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
 
  #281  
Old 11-21-2010, 05:17 PM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Heidelberg, Germany
Posts: 1,396
Quote:
Originally Posted by FasterB View Post
Ahh, so she will, by title, be queen, but will be known as Duchess or something else?
I think it was announced in the time of their engagement that Camilla will be styled as HRH Princess Consort in the event of Charles's becoming king.
Camilla, Duchess of Cornwall - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
__________________

__________________
Reply With Quote
  #282  
Old 11-21-2010, 05:20 PM
Lumutqueen's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
Royal Blogger
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Carlton, York, United Kingdom
Posts: 17,105
Quote:
Originally Posted by FasterB View Post
Ahh, so she will, by title, be queen, but will be known as Duchess or something else?
Charles agreed she would be HRH The Princess Consort.
However, he seems to be going back on what he said.
Personally, she should be Queen Camilla.
__________________

__________________
We Will Remember Them.
Reply With Quote
  #283  
Old 11-21-2010, 05:26 PM
scooter's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: katonah, United States
Posts: 2,315
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lumutqueen View Post
Because Charles has had Diana as a wife previously, and the story behind him and Camilla. Yes she will be married to the King, and therefore will be Queen. But I honestly think that government/monarchy in a sense are afraid of what the public will say.
Well they should be 'afraid of what the public will say'. Because if the public wont have that woman as Queen, they may well say thanks but no thanks to the whole thing. Then where will Charles be? If Charles' choice is either dont try to make Camilla Queen and the public tolerates the twosome vs try to make her Queen and run the risk of being told to get lost all together, that's something he needs to consider. That's leaving aside the whole defender of the faith issue regarding a 'Queen' with a prior living husband.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #284  
Old 11-21-2010, 05:52 PM
Sister Morphine's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: North Carolina, United States
Posts: 2,725
Charles should never have agreed to downgrade Camilla's title. Pardon my language, but the very idea of it is asinine. The wife of the King is the Queen. That's how it works. Camilla and Charles are married now, not shacking up or meeting for late-night booty calls or anything else. She's his wife, he's her husband. When he becomes King, she is the Queen. Anything less is really insulting because let's be frank here -- it takes two to screw up a marriage. Charles is as guilty for the breakdown in his marriage as Camilla is, so why should she be the only one "punished" for it?

If people can't accept that they're married and that what is legally entitled to be hers is hers now......those people can just go fly a kite. It's time to grow up and realize that life moves on whether you like it or not. If the idea of his wife being called Queen Camilla is so offensive to you just because they had once been extramarital paramours, oh well. Royalty throughout history, not just in England, is rife with Kings and Queens who couldn't keep their goodies to themselves. They're human, they did something they shouldn't have, they atoned for it, they got married.

Making her go by the title "Princess Consort" is akin to making her walk around with a scarlet letter pinned to her blouse. Hello, it's not the 1600s anymore.
__________________
"The grass was greener / The light was brighter / The taste was sweeter / The nights of wonder / With friends surrounded / The dawn mist glowing / The water flowing / The endless river / Forever and ever........ "
Reply With Quote
  #285  
Old 11-21-2010, 06:15 PM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 8,442

Very well said.

The wording at the time was 'intends' not 'will' and there is a subtle difference there allowing for the decision to be that she will be Queen Consort, as she should be, but that will depend on the situation at the time.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #286  
Old 11-21-2010, 06:53 PM
Osipi's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: On the west side of North up from Back, United States
Posts: 3,860
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sister Morphine View Post
Charles should never have agreed to downgrade Camilla's title...
I totally agree with you on all points here but have a question.

Isn't it possible that the intent to call Camilla "Princess Consort" came about because at her request? IIRC back at the time of Charles and Camilla's wedding, she was the one that requested the style of Duchess of Cornwall over The Princess of Wales. I'm thinking that perhaps she did this not only out of respect for Diana and to avoid any uproar at that time, but perhaps also Camilla wasn't very fond of being thrust into the limelight. We've all seen what a wonderful job she's been doing and the rapport she's had with people at the functions she goes to and I think she'll make a wonderful Queen Consort but perhaps she'll prefer Princess Consort where to her it would seem more like she's Charles' support system always one step behind her man. If she was Princess Consort, she'd not be HM The Princess Consort correct?

