The Royal Forums Coat of Arms


Join The Royal Forums Today
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #2981  
Old 02-25-2017, 11:41 PM
MARG's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Christchurch, New Zealand
Posts: 6,935
Quote:
Originally Posted by Duc_et_Pair View Post
HM The King and HRH The Duchess of Lancaster
HM The Queen and HRH The Duke of Edinburgh
Not such a shocking difference to me.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rominet09 View Post
I think that, when the Queen disappears, people in UK will be too sad and upset to grant any importance to things like titles and so on.
I have no problem with the concept of the Duchess of Lancaster if it marks the end of 1000 years if tradition. Meaning that the consort of future kings will never be Queen.

If it is just to 'punish' Camilla then no, it's total hypocracy.

But, to be honest, I agree with rominet09 that such quibbles will not be central on the death of our beloved Queen.
__________________

__________________
MARG
"Words ought to be a little wild, for they are assaults of thoughts on the unthinking." - JM Keynes
Reply With Quote
  #2982  
Old 02-26-2017, 03:44 AM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 2,363
Quote:
Originally Posted by rominet09 View Post
I think that, when the Queen disappears, people in UK will be too sad and upset to grant any importance to things like titles and so on.
WIll they?
Titltes are important to the RF. If Camilla weren't treated as queen and called QUeen, I think it would bother Charles and many of his relatives, because it would be implying that she "wasn't good enough" or popular enough. I don't think it will be an issue though. I think that some Diana fans will object but there wont be that many.. just as some Diana fans and some High Anglicans were unhappy about the remarriage after the divorce.
__________________

__________________
Reply With Quote
  #2983  
Old 02-26-2017, 04:47 AM
Duc_et_Pair's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: City, Netherlands
Posts: 7,288
Quote:
Originally Posted by MARG View Post
I have no problem with the concept of the Duchess of Lancaster if it marks the end of 1000 years if tradition. Meaning that the consort of future kings will never be Queen.

[....].
It was also for centuries tradition that male heirs had preference, that royals were barred from marrying "papists"... The differences in gender have been taken out of the succession, royals are now free to marry Catholics, but still the titulature has not been adapted. Making the titulature of the male and female consort to the Sovereign gender neutral will become the new issue, mark my words.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #2984  
Old 02-26-2017, 07:09 AM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Pittsburgh, United States
Posts: 2,688
Quote:
Originally Posted by Duc_et_Pair View Post
It was also for centuries tradition that male heirs had preference, that royals were barred from marrying "papists"... The differences in gender have been taken out of the succession, royals are now free to marry Catholics, but still the titulature has not been adapted. Making the titulature of the male and female consort to the Sovereign gender neutral will become the new issue, mark my words.
Although I support a gender-neutral title for consorts of monarchs, I am afraid that is still very far from becoming a reality.

In fact, if anything, the opposite is happening. For example, Spain always had gender-neutral consort titles as husbands of reigning queens were always called "king" in the past. Nevertheless, under the 1987 royal decree that now regulates the titles and styles of Spanish royal family, it has now been decided that, while the wife of the king is to be called "queen" with the style "Majesty", the husband of a reigning queen will have only the dignity of "prince" with the style "Royal Highness".

The only tangible evolution I can think of is that Queen Maxima and Queen Letizia for example, at least oficially, are not called "Queen of the Netherlands" or "Queen of Spain", but rather only "Queen". Much to my surprise, I recently found out that is officially also the case for Queen Mathilde and was the case for Queen Paola,who, in official documents, are cited as "Queen [name], Princess of Belgium" and not as "Queen of the Belgians". In practice, however, that important distinction is frequently ignored.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #2985  
Old 02-26-2017, 07:48 AM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Pittsburgh, United States
Posts: 2,688
Quote:
Originally Posted by Denville View Post
WIll they?
Titltes are important to the RF. If Camilla weren't treated as queen and called QUeen, I think it would bother Charles and many of his relatives, because it would be implying that she "wasn't good enough" or popular enough. I don't think it will be an issue though. I think that some Diana fans will object but there wont be that many.. just as some Diana fans and some High Anglicans were unhappy about the remarriage after the divorce.

