The Royal Forums Coat of Arms


Join The Royal Forums Today
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #3021  
Old 03-16-2017, 04:32 PM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 11,110
It was announced in 2005 that the 'intention' was that Camilla would be known as HRH The Princess Consort.

It was also stated, by the PM, in parliament that she would be 'The Queen' the instant Charles becomes The King so there was always some dispute over this issue. It was also said that for her to become The Princess Consort parliament would have to pass legislation to strip her of the title of Queen and reduce her to Princess Consort. How soon into the reign parliament would debate that issue and pass the legislation I don't know - maybe during the condolence motions that both houses will have on the day of, or day after, the Queen's death.

The 'intention' is still the official line.
__________________

__________________
Reply With Quote
  #3022  
Old 03-16-2017, 05:09 PM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 2,363
Not necessarily a precedent.. but I don't think that they wever WANTED Camill to be princess Consort. I think that they always hoped that she would become popular enough to be seen as OK to be queen. Of couse she will be queen, once C is king but it IS possible that they could annonce that she's going to be known as Psss Consort.. howevr I think by the time she and Charles get to the throne, very few people will raise an eyebrow at her having the title Queen...
__________________

__________________
Reply With Quote
  #3023  
Old 03-16-2017, 05:25 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: *******, Canada
Posts: 5,969
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iluvbertie View Post

The 'intention' is still the official line.
Is it? That's what Charles says but according to people behind the scenes, it was never the case.

Charles has every intention of Camilla being Queen and since 'princess consort' doesn't even exist in common law, there is no alternative.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #3024  
Old 03-16-2017, 05:37 PM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Pittsburgh, United States
Posts: 2,688
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iluvbertie View Post
It was announced in 2005 that the 'intention' was that Camilla would be known as HRH The Princess Consort.

It was also stated, by the PM, in parliament that she would be 'The Queen' the instant Charles becomes The King so there was always some dispute over this issue. It was also said that for her to become The Princess Consort parliament would have to pass legislation to strip her of the title of Queen and reduce her to Princess Consort. How soon into the reign parliament would debate that issue and pass the legislation I don't know - maybe during the condolence motions that both houses will have on the day of, or day after, the Queen's death.

The 'intention' is still the official line.
Could you please provide a link to the Hansard archive where that statemen by the PM can be found ?
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #3025  
Old 03-16-2017, 05:44 PM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 11,110
No I can't but I do remember that comment being made and televised at the time.

If you won't to find the Hansard record look it up - it was said in parliament in the couple of days before the wedding.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rudolph View Post
Is it? That's what Charles says but according to people behind the scenes, it was never the case.

Charles has every intention of Camilla being Queen and since 'princess consort' doesn't even exist in common law, there is no alternative.

The website still says the 'intention' is that she will be called Princess Consort.

It has never been changed.

The so called people 'behind the scenes' haven't been identified so are like the ubiquitous 'sources close to the royal family' which is another way of saying 'the reporter is making this up but wants you to believe it'.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #3026  
Old 03-16-2017, 07:00 PM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 2,363
I'd say its blindlingly obvious that the RF didn't want Camilla to be relegated to this odd made up titlte. Even if they didn't like her, they would not want Charles' wife to hold a lesser positon than Queen..and by now I can't see that many people will object if she is known as and crowned Queen.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #3027  
Old 03-16-2017, 07:11 PM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Pittsburgh, United States
Posts: 2,688
Quote:
Originally Posted by Denville View Post
I'd say its blindlingly obvious that the RF didn't want Camilla to be relegated to this odd made up titlte. Even if they didn't like her, they would not want Charles' wife to hold a lesser positon than Queen..and by now I can't see that many people will object if she is known as and crowned Queen.
Doesn't the PoW's website say otherwise ?

https://www.princeofwales.gov.uk/faq...e-becomes-king
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #3028  
Old 03-16-2017, 08:05 PM
Courtier
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: St Thomas, U.S. Minor Outlying Islands
Posts: 505
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iluvbertie View Post
[...] 'sources close to the royal family' which is another way of saying 'the reporter is making this up but wants you to believe it'.
Use of anonymous sources is widespread and does not signify that the reporter is fabricating the quote. Sources often decline to go on the record.

