The Royal Forums Coat of Arms


Join The Royal Forums Today
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #2941  
Old 02-23-2017, 09:37 PM
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Waterford, United States
Posts: 1,787
Quote:
Originally Posted by Daenerys Targaryen View Post
The question is, was Charles sincere when he said Camilla will be Princess Consort, or was he lying in order to get the marriage through with a minimum of fuss, planning that afterwards he would just change it t Queen.

This.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Daenerys Targaryen View Post
What makes you think she would want to do that? She stonewalled the C+C relationship/marriage for decades.
Of course. But her stamp of approval would mean a lot to those who don't wish the DoC to be Queen. So why doesn't Charles ask her to do it? Maybe he has, and she's said no. (That's my guess.)
__________________

__________________
"If you look for the bad in people expecting to find it, you surely will.”

Abraham Lincoln
Reply With Quote
  #2942  
Old 02-23-2017, 09:44 PM
Daenerys Targaryen's Avatar
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Jan 2017
Location: The Blue Ocean, United States
Posts: 174
That would be my guess too. His late Grandmother made QE swear that she would never allow the marriage. It was not until after he death that the wedding became remotely possible.
__________________

__________________
Reply With Quote
  #2943  
Old 02-23-2017, 09:53 PM
Skippyboo's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Atlanta, United States
Posts: 4,108
The Monarchy under Charles

Legally Camilla is Queen as soon as Charles is King. Is Parliament going to pass a law that changes 1000 years of common law where a wife takes the titles of her husband because of one person. Even if Camilla uses the Princess Consort, she is still doing the job description of the Queen. She would still be the highest ranked lady in the land. Charles isn't going to put Kate or Anne ahead of Camilla in order of precedence. She isn't going to be left behind in Ray Mill House when Charles is hosting a State Dinner.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #2944  
Old 02-23-2017, 09:56 PM
Daenerys Targaryen's Avatar
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Jan 2017
Location: The Blue Ocean, United States
Posts: 174
She likes having her own house at Ray Mill. Why would she give that up? She's legally the Pss of W now, but uses Dss of C. I dont see a problem with Charles keeping his word, and Camilla being Pss Consort.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #2945  
Old 02-23-2017, 10:33 PM
Dman's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Midwest, United States
Posts: 13,459
Quote:
Originally Posted by Skippyboo View Post
Legally Camilla is Queen as soon as Charles is King. Is Parliament going to pass a law that changes 1000 years of common law where a wife takes the titles of her husband because of one person. Even if Camilla uses the Princess Consort, she is still doing the job description of the Queen. She would still be the highest ranked lady in the land. Charles isn't going to put Kate or Anne ahead of Camilla in order of precedence. She isn't going to be left behind in Ray Mill House when Charles is hosting a State Dinner.
Right, Camilla will do the job as the King's Consort regardless. That's not the issue. The issue is over her official title.
__________________
"WE CANNOT PRAY IN LOVE AND LIVE IN HATE AND STILL THINK WE ARE WORSHIPING GOD."

A.W. TOZER
Reply With Quote
  #2946  
Old 02-23-2017, 10:47 PM
Skippyboo's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Atlanta, United States
Posts: 4,108
Her titles are the female versions of her husband's titles. Once the Queen dies, Charles is no longer Prince of Wales, Duke of Cornwall, Duke of Rothesay, Earl of Chester... He is the King and the female version of her husband's title is Queen. Not Princess.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #2947  
Old 02-23-2017, 10:58 PM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 11,110
Quote:
Originally Posted by Daenerys Targaryen View Post
That would be my guess too. His late Grandmother made QE swear that she would never allow the marriage. It was not until after he death that the wedding became remotely possible.
I have never heard this. Where did you hear that the Queen Mother made her daughter swear to never allow the marriage?

Given the religious beliefs of the Queen such a promise would have been binding I would have thought and as such I doubt, if she had ever made such a promise, that she would have broken it.

Had the Queen Mum said such a thing I am sure she would also have said that Camilla wasn't to ever have access to any of her jewels and yet Camilla is often seen wearing those jewels and even has one of her rings as her second engagement ring.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #2948  
Old 02-23-2017, 10:58 PM
MARG's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Christchurch, New Zealand
Posts: 6,935
Quote:
Originally Posted by Daenerys Targaryen View Post
The question is, was Charles sincere when he said Camilla will be Princess Consort, or was he lying in order to get the marriage through with a minimum of fuss, planning that afterwards he would just change it t Queen.
It was stated as an intention. Times change and so do people.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Daenerys Targaryen View Post
That would be my guess too. His late Grandmother made QE swear that she would never allow the marriage. It was not until after he death that the wedding became remotely possible.
I'm sorry but I find the very notion that such an oath existed utterly credulous. Can you provide a reputable reference to support that such an oath was indeed demanded by QEQM, made and then broken by the Queen? If so then I could only surmise that HM despised her mother and dances on her grave every time she gifts yet another of her mothers treasured jewels to her daughter-in-law, starting with her engagement ring!uld

As to the issue being over her official title, I can only say that at this time, officially, when Charles comes to the throne Camilla will be his Queen. To change this would take the very strong will of the Queen and a willing parliament. Neither of which I believe will be forthcoming. What profit the United Kingdom in the eyes of the world if they enshrine petty spite and meanness of spirit in law
__________________
MARG
"Words ought to be a little wild, for they are assaults of thoughts on the unthinking." - JM Keynes
Reply With Quote
  #2949  
Old 02-23-2017, 11:12 PM
Dman's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Midwest, United States
Posts: 13,459
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iluvbertie View Post
I have never heard this. Where did you hear that the Queen Mother made her daughter swear to never allow the marriage?