Its been a long day here and my mind is a bit comfuzzled.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #287  
Old 11-21-2010, 07:05 PM
Lumutqueen's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
Royal Blogger
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Carlton, York, United Kingdom
Posts: 17,105
Quote:
Originally Posted by scooter View Post
Well they should be 'afraid of what the public will say'. Because if the public wont have that woman as Queen, they may well say thanks but no thanks to the whole thing. Then where will Charles be? If Charles' choice is either dont try to make Camilla Queen and the public tolerates the twosome vs try to make her Queen and run the risk of being told to get lost all together, that's something he needs to consider. That's leaving aside the whole defender of the faith issue regarding a 'Queen' with a prior living husband.
People didn't want them to marry, but they did. The public aren't going to be that bothered if Camilla becomes Queen or not. IMO, this isn't a situation that is going to overthrow the monarchy.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Osipi View Post
I totally agree with you on all points here but have a question.

Isn't it possible that the intent to call Camilla "Princess Consort" came about because at her request? IIRC back at the time of Charles and Camilla's wedding, she was the one that requested the style of Duchess of Cornwall over The Princess of Wales. I'm thinking that perhaps she did this not only out of respect for Diana and to avoid any uproar at that time, but perhaps also Camilla wasn't very fond of being thrust into the limelight. We've all seen what a wonderful job she's been doing and the rapport she's had with people at the functions she goes to and I think she'll make a wonderful Queen Consort but perhaps she'll prefer Princess Consort where to her it would seem more like she's Charles' support system always one step behind her man. If she was Princess Consort, she'd not be HM The Princess Consort correct?

Its been a long day here and my mind is a bit comfuzzled.
It's fine Osipi. Don't know if I can answer this fully, but I shall try.
It is of course possible that Camilla has asked to be The Princess Consort, rather than Queen because she knows what could possible happen.
I also agree that Camilla chose DofC as her main title, to ease herself into the public favour. Being The Princess Consort would possible help her do this again when Charles becomes King.

I think she'd be HRH The Princess Consort, not 100%.

She'll be the wife of The King, therefore, in my eyes, should be The Queen.
__________________
We Will Remember Them.
Reply With Quote
  #288  
Old 11-21-2010, 07:06 PM
georgiea's Avatar
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: N/A, United States
Posts: 1,643
I thought Clarence House said the Duchess would go by the title Princess Consort and not Queen when Prince Charles becomes King of England.

I do feel that the topic should have never come up until Prince Charles becomes King. It would have given people time to know the Duchess. Now if they switch titles Prince Charles looks like a lair.
__________________
Watch your actions, for they become your habits. Watch your habits because they become your character. Watch your character, for it becomes your destiny.
Reply With Quote
  #289  
Old 11-21-2010, 07:07 PM
Lumutqueen's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
Royal Blogger
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Carlton, York, United Kingdom
Posts: 17,105
Well Charles himself is the one who made the statements about titles, so it is his mistake to bear.
Don't know about the Clarence House situation.

This issue needs to be sorted and organised before HM passes away, seeing as Charles becomes King the minute she passes.
__________________
We Will Remember Them.
Reply With Quote
  #290  
Old 11-21-2010, 07:09 PM
Roslyn's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Tintenbar, Australia
Posts: 2,629
Quote:
Originally Posted by Osipi
Isn't it possible that the intent to call Camilla "Princess Consort" came about because at her request?
I think you could be right about Camilla not wanting the limelight. However I also think she could have a relatively low key roll as Queen Consort. We haven't had one of those for a while, and Camilla has set the scene with the way she has discharged her duties as Duchess of Cornwall.

If she's going to be HM she will have to be Queen, I think, and if she's to be anything less than Queen then legislation will be required, and there is that issue of whether it is to be specific to her situation. Legislators are reluctant to introduce legislation that applies to one person only, and I don't think anyone has seriously suggested that all future wives of British Kings should have a lesser status than Queen.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #291  
Old 11-21-2010, 07:23 PM
georgiea's Avatar
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: N/A, United States
Posts: 1,643
From the perspective of an American I don't see anything wrong with Princess Consort. The Duchess was perfectly happy to be a Duchess instead of a Princess. I think they made more to it then was necessary. And change to it now would look like the BRF was pulling one over on it's subjects. I think they need Parliament to rule on the subject.
__________________
Watch your actions, for they become your habits. Watch your habits because they become your character. Watch your character, for it becomes your destiny.
Reply With Quote
  #292  
Old 11-21-2010, 07:26 PM
scooter's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: katonah, United States
Posts: 2,315
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iluvbertie View Post
Very well said.

