The Royal Forums Coat of Arms


Join The Royal Forums Today
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #3041  
Old 03-17-2017, 08:38 PM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Pittsburgh, United States
Posts: 2,554
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nico View Post
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.
If their marriage was indeed morganatic as you say, why were their children princes of Belgium under KIng Leopold II's 1891 royal decree ? And why was Prince Alexandre in the line of succession to the throne (a position he lost only when he married later without royal consent) ?

From Wikipedia:

Quote:
In the context of royalty, a morganatic marriage is a marriage between people of unequal social rank, which prevents the passage of the husband's titles and privileges to the wife and any children born of the marriage.
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #3042  
Old 03-17-2017, 08:54 PM
Nico's Avatar
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Paris, France
Posts: 1,868
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mbruno View Post
If their marriage was indeed morganatic as you say, why were their children princes of Belgium under KIng Leopold II's 1891 royal decree ? And why was Prince Alexandre in the line of succession to the throne (a position he lost only when he married later without royal consent) ?

From Wikipedia:
Their children were indeed titled Princes of Belgium by their father but i can assure you that Prince Alexandre was not in the line of succession . It was part of the deal with the Belgian Government. So the marriage with Lilian was indeed morganatic, as the children didn't have the same rank than their half siblings.
At some point Alexandre and his sisters were not seen as part of the Royal Family at all.
As such they were indeed HRH, but excluded from the main and reigning branch. It's still the case for the princesses Marie-Christine, Esmeralda and Léa.

The marriage was unequal and allowed as such by the Belgian law at this time. As pointed out previously, unequal marriage doesn't exist under the bristish law.
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #3043  
Old 03-17-2017, 10:04 PM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 10,975
The problem with basing the argument on Camilla using Duchess of Cornwall as setting a precedent for her being Princess Consort is that it ignores the fact that she is married to the Duke of Cornwall and so is still using the feminine form of Charles' titles.

When Charles is King he will stop being a Prince and so she should stop being a Princess and move up to Queen with him.

That is a different situation to using the feminine form of a different title. She does use both Duchess of Rothesay in Scotland and Countess of Chester when in Chester while Charles uses Duke of Rothesay and Earl of Chester respectively.

It is only the Wales title she isn't using but she is using the feminine form of all of his other titles.

By asking to be Princess Consort she would be saying, loud and clear, I was never good enough to be his wife and then there has to be the question asked - well why was she good enough to use the female form of his titles while he was heir apparent but not now that he is King?

To me they have to sort this out before the situation arises and do so with legislation: have a law that says - regardless of gender the spouse will always remain HRH Prince/Princess Consort - so have Philip use that title and then Camilla and Kate and George's wife etc. No difference - and use the argument that as Philip has done such a fantastic job as the consort there is no need for a woman to have a style that is seen as 'senior' to that of a male consort and so for equality's sake all future spouses will be 'Prince/Princess Consort' and thus 'Queen' will only be held by a regnant and not a consort.
Reply With Quote
  #3044  
Old 03-18-2017, 03:16 AM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 2,024
Quote:
Originally Posted by Daenerys Targaryen View Post
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.
he was saying something diplomatic to soften the blow to Diana fans about the second marriage. She may not be that keen on being queen and I think the present queen was a bit uneasy, but I believe that they made the announcement that she would be called Duchess of C and later Prsss Consort, to stave off any more fuss aobut the marriage. I think they believed that as time passed Camilla would be accepted as his wife and as a good consort and that in a long time later, when the queen died, people would be fine with the idea of Camilla being queen. And I think that's happened. Tehy've been married for 12 years, they are accepted as a couple and as working together for the RF and I don't think that many people are bothered now that she will take the full title of queen.
Reply With Quote
  #3045  
Old 03-18-2017, 05:09 AM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: pinner, United Kingdom
Posts: 1,339
ALL it would take is for HMQ to insert into a speech " when my Son and Daughter-in-law are King and Queen", or[better] for William to say " When my Stepmother is Queen"...