Given the religious beliefs of the Queen such a promise would have been binding I would have thought and as such I doubt, if she had ever made such a promise, that she would have broken it.

Had the Queen Mum said such a thing I am sure she would also have said that Camilla wasn't to ever have access to any of her jewels and yet Camilla is often seen wearing those jewels and even has one of her rings as her second engagement ring.
I'm not sure The Queen made a promise to her mother over the marriage, but everyone knew The Queen Mother was against any thought of marriage between Charles and Camilla. She allowed them to 'knock da boots' in her private estates, but marriage wasn't something she agreed to.
__________________
"WE CANNOT PRAY IN LOVE AND LIVE IN HATE AND STILL THINK WE ARE WORSHIPING GOD."

A.W. TOZER
Reply With Quote
  #2950  
Old 02-23-2017, 11:52 PM
Pranter's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Midwest, United States
Posts: 6,355
I think for the QM it was too much like the David situation...that thought of that type of scandal again must of made her ill.


LaRae
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #2951  
Old 02-23-2017, 11:56 PM
Dman's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Midwest, United States
Posts: 13,459
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pranter View Post
I think for the QM it was too much like the David situation...that thought of that type of scandal again must of made her ill.


LaRae
Nobody liked the situation. Not even The Queen herself. Charles was Prince of Wales and he could do what he wanted. That's just how the cookie cumbles.
__________________
"WE CANNOT PRAY IN LOVE AND LIVE IN HATE AND STILL THINK WE ARE WORSHIPING GOD."

A.W. TOZER
Reply With Quote
  #2952  
Old 02-24-2017, 12:18 AM
Pranter's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Midwest, United States
Posts: 6,355
If only he'd decided to 'do what he wanted' back when he was 'pushed' into marrying Diana. Took him awhile to find his backbone.


LaRae
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #2953  
Old 02-24-2017, 12:27 AM
Ish's Avatar
Ish Ish is offline
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Vancouver, Canada
Posts: 3,406
Quote:
Originally Posted by Daenerys Targaryen View Post
What makes you think she would want to do that? She stonewalled the C+C relationship/marriage for decades.


For decades?

In what universe did that happen?

Charles met Camilla in 1971. They dated until 1973, when the relationship ended.

That same year, Camilla married Andrew Parker Bowles. Most reports on the early relationship imply that marriage wasn't even considered between Charles and Camilla at that point.

The pair remained friends and rekindled a romance in 1979/1980, while Camilla remained married to Andrew. She didn't divorce Andrew until 1995.

Charles of course married Diana in 1981. It's not clear when his sexual relationship with Camilla ended (with some sources claiming that it didn't end until the day before his wedding), but it's been implied that the affair resumed around 1985/86. Charles wasn't divorced until 1996.

Charles and Camilla married in 2005, 10 years after her divorce and 9 after his.

Where are these decades in which the Queen was stonewalling anything? There's no reason to believe she did anything to stop the relationship in the 70s, or when it resumed as an affair in the 80s, or in the 90s as their first marriages came to their ends. And when Charles and Camilla wanted to marry in 2005, the Queen allowed it.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #2954  
Old 02-24-2017, 12:34 AM
Dman's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Midwest, United States
Posts: 13,459
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pranter View Post
If only he'd decided to 'do what he wanted' back when he was 'pushed' into marrying Diana. Took him awhile to find his backbone.


LaRae
Well, Charles Did have his eyes set on another woman back in the day. Also, he wanted to take some time to gain some experience. Also, he was listening to his great uncle 'Dickie.'
__________________
"WE CANNOT PRAY IN LOVE AND LIVE IN HATE AND STILL THINK WE ARE WORSHIPING GOD."

A.W. TOZER
Reply With Quote
  #2955  
Old 02-24-2017, 04:28 AM
MARG's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Christchurch, New Zealand
Posts: 6,935
I am confused, suddenly we have "fake news" all over the forum, no proof of where it came from but there it is is, stirring and corrupting what little proof we can actually validate. I cannot in all conscience, believe that this is random or unintentional.
__________________
MARG
"Words ought to be a little wild, for they are assaults of thoughts on the unthinking." - JM Keynes
Reply With Quote
  #2956  
Old 02-24-2017, 04:57 AM
WreathOfLaurels's Avatar
Nobility
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Location: Wellington, New Zealand
Posts: 440
http://http://www.spectator.co.uk/20...ong-heres-why/