The Guardian's policy on identifying sources:
http://www.theguardian.com/info/2000...ifying-sources
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #3029  
Old 03-16-2017, 08:52 PM
Osipi's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: On the west side of North up from Back, United States
Posts: 9,660
With me, its the actual identification of a source that makes it credible for me. Unidentified sources for information means, for me, that the information can't be verified.
__________________
“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
  #3030  
Old 03-16-2017, 09:49 PM
Courtier
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Top End, Australia
Posts: 571
Quote:
Originally Posted by Osipi View Post
With me, its the actual identification of a source that makes it credible for me. Unidentified sources for information means, for me, that the information can't be verified.
I have mixed feelings about this. As a rule, where the Royal Family is concerned I tend not to believe the anonymous sources but, as it was pointed out recently, had the Washington Post not been able to guarantee anonymity to their sources, they would never have uncovered Watergate.

I suppose, to me, it would depend on the importance of the information. Much as I love the POW and Camilla, whether she is called Queen or Princess Consort is of no importance. It has zero effect on anyone except Camilla.

Whether the President of the United States (or any other leader for that matter) is engaged in a conspiracy to subvert the constitution is a matter of importance. Anyone in power putting themselves above the law has enormous impact on the people they govern. In that case I would call the use of anonymous sources justified - just about.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #3031  
Old 03-16-2017, 10:33 PM
Osipi's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: On the west side of North up from Back, United States
Posts: 9,660
You make very good points VictoriaB and that's exactly why we have the 1st amendment in the US and freedom of the press and journalists are protected from revealing their sources.

I think it takes scrutiny and a bit of wisdom to be able to determine which anonymous sources may actually be reliable and the reasons behind staying anonymous. If its a "source close to the palace" in the Daily Mail or the Sun or the Globe, I'd definitely question it. Someone that is whistle blowing on something deadly serious could be using anonymity to protect himself, his family and his freedoms.

There is always two sides to a coin and two sides to an argument and we're intelligent enough to determine what is truth for our own selves.
__________________
“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
  #3032  
Old 03-17-2017, 06:18 AM
MARG's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Christchurch, New Zealand
Posts: 6,935
Quote:
Originally Posted by VictoriaB View Post
I have mixed feelings about this. As a rule, where the Royal Family is concerned I tend not to believe the anonymous sources but, as it was pointed out recently, had the Washington Post not been able to guarantee anonymity to their sources, they would never have uncovered Watergate.

I suppose, to me, it would depend on the importance of the information. Much as I love the POW and Camilla, whether she is called Queen or Princess Consort is of no importance. It has zero effect on anyone except Camilla.

Whether the President of the United States (or any other leader for that matter) is engaged in a conspiracy to subvert the constitution is a matter of importance. Anyone in power putting themselves above the law has enormous impact on the people they govern. In that case I would call the use of anonymous sources justified - just about.
Just as your President's wife is known as FLOTUS so too has the wife of the King in Britain been known as Queen.

Ill thought-out concessions were made when when Charles and Camilla married. But just as time has passed I believe most everyone in politics and the diplomatic service are hoping that hysteria has turned to reality and the UK doesn't get to "lose face" internationally.

Can you imagine how people will despise TPTB in the UK when they have to explain that . . . "well, you see, Charles and Camilla had an adulterous affair and this is her punishment, she only get's to be Princess Consort, yes, I know his ex wife was having affairs but, well, you know. No, of course having an affair is not grounds for punishment in the UK, but this is and exception. The King? Oh he doesn't get punished . . .

The reality of the whole farce will set the position of women as second class citizens back fifty years or more and make half the orders signed by the UK in the UN an exercise in totally hypocrisy.

So you see, it's not just Camilla that will be affected. The UK may not be an empire any more, but they don't want to be a joke either.
__________________
MARG
"Words ought to be a little wild, for they are assaults of thoughts on the unthinking." - JM Keynes
Reply With Quote
  #3033  
Old 03-17-2017, 03:51 PM
Daenerys Targaryen's Avatar
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Jan 2017
Location: The Blue Ocean, United States
Posts: 174
I would like to believe that Charles was being sincere when he made the statement that she will be Princess Consort (as is still on the BRF website), and not saying anything that would get the marriage accepted. So, I choose to take him at his word. I also think it's quite possible that Camilla does not want to be Queen.

As far as precedent of the wife taking the husband's rank and style, within the BRF, it was not that long ago when HRH the Duke of Windsor's wife was NOT an HRH with it's attendant bowing/curtseying. As HRH the Princess Consort, Camilla would of course, be curtseyed to, as she is now.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #3034  
Old 03-17-2017, 06:28 PM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 11,110
The difference with the wife of the Duke of Windsor was that she was specifically denied that right under the LPs issued to create the title and because she gained that position AFTER the king had abdicated. They didn't stop her using the female form of her husband's title but treated her more like the husband of an HRH rather than the wife of one e.g. neither of Anne's husbands gained HRH on marriage.