Short sentences that would utterly silence those in opposition to the 'natural order of things' in these Kingdoms, and end the uncertainty definitively..
Reply With Quote
  #3046  
Old 03-18-2017, 05:43 AM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 2,024
Quote:
Originally Posted by wyevale View Post
ALL it would take is for HMQ to insert into a speech " when my Son and Daughter-in-law are King and Queen", or[better] for William to say " When my Stepmother is Queen"...

Short sentences that would utterly silence those in opposition to the 'natural order of things' in these Kingdoms, and end the uncertainty definitively..
the queen is not goign to say anyting like htat!!!
Reply With Quote
  #3047  
Old 03-18-2017, 05:47 AM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: pinner, United Kingdom
Posts: 1,339
Why not Denville ?

It's not political, nor particularly controversial [imo]
Reply With Quote
  #3048  
Old 03-18-2017, 05:47 AM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 2,024
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nico View Post
Their children were indeed titled Princes of Belgium by their father but i can assure you that Prince Alexandre was not in the line of succession . It was part of the deal with the Belgian Government. So the marriage with Lilian was indeed morganatic, as the children didn't have the same rank than their half siblings.
At some point Alexandre and his sisters were not seen as part of the Royal Family at all.
As such they were indeed HRH, but excluded from the main and reigning branch. It's still the case for the princesses Marie-Christine, Esmeralda and Léa.

The marriage was unequal and allowed as such by the Belgian law at this time. As pointed out previously, unequal marriage doesn't exist under the bristish law.
well yes what happens in Belgium or anywhere else isn't a precednet for other royal families, including the British one. in Belgium at the time it was very class conscious and I suppose a morganatic marriage was the only way that the King could marry Liliane. Like the Swedish prince Bertil had a long standing affair with his ladyfriend, and only married her late in life.. because if he'd married her when younger he would have had to step out of the succession and he was needed as a possible regent.
Similarly David and Wallis Simpson aren't a precedent because he had abdicated and was only made DOW as a way of keeping him out of politics. If he was a royal duke he could nt stand for parliament. And the RF clearly felt that since he had decided not to be a king, his wife should not be HRH
Reply With Quote
  #3049  
Old 03-18-2017, 07:22 AM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Pittsburgh, United States
Posts: 2,554
Quote:
Originally Posted by Denville View Post
he was saying something diplomatic to soften the blow to Diana fans about the second marriage. She may not be that keen on being queen and I think the present queen was a bit uneasy, but I believe that they made the announcement that she would be called Duchess of C and later Prsss Consort, to stave off any more fuss aobut the marriage. I think they believed that as time passed Camilla would be accepted as his wife and as a good consort and that in a long time later, when the queen died, people would be fine with the idea of Camilla being queen. And I think that's happened. Tehy've been married for 12 years, they are accepted as a couple and as working together for the RF and I don't think that many people are bothered now that she will take the full title of queen.

So, again, why is the announcement that Camilla is "intended" to be known as HRH The Princess Consort still on the PoW's official website ? If Charles had any intention to retreat from his previous statement, I'd imagine that the aforementioned announcement would have been taken down from the site, which it was not.

Going back to Belgium, King Leopold announced that his second wife had chosen not to be called queen and announced she intended her to be known as HRH The Princess of Réthy. That was to be formalized after the war, but never was, as there was never a royal decree (countersigned by Belgian ministers as required by the constitution) creating the title of Princess of Réthy for Lilian. The title, therefore, although used throughout Lilian's life, was purely informal. I suspect something similar might happen to HRH The Princess Consort in the UK, but, in any case, I can't see how Charles can go back on his "intention" now, especially as he still mantains publicly that the intention still stands.
Reply With Quote
  #3050  
Old 03-18-2017, 07:31 AM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 2,024
Quote:
Originally Posted by wyevale View Post
Why not Denville ?

It's not political, nor particularly controversial [imo]
She's not going to refer to her death.....

