a title that is legally not hers) just like Lady Louise and Viscount Severn are not called Prince and Princess even though they legally are..

As for the downsizing of the Royal Family... Wills, Harry and James can pass down the HRH title to their children (and I really doubt that James will opt to be called HRH once he is of age) so unless they have a boatload of children between them the royal family will get downsized. The current crop of HRH's will probably be asked to renounce their styles esp. if Beatrice and Eugenie prove to be their MOTHER'S daughters.

Australia and a few other commonwealth realms will become republics....

They really can't allow for catholic sucession to the throne while the Monarch remains Supreme Governor of the Church of England so in order to address one they will have to address the other.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #175  
Old 02-17-2009, 06:50 AM
Warren's Avatar
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 15,276
Quote:
Originally Posted by scooter View Post
Sorry if I'm a bit grumpy, but I was extremely personally insulted by Warren calling me snide and unattractive a few days ago because my posts dont worship Camilla.
No. I didn't call you snide and unattractive. This is what I wrote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Warren
There's no brownie points for making snide remarks at every opportunity Scooter. It's very unattractive.
Please feel free to point out examples of my or any moderator's encouragement of "Camilla worship".
__________________
Seeking information? Check out the extensive Royal A-Z
Reply With Quote
  #176  
Old 02-18-2009, 12:22 AM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 8,350
I agree that the Royal Family will naturally downsize, if only HRHs are members of said family as only William and Harry will be able to pass the HRH on.

James won't be able to as he is a male line grandson and his children will be Lord/Lady just as the children of the Dukes of Gloucester and Kent are Lord/Lady. The current Dukes of Gloucester and Kent are male line grandchildren and can't pass on the HRH and James won't be able to either.

I am fully aware of the courtesy titles that the eldest sons of the Dukes have and that James' eldest son would have but the substantive title that all the children will have will be Lord/Lady in the first generation.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #177  
Old 02-18-2009, 12:38 AM
Courtier
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 802
Quote:
Originally Posted by scooter View Post
Also, I have never recieved a reasonable answer as to why Charles and Camilla would have 'chosen' to have a civil ceremony, bucking every tradition for TRF if a church wedding was at all possible. .
Charles and Camilla 'chose' to have a civil wedding followed by a church blessing as that's the recommended approach to remarriage of divorcees in the Anglican Church. Please refer to the official Anglican Church website as to remarriage of divorcees. You will see that remarriage in a church ceremony is up to the individual ministers involved. If an Anglican minister is prepared to marry divorcees in a church he/she will do so.
But the recommended way to deal with the remarriage of divorcees is for them to have a civil ceremony and then have a church blessing. Charles as the future head of the Anglican Church has followed the church's recommendation in regards to the remarriage of divorcees.

Lord Nicholas Windsor is also a (minor) member of the BRF and yet for legal reasons he also had a civil wedding. He and his wife married in a London registry office before they went to the Vatican to be married there, to have their marriage recognised as legal in the UK.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #178  
Old 02-18-2009, 01:30 AM
Lakshmi's Avatar
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: *, United States
Posts: 1,226
OMG, I am not able to imagine British monarchy without QEII.
I feel that after the queen monarchy will be less glamour, more casual. Some royal ceremonies might simplified, to be more modern and modest and public will be more conscious how much and how royals spend. So, we may expect trend to spend less even on official ceremonies.
I think Camilla will continue to keep low key.
I think finally British heir to throne will allowed to marry Catholic and more.
There will be limited group of people having title HRH. There will be fewer people on official list receiving allowance.
__________________
"Do what you feel in your heart to be right - for you'll be criticized anyway. You'll be damned if you do, and damned if you don't.''
Eleanor Roosevelt

"The course of true love never did run smooth " William Shakespeare, 'A Midsummer Night's Dream'

http://www.aishwarya-rai.com/
Reply With Quote
  #179  
Old 02-18-2009, 02:30 AM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 8,350
Fewer people on the official list receiving allowance would mean either two, one or none as only two actually receive anything now - the monarch and the spouse of the monarch.

Depending on who dies first out of Philip and Elizabeth there would be either two or three at the beginning of Charles' reign - Charles, Camilla and possibly Philip.

Anything that any of the others receive is repaid by the Queen.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #180  
Old 02-18-2009, 09:53 AM
RoyalProtocol's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Belfast, United Kingdom
Posts: 670
I'm absoulty dreading The Queen's death, if I driving and it comes out over the radio I can invisage a car accident, but lets hope that won't be for a very long time yet.
I also agree Ella Kay regarding the people uniting behind Charles after The Queen dies
__________________

__________________
Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II
59 Years of Dedicated and Devoted Service

God Save The Queen!



Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
future of the monarchy


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
Prince Albert, Duke of York and Lady Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon - 1923 Mandy Historical Royal Weddings 33 06-25-2014 01:39 PM
Future of the Spanish Monarchy TODOI Royal Family of Spain 882 06-22-2014 07:19 PM
The Mechanics of Abdication and of Succession to the Throne Ellie2 British Royals 147 06-15-2013 07:14 PM
Queen Elizabeth and Prince Philip's Visit to the Netherlands; February 5, 2007 Empress Dutch Royals 54 02-08-2007 02:04 AM
Relationship between King Juan Carlos and Queen Elizabeth Conde Valleverde King Juan Carlos and Queen Sofia 4 11-12-2004 08:54 PM




Additional Links
Popular Tags
birth bourbon-parma 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 dutch royal history fashion grand duchess maria teresa grand duke henri hohenzollern infanta cristina infanta elena infanta leonor 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 ottoman pom prince albert prince albert ii prince carl philip prince constantijn prince felipe prince floris prince laurent prince pieter-christiaan princess princess alexia (2005 -) princess anita princess ariane princess beatrix princess catharina-amalia princess charlene princess claire princess elisabeth 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


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 12:49 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]