In this case they are denying the right of the wife to take the feminine form of her husband's title - something every other woman in the land is entitled to do. The very idea of her not being Queen makes the marriage morganatic and in 1936 it was determined that Britain doesn't recognise morganatic marriages, during the Abdication Crisis.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #3035  
Old 03-17-2017, 07:54 PM
Courtier
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Top End, Australia
Posts: 571
Quote:
Originally Posted by MARG View Post
Just as your President's wife is known as FLOTUS so too has the wife of the King in Britain been known as Queen.

Ill thought-out concessions were made when when Charles and Camilla married. But just as time has passed I believe most everyone in politics and the diplomatic service are hoping that hysteria has turned to reality and the UK doesn't get to "lose face" internationally.

Can you imagine how people will despise TPTB in the UK when they have to explain that . . . "well, you see, Charles and Camilla had an adulterous affair and this is her punishment, she only get's to be Princess Consort, yes, I know his ex wife was having affairs but, well, you know. No, of course having an affair is not grounds for punishment in the UK, but this is and exception. The King? Oh he doesn't get punished . . .

The reality of the whole farce will set the position of women as second class citizens back fifty years or more and make half the orders signed by the UK in the UN an exercise in totally hypocrisy.

So you see, it's not just Camilla that will be affected. The UK may not be an empire any more, but they don't want to be a joke either.
Thank you Marg. I have duel British-Australian citizenship and live in Queensland, Australia so I don't have a FLOTUS.

I'm sorry but have to respectfully disagree with you. I understand your argument but remain of the opinion that in the greater scheme of things, the title of the wife of the King impacts that person only. I hope Camilla is Queen or, at least if she is relegated to Princess Consort, that it is the title for Catherine & George's wife as well. It's not something I'm going to lie awake at night worrying about though unlike other things happening in the world at this time.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #3036  
Old 03-17-2017, 08:02 PM
MARG's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Christchurch, New Zealand
Posts: 6,935
I have no problem with King Charles wife Camilla being the Princess Consort as long as every other wife of a sovereign is that too. That is to say, King William and his wife Princess Catherine.

What I am vehemently opposed to is a change of status that will affect Camilla only. That would be both a travesty and a joke.
__________________
MARG
"Words ought to be a little wild, for they are assaults of thoughts on the unthinking." - JM Keynes
Reply With Quote
  #3037  
Old 03-17-2017, 08:10 PM
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 MARG View Post
What I am vehemently opposed to is a change of status that will affect Camilla only. That would be both a travesty and a joke.
This is the big issue of the whole Princess Consort/Queen thing to me. To make it known that only Camilla will be known as a Princess Consort is blatantly playing a switcheroo that affects only one person and actually when you think about it, there's really no legal reason for it. The wife of a King is a Queen. If they're going to make the big change, it should be that Parliament is defining the title of a monarch and not playing "lets make a deal" with one person's style.
__________________
“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
  #3038  
Old 03-17-2017, 09:03 PM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Pittsburgh, United States
Posts: 2,688
Quote:
Originally Posted by Osipi View Post
This is the big issue of the whole Princess Consort/Queen thing to me. To make it known that only Camilla will be known as a Princess Consort is blatantly playing a switcheroo that affects only one person and actually when you think about it, there's really no legal reason for it. The wife of a King is a Queen. .

It was done to Lilian Baels in Belgium in the past and neither she nor her husband had had an affair while married like Charles and Camilla.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #3039  
Old 03-17-2017, 09:13 PM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 11,110
Belgium laws and customs about the rights to titles and styles of spouses is probably different to the British ones. What they are proposing it to turn around and say that Charles and Camilla are in an unequal marriage - something that the government said, in 1936, didn't exist in the UK and wasn't possible. It was possible in many European countries throughout the centuries whereas it has never been the case in the UK so it isn't relevant what happens/ed in a European context as the customs and laws are different.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #3040  
Old 03-17-2017, 09:23 PM
Nico's Avatar
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Paris, France
Posts: 1,923
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mbruno View Post
It was done to Lilian Baels in Belgium in the past and neither she nor her husband had had an affair while married like Charles and Camilla.
Nonsense. Lilian Baels was not Princess consort. Leopold III basically created for her the more or less fantasy title of Princess de Rethy, with the assurance to the Belgian Government that the children of the second marriage will not be in line to the throne.
A such Leopold III set a precedent, allowed by the Belgian law, of a morganatic marriage.
Morganatic marriage simply does not exist under the British law. As such Camilla is de jure Princess of Wales, but she wants to be known as Duchess of Cornwall. So, de jure, she will be Queen automatically. If she wants to be known as the Princess Consort is a personnal choice, not the law.
__________________

__________________
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