The wording at the time was 'intends' not 'will' and there is a subtle difference there allowing for the decision to be that she will be Queen Consort, as she should be, but that will depend on the situation at the time.
Or that he was being deliberately disingenuous at the time to smooth the way to allow him to marry the tremendously unpopular Camilla.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #293  
Old 11-21-2010, 08:52 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Melbourne & Sydney, Australia
Posts: 3,983
The thought has crossed my mind too, I'll confess.

I've never quite understood why it should have been 'intended' instead of 'will be known' as it doesn't occur to me as an issue that should be left 'hanging' with uncertainty, and I can understand why some may think there is perhaps an agenda. I can't envisage the Duchess of Cornwall's popularity continuing to grow at any real rate some 5 years after marriage so I'm not sure what it is they are expecting to change, perhaps socially, that would effect the issue.

It's still my impression that although accepted, it's more about being tolerated than supported by the community in her role as such. People are resolved to the fact she's here to stay, and I dont feel theres much more to it than that. Naturally people will smile, curtsy, shake hands and extend pleasantries, but those who have a high public and thought provoking profile often seem to have a momentary impact on those around them, and as such, people who find themselves in their presence become quite captivated with the indavidual. I've seen it happen before with various well known, high profiled Australian's who have a rather 'controversial' history. People, in the moment, become rather awe struck and that is a fairly normal response.

I don't doubt there are those who think favourably of the Duchess and would find it a great pleasure to meet her, because I myself would be the same.

However, the situation at the time of succession (in my mind) is not likely to be so dissimlar to what it is now in regards to the Duchess. How could it be really? Surely something (?) would need to happen to cause any change of opinion and generally when that occurs, it isn't for the better. Either that or they are hoping a couple of generations will die out and any objection with them

Or maybe they anticipate an indifference to the issue after so many years?

It can happen, theres a good chance it may not happen, it should happen (imo, and my reasons for supporting it are well documented in the 'Title for Camilla' thread I believe), but it really depends on the intentions of those concerned.
__________________

"Dressing is a way of life" - Monsieur Saint Laurent
Reply With Quote
  #294  
Old 11-21-2010, 09:18 PM
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Oxford, United Kingdom
Posts: 236
Quote:
Originally Posted by scooter View Post
Or that he was being deliberately disingenuous at the time to smooth the way to allow him to marry the tremendously unpopular Camilla.
She may have been "tremendously unpopular" with some people, but that view was by no means universal here.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #295  
Old 11-21-2010, 09:23 PM
Sister Morphine's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: North Carolina, United States
Posts: 2,725
She was only "tremendously unpopular" amongst people who blamed her entirely for the Wales' failed marriage, completely ignoring the fact that Charles was as much to blame as anyone was. No one in my mind, had a preponderance of guilt there. They all behaved badly, as a result, both marriages ended. Unfortunately Diana tragically died and as a result, some people canonized her and anything that has to do with her, is seen as unsuitable for Camilla to be a part of. That includes the titles rightfully owed to her as the wife of the Prince of Wales, anything concerning her two stepsons, etc,.

No one is a victim here, they're all adults, they all knew what they were doing......but the way that Camilla has been treated/viewed by some people is really incredibly horrible and I would at some point like there to be some apology offered to her for it. It's ridiculous.
__________________
"The grass was greener / The light was brighter / The taste was sweeter / The nights of wonder / With friends surrounded / The dawn mist glowing / The water flowing / The endless river / Forever and ever........ "
Reply With Quote
  #296  
Old 11-21-2010, 11:32 PM
scooter's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: katonah, United States
Posts: 2,315
Excuse me, did either of you read the remarks from the public at large attached to the Queen's Facebook recently? There are MANY people who dislike/have no respect for Camilla. This board is NOT an accurate representation of how Camilla is viewed at large. In the real world, there are no moderators.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #297  
Old 11-22-2010, 12:09 AM
NotAPretender's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: WPB FL/Muttontown NY, United States
Posts: 853
The monarchy under Charles, if his behaviour to date is any indication, will be an absolute panorama of well-rewarded lying and dissembling.