How would it bother Charles if he was the one who suggested not calling her "queen" in the first place ? Charles pushed himself into a corner when he promised that Camilla would be styled princess consort. Now, he can't go back on his word, or else he will be accused of deliberately deceiving the British public.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #2986  
Old 02-26-2017, 08:45 AM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 2,363
I doubt if he suggested it. It was probably advisers who felt that ti would be wise to put in some sop to the Diana fans, ie that Camilla wodl not use the title of Princess of wales and that she'd be Princess Consort just as Albert was Pr Consort. I'm sure that none of the RF was happy with this having to give Cam a lesser title and they hoped that in due course, she'd bec known as queen.
perhaps it was foolish to make an announcement about what would happen when Charles became King, they might have just stuck to sayng that Cam would be called Duchess of C..but I don't believe most people will care if she' is styled as queen...
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #2987  
Old 02-26-2017, 09:11 AM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Pittsburgh, United States
Posts: 2,688
Quote:
Originally Posted by Denville View Post
I doubt if he suggested it. It was probably advisers who felt that ti would be wise to put in some sop to the Diana fans, ie that Camilla wodl not use the title of Princess of wales and that she'd be Princess Consort just as Albert was Pr Consort. I'm sure that none of the RF was happy with this having to give Cam a lesser title and they hoped that in due course, she'd bec known as queen.
perhaps it was foolish to make an announcement about what would happen when Charles became King, they might have just stuck to sayng that Cam would be called Duchess of C..but I don't believe most people will care if she' is styled as queen...

If they were not "happy with it", they shouldn't have announced it publicly as they did. It will be difficult to reverse that decision now without looking oportunistic and dishonest. At least that is my personal opinion.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #2988  
Old 02-26-2017, 09:22 AM
Skippyboo's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Atlanta, United States
Posts: 4,108
The Monarchy under Charles

The sovereign's Consort is only one person in the whole country. If you are going to change the title, then the peerages need to also go to equal primogeniture and men can take the title from their wives and females can pass down titles if you want gender neutrality. However, this is more about Camilla then gender neutrality.

If Charles dies tomorrow, will people be calling for Catherine to be called Princess Consort and not crowned in Westminster Abbey with King William V when the time came? I think not.

I agree making the statement about the Princess Consort statement at the time was stupid. It didn't need to be addressed then.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #2989  
Old 02-26-2017, 10:48 AM
Osipi's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: On the west side of North up from Back, United States
Posts: 9,660
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mbruno View Post
How would it bother Charles if he was the one who suggested not calling her "queen" in the first place ? Charles pushed himself into a corner when he promised that Camilla would be styled princess consort. Now, he can't go back on his word, or else he will be accused of deliberately deceiving the British public.
Charles didn't promise anything. The statement said "it is intended". There are a lot of factors back then that are totally different now. For all we know, that statement may have been made as Camilla's wishes. She wasn't really over the moon about becoming a part of Charles' and the family's Firm and being in the public limelight doing the royal job by a lot of indications back then.

Time changes things. Camilla has fit seamlessly into her role and has adapted and has grown comfortable with being The Duchess of Cornwall and all indications point to Camilla being comfortable in a role as Queen by Charles' side. At the time of the marriage, if being DoC and in the limelight gave her the heebeejeebees, I imagine that the prospect of being Queen totally freaked her out. She may feel comfortable now with being Charles' Queen Consort.