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mbruno View Post
So, again, why is the announcement that Camilla is "intended" to be known as HRH The Princess Consort still on the PoW's official website ? If Charles had any intention to retreat from his previous statement, I'd imagine that the aforementioned announcement would have been taken down from the site, which it was not.

can go back on his "intention" now, especially as he still mantains publicly that the intention still stands.
I rather thought I read somewhere that when asked about it a year or 2 ago, whether Camilla would be queen, he said something like "we'll have to see".
I should say he is just leaving things as they are and waiting until the queen passes away and then it will be quietly forgotten about.
Reply With Quote
  #3051  
Old 03-18-2017, 07:48 AM
Osipi's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: On the west side of North up from Back, United States
Posts: 8,957
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mbruno View Post
So, again, why is the announcement that Camilla is "intended" to be known as HRH The Princess Consort still on the PoW's official website ? If Charles had any intention to retreat from his previous statement, I'd imagine that the aforementioned announcement would have been taken down from the site, which it was not.
For all we know, its still up on the website for the same reason that the court circular is very sketchy with its updates.

There have been a few times, as Denville has brought up, where either Charles or Camilla were asked about Camilla becoming Queen with a vague answer given "we'll just have to wait and see" or something similar.

With stating the word "intended", that means nothing is really written in stone of what is to be. A lot of things may be different now than 12 years ago. Camilla may be finding that her role is a fulfilling one for her rather than something that may have scared the beejeebees out of her at the time of their marriage. People have come to see Camilla as a warm, down to earth person that has transformed Charles into a very happy man rather than the picture she had painted of her as a private citizen and Charles' friend. As I see it today, Camilla is the epitome of the description of what a Queen Consort is. If she is to be his Princess Consort, the best message is there in the word "consort".

All of this title for Camilla stuff isn't something that is on the front burner and I would imagine that very few Brits even think about it. We do because things like this interest us. The changes Charles may make when he ascends the throne, his way of running the "Firm" and even the little details of what his coronation will be like is why we have this thread in the first place. Someday there will be a thread "The Monarchy under William". I just hope I'm around to participate.
__________________
“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
  #3052  
Old 03-18-2017, 08:06 AM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 2,024
I think that they always hoped that if the queen lived many more years, it would give time for Camilla to settle in as Charles' wife and co worker for the RF and that people would get to like her and see that she was not a monster.. and by the time the question of her being queen was "there", people except for hardline Diana fans, would say "yes of course why shouldn't she be queen? She's Charles' wife. She does the job of consort OK, its been years since Diana died.."
But JUST in case there was a lot of feeling about her becoming queen, if say QEII had passed away in a year or 2, they ahd a plan in place that she would be in essence queen but known as Princess Consort. but IMO they gambled on having plenty of time to let the public get used to Camilla and they've won their gamble. If I was right in remembering that Ch and Camilla have given vague replies of "wait and see" about the question.. (as seems to be the case) then I think that they are just opening the door towards "yes she will be officialy queen" when the queen pases away.
Reply With Quote
  #3053  
Old 03-18-2017, 08:19 AM
Duc_et_Pair's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: City, Netherlands
Posts: 6,982
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iluvbertie View Post
The problem with basing the argument on Camilla using Duchess of Cornwall as setting a precedent for her being Princess Consort is that it ignores the fact that she is married to the Duke of Cornwall and so is still using the feminine form of Charles' titles.

When Charles is King he will stop being a Prince and so she should stop being a Princess and move up to Queen with him.

That is a different situation to using the feminine form of a different title. She does use both Duchess of Rothesay in Scotland and Countess of Chester when in Chester while Charles uses Duke of Rothesay and Earl of Chester respectively.

It is only the Wales title she isn't using but she is using the feminine form of all of his other titles.

By asking to be Princess Consort she would be saying, loud and clear, I was never good enough to be his wife and then there has to be the question asked - well why was she good enough to use the female form of his titles while he was heir apparent but not now that he is King?

To me they have to sort this out before the situation arises and do so with legislation: have a law that says - regardless of gender the spouse will always remain HRH Prince/Princess Consort - so have Philip use that title and then Camilla and Kate and George's wife etc. No difference - and use the argument that as Philip has done such a fantastic job as the consort there is no need for a woman to have a style that is seen as 'senior' to that of a male consort and so for equality's sake all future spouses will be 'Prince/Princess Consort' and thus