The man would not know what the truth was if it raised up and bit him on the ankles. And for all the hand-wringing about politicians being slimy, they are mere babes when compared to the duplicity of which Charles seems incredibly comfortable in living.

The kindest thing about the monarchy under Charles is that it's probably not going to be a hard-drinking one. And that's about as much as I can muster in the way of compliments.
__________________
"Me, your Highness? On the whole, I wish I'd stayed in Tunbridge Wells"
Reply With Quote
  #298  
Old 11-22-2010, 04:57 AM
Jacknch's Avatar
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Grundisburgh, United Kingdom
Posts: 1,760
Charles' reign will be a relatively short one given that he is likely to be nearing 80 years of age when he becomes king. How much he can develop or change the monarchy (or have the capacity to do so) in that time is therefore anyone's guess. Because of this, I am inclined to say that it will not matter so much what Camilla is known as or becomes because the reign will be so short and people will be looking even more intently towards William's reign.

I certainly do not mind Camilla becoming Queen, but I do have a strong feeling that she does not want the title whether she in entitled to it or not.
__________________
J
Reply With Quote
  #299  
Old 11-22-2010, 05:18 AM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 8,442
I agree that Charles' reign won't be as long as his mother's but see no reason why it shouldn't be about 20 years or so. If his mother can live to 100 so can he meaning he comes to the throne in 17 years aged 79 and reigns for 21 years with William then becoming King aged 65.

Charles' ancestry shows that men who look after themselves live very long lives and the women definitely do - Philip is nearing 90 and shows no signs of not making another 10 years himself. Philip's father and the Queen's father were both smokers and drinkers and Charles is neither of these. Going back further, particuarly on the male line, Philip's male line grandfather was assassinated so we don't know how long he would have lived but he was already in his 70s and his father also lived a very long life.

I see no reason, on health grounds, for Charles not to have a reign approaching 20 years.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #300  
Old 11-22-2010, 05:54 AM
Lumutqueen's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
Royal Blogger
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Carlton, York, United Kingdom
Posts: 17,105
Quote:
Originally Posted by scooter View Post
Excuse me, did either of you read the remarks from the public at large attached to the Queen's Facebook recently? There are MANY people who dislike/have no respect for Camilla. This board is NOT an accurate representation of how Camilla is viewed at large. In the real world, there are no moderators.
I wouldn't say there were MANY people who don't like Camilla. People who wrote on that facebook page were most likely bored.
The public as a whole, has accepted Camilla.
If people want to say on this forum that they don't like Camilla, they are at full liberty to do so. Calling her rude names, saying she caused Diana's death or anything to do with the Wales' failed marriage is rude and out of order. Seeing as no one on here, or in the real world except Charles and Camilla know exactly what went on.

Cameron backs 'Queen Camilla': But the public want William to leapfrog Charles | Mail Online

Quote:
Less than a third of the public believe Charles should become King, in a sign that they want the monarchy to skip a generation and revitalise itself.
__________________

__________________
We Will Remember Them.
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: 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 Monarchy in Greece Fireweaver The Royal Family of Greece 287 08-24-2014 07:56 AM
Monarchy vs Republic marian Royalty Past, Present, and Future 327 06-12-2014 06:11 PM
The Monarchy after Elizabeth II ysbel British Royals 311 12-29-2012 04:36 PM
The Monarchy And The Media Alexandria Royal House of Norway 12 04-08-2004 04:06 PM




Additional Links
Popular Tags
birth charlene chris o'neill crown prince felipe crown prince frederik crown prince haakon crown princess letizia crown princess mary crown princess mette-marit crown princess victoria current events dutch royal history engagement fashion genealogy grand duchess maria teresa grand duke henri habsburg hohenzollern infanta sofia jewellery jordan king abdullah ii king carl xvi gustav king felipe king felipe vi king harald king juan carlos king philippe king willem-alexander luxembourg olympics ottoman pom prince albert prince albert ii prince carl philip prince constantijn prince felipe prince floris prince pieter-christiaan princess princess alexia (2005 -) princess anita princess ariane princess beatrix princess catharina-amalia princess charlene princess laurentien princess letizia princess mabel princess madeleine princess margriet princess mary princess of asturias queen letizia queen mathilde queen maxima queen paola queen rania queen silvia queen sofia royal russia sofia hellqvist spain state visit sweden wedding william



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 05:57 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]