We'll see what happens.
__________________
“In my walks, every man I meet is my superior in some way, and in that I learn from him.”
~~~Ralph Waldo Emerson~~~
Reply With Quote
  #2990  
Old 02-26-2017, 11:12 AM
Ish's Avatar
Ish Ish is offline
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Vancouver, Canada
Posts: 3,406
Quote:
Originally Posted by Duc_et_Pair View Post
It was also for centuries tradition that male heirs had preference, that royals were barred from marrying "papists"... The differences in gender have been taken out of the succession, royals are now free to marry Catholics, but still the titulature has not been adapted. Making the titulature of the male and female consort to the Sovereign gender neutral will become the new issue, mark my words.


And if the push to have Camilla be something other than Queen was because of a desire to end the tradition and adopt gender neutrality in the title of the consort of the monarch, you would have a point.

But it's not about that. It's about punishing Camilla for daring to have an affair. No one is suggesting that the title change overall, no one is suggesting that Catherine be Princess Consort. No one wants to end the tradition... they just want to punish Camilla.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #2991  
Old 02-26-2017, 11:30 AM
Lee-Z's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Heerlen, Netherlands
Posts: 2,463
I have the feeling that for some people Camilla stole the "queen" title from Diana, and no facts (C&D divorced so D wouldn't be queen anyway) will change the feeling
What i don't know is how many people think like that..
__________________
Wisdom begins in wonder - Socrates
Reply With Quote
  #2992  
Old 02-26-2017, 12:16 PM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 2,363
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mbruno View Post
If they were not "happy with it", they shouldn't have announced it publicly as they did. It will be difficult to reverse that decision now without looking oportunistic and dishonest. At least that is my personal opinion.
THey have to do a lot of things that they are not too happy about. I think ti wasn't a good idea, to say too much but I can understand why they did it. And I don't believe most people will care.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #2993  
Old 02-26-2017, 12:19 PM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 2,363
Quote:
Originally Posted by Osipi View Post
Charles didn't promise anything. The statement said "it is intended". There are a lot of factors back then that are totally different now. For all we know, that statement may have been made as Camilla's wishes. She wasn't really over the moon about becoming a part of Charles' and Time
We'll see what happens.
I don't think it had anything to do with Camilas feelings. I think that it was softening up the public, to accept her as Charles' wife.. knowing that there was a set of Diana fans who would really really hate the idea of her marrying Charles and other old fashioned royalists who weren't too happy with Charles marrying a divorced woman and being divorced himself. So I think that they did leave some wiggle room, yes - in saying "it is intended" ie
"it may happen but we don't say for sure that it will happen".
as you say, time has passed now. People who have met Camilla generally like her. She's settled intot the RF, does a decent job, and problaby has been accepted in private as Charles's wife and the woman he has alwys loved and should have married.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #2994  
Old 02-26-2017, 12:40 PM
andrew's Avatar
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Arad, Romania
Posts: 219
.

If the Queen equals or surpasses her mother's longevity, Camilla will be in her 80's when Charles accedes. With her predisposition to osteoporosis, I doubt that she will be doing very much public duties so the question of her style may not be that relevant.
I don't think there will be many announcments. Charles will be proclaimed king at that it is. The coronation will take place after many months and I fear it will be a less grand event than it was 65 years ago so maybe even Charles will not be crowned, instead there will be a ceremony in the presence of the crowns-St Edward's, consort's crown,etc and an oath taken in front of the leaders of all religions present in Britain and the other realms.
I wish for a traditional coronation,where both of them are annointed and crowned but I think it won't happen...
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #2995  
Old 02-26-2017, 01:16 PM
ROYAL NORWAY's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: somewhere, United Kingdom, Norway
Posts: 3,100
Quote:
Originally Posted by andrew View Post
If the Queen equals or surpasses her mother's longevity, Camilla will be in her 80's when Charles accedes. With her predisposition to osteoporosis, I doubt that she will be doing very much public duties so the question of her style may not be that relevant.
I don't think there will be many announcments. Charles will be proclaimed king at that it is. The coronation will take place after many months and I fear it will be a less grand event than it was 65 years ago so maybe even Charles will not be crowned, instead there will be a ceremony in the presence of the crowns-St Edward's, consort's crown,etc and an oath taken in front of the leaders of all religions present in Britain and the other realms.
I wish for a traditional coronation,where both of them are annointed and crowned but I think it won't happen...
Operation Golden Orb is already being planned, and it will (of course) be a less grand event than it was 64 years ago, but he will be crowned.
__________________
The Queen is the most wonderful, forgiving, non judgmental person I know. Sarah Ferguson speaking in 2011.
Reply With Quote
  #2996  
Old 02-26-2017, 01:22 PM
Osipi's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: On the west side of North up from Back, United States
Posts: 9,660
As there hasn't been a coronation in the lifetime of the majority of the people on the planet today and with Charles very much being a traditionalist, I think he will stick as much as possible to the pomp and circumstances and the pageantry that he possibly can. Dust off the robes and the coronets and the tiaras and the glittering jewels. The UK and the world needs something grand to celebrate and revel in as a break from the gloom and doom and the troubles the world over.

I do think that Charles may make some cost efficient cuts where he can but when it comes to THE day, its going to be an event of a lifetime for most of us that have never experienced a proper British coronation. I think there will be changes perhaps in the future for William's coronation but the span between lifetimes of a monarch and heir won't be as lengthly as it is between Charles and his mother.

Good point you made Andrew about Camilla's health should she be in the 80s when Charles becomes King. That may have a lot to do with things too.
__________________
“In my walks, every man I meet is my superior in some way, and in that I learn from him.”
~~~Ralph Waldo Emerson~~~
Reply With Quote
  #2997  
Old 02-26-2017, 01:37 PM
Duc_et_Pair's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: City, Netherlands
Posts: 7,288
Of course there is the fait accompli: the situation as it is. Du moment Her Majesty abdicates or passes away, Charles is King and Camilla, the King's wedded spouse, automatically is Queen.