A recent piece from The Spectaor- odd I was always certain they were pro Charles, but these things are so much in flux these days, I just can't tell anymore... still seems a little sanctimonious and unfair - it's been twenty years after all and it's the same magazine that publishes Taki....
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #2957  
Old 02-24-2017, 06:58 AM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Pittsburgh, United States
Posts: 2,688
Quote:
Originally Posted by Skippyboo View Post
Legally Camilla is Queen as soon as Charles is King. Is Parliament going to pass a law that changes 1000 years of common law where a wife takes the titles of her husband because of one person. Even if Camilla uses the Princess Consort, she is still doing the job description of the Queen. She would still be the highest ranked lady in the land. Charles isn't going to put Kate or Anne ahead of Camilla in order of precedence. She isn't going to be left behind in Ray Mill House when Charles is hosting a State Dinner.
Nonetheless, as Princess Consort, she won"t be crowned as she would be as Queen; she won"t use the predicate HM and foreign HRHs won"t curtsy to her as they would to a Queen. Basically, as PC, she will have the rank and precedence that Philip has or that Henrik had until recently in Denmark and we all know how Henrik felt about it and he wanted to be made King Consort instead.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #2958  
Old 02-24-2017, 08:20 AM
Skippyboo's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Atlanta, United States
Posts: 4,108
Just more reasons for Charles not to do anything. The legal precedence and 1000 years of tradition is the wife of a King is a Queen. Is Parliament going to force the King to lower his legal wife married with approval of the Royal Marriage Act to a lesser title that has never been used in the history of British/English monarchy because on some Puritan view of morality? I don't think so especially with a large portion of the population have divorced. Also if both Charles and Camilla are guilty of the same moral crime, why is only Camilla is theoretically punished not both.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #2959  
Old 02-24-2017, 08:22 AM
Daenerys Targaryen's Avatar
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Jan 2017
Location: The Blue Ocean, United States
Posts: 174
Quote:
Originally Posted by MARG View Post
It was stated as an intention. Times change and so do people.

I'm sorry but I find the very notion that such an oath existed utterly credulous. Can you provide a reputable reference to support that such an oath was indeed demanded by QEQM, made and then broken by the Queen? If so then I could only surmise that HM despised her mother and dances on her grave every time she gifts yet another of her mothers treasured jewels to her daughter-in-law, starting with her engagement ring!uld

As to the issue being over her official title, I can only say that at this time, officially, when Charles comes to the throne Camilla will be his Queen. To change this would take the very strong will of the Queen and a willing parliament. Neither of which I believe will be forthcoming. What profit the United Kingdom in the eyes of the world if they enshrine petty spite and meanness of spirit in law
I just read it in a book just last week. I will pull up the quote later today. I have to go to Physical therapy this morning for the broken leg.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #2960  
Old 02-24-2017, 09:44 AM
Dman's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Midwest, United States
Posts: 13,459
I don't think people should be fearful over the future of the monarchy. I know people are concerned about Charles outspokenness on many issues, but he's just going to be a king that care about his people, country and world.

The drama over Camilla's future title will get crazy once again, but she's going to do the job as Charles's Consort beautifully. She's been doing the job as his wife brilliantly and people's thoughts and feelings about has softened with the passing of the years.

The monarchy will be in good hands.
__________________

__________________
"WE CANNOT PRAY IN LOVE AND LIVE IN HATE AND STILL THINK WE ARE WORSHIPING GOD."

A.W. TOZER
Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
british, camilla, charles iii, charles of wales, coronation, crown jewels, duchess of cornwall, legacy, prince charles, prince of wales, queen camilla, titles, william v


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 2 (0 members and 2 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
Monarchies & Republics: Future and Benefits marian Royalty Past, Present, and Future 417 12-01-2017 08:29 PM
The Monarchy after Elizabeth II ysbel British Royals 515 09-28-2017 10:22 PM
The Monarchy in Greece Fireweaver The Royal Family of Greece 309 10-31-2016 06:54 PM
The Monarchy And The Media Alexandria Royal House of Norway 12 04-08-2004 05:06 PM




Popular Tags
birthday british royal history carl gustaf chris o'neill crown princess mary crown princess victoria crown princess victoria hats current events denmark duchess of brabant duchess of cambridge earl of snowdon family general news grand duke henri hereditary grand duchess stéphanie hereditary grand duke guillaume infanta cristina infanta leonor infanta sofia iñaki urdangarín jewels king felipe king felipe vi king philippe king willem-alexander letizia liechtenstein lord snowdon love monarchy monarchy versus republic news official visit paris prince alexander prince carl philip prince daniel prince felix prince gabriel prince harry prince harry of wales prince nicholas prince oscar princess beatrice princess claire of luxembourg princess estelle princess leonore princess madeleine princess of asturias princess sofia princess victoria queen elizabeth ii queen letizia queen letizia casual outfits queen letizia daytime fashion queen letizia fashion queen mathilde queen maxima queen maxima casual wear queen silvia question soderberg spanish royal family state visit stephanie sweden swedish royal family victoria zog



Copyright 2002- Social Knowledge, LLC All Rights Reserved.

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 11:01 AM.

Social Knowledge Networks

eXTReMe Tracker
Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2017
Jelsoft Enterprises