That is already a fait accompli in the very first second of the new Reign. Then the Governments of all His Majesty's realms have to come into action to deny the title of Queen to Her Majesty Queen Camilla. That is hard to imagine. All these years no any of Her Majesty's Governments have made pro-active legislative proposals so that the current Duchess of Cornwall would not become Queen.

Du moment that the new King accedes the kingship in front of the honourable members of his Privy Council, the fait accompli is there. Maybe the new Queen, in court mourning, will already witness the King's accession. Then it is already too late. So we may all be 99,99% sure that there will be a Queen Camilla indeed.

Unless the King announces that it was the expressed free and voluntary wish and desire of the Queen "to be known as" The Duchess of Lancaster...
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #2998  
Old 02-26-2017, 06:14 PM
Lady Nimue's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: Pacific Palisades, United States
Posts: 3,273
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ish View Post
And if the push to have Camilla be something other than Queen was because of a desire to end the tradition and adopt gender neutrality in the title of the consort of the monarch, you would have a point.
Agree.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ish View Post
But it's not about that. It's about punishing Camilla for daring to have an affair. No one is suggesting that the title change overall, no one is suggesting that Catherine be Princess Consort. No one wants to end the tradition... they just want to punish Camilla.
And for that reason alone it's reprehensible. Old grievances seeking revenge on someone who was as much 'sinned against as sinning' as the saying goes (if one looks at the facts of what went down those decades ago).

If they submit to these base motives then every time she is so referred to the horror of the old animus rears its head. It becomes a pall over everything. A 'scarlet letter' Camilla is condemned to wear to satisfy those unable to let go of something not their business to hold onto in the first place. Diana was never going to be Queen. That was done and over by her own actions, not Camilla's.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lee-Z View Post
I have the feeling that for some people Camilla stole the "queen" title from Diana, and no facts (C&D divorced so D wouldn't be queen anyway) will change the feeling. What i don't know is how many people think like that..
Exactly so, and it's a fraudulent idea. It should not be pandered to imo.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Duc_et_Pair View Post
Of course there is the fait accompli: the situation as it is. The moment Her Majesty abdicates or passes away, Charles is King and Camilla, the King's wedded spouse, automatically is Queen.

That is already a fait accompli in the very first second of the new Reign.
Then the Governments of all His Majesty's realms have to come into action to deny the title of Queen to Her Majesty Queen Camilla. That is hard to imagine. All these years no any of Her Majesty's Governments have made pro-active legislative proposals so that the current Duchess of Cornwall would not become Queen.

The moment that the new King accedes the kingship in front of the honourable members of his Privy Council, the fait accompli is there. Maybe the new Queen, in court mourning, will already witness the King's accession. Then it is already too late. So we may all be 99,99% sure that there will be a Queen Camilla indeed.
Exactly so, and we can be equally sure that the tabloids will take to address her as Queen Camilla with all the attendant nastiness, which is why I think.....

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ish View Post
Unless the King announces that it was the expressed free and voluntary wish and desire of the Queen "to be known as" The Duchess of Lancaster...
Because Camilla is a human being who deserves some peace from the nonsense. Just as we all know that Camilla is very much The Princess of Wales, so, too, we will all know she is Queen though she go by The Duchess of Lancaster. She will have all our respect all the more for her extraordinary character.
__________________
Russian National Anthem: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bGoNaLjQrV8
O Magnum Mysterium: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dWU7dyey6yo
Reply With Quote
  #2999  
Old 02-27-2017, 07:29 AM
padams2359's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: New Orleans, United States
Posts: 598
I guess it will all come down to whether or not she is crowned with him, or she is sitting with the family as a spectator.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #3000  
Old 02-27-2017, 08:33 AM
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: pinner, United Kingdom
Posts: 1,662
In truth I think the Prince of Wales is far too loving a Husband, as well as a traditionalist Gentlemen to allow his wife to be 'demoted' publicly as she would appear to be if titled Princess Consort.
As others have said the implication would be that their union is somehow 'lesser', and that is nonsense in this day and age, where divorce, adultery and second marriages don't even raise an eyebrow.
By law 'a married Woman takes the rank, style and dignity of her Husband' and for a 1000 years for a Kings Wife that 'style and dignity' has been Queen.
In addition I cannot believe any Govt would with to insult the [mourning] new King, by presenting him [for signature] with documents demoting his beloved wife !
__________________

__________________
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: 3 (0 members and 3 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 11:02 AM.

Social Knowledge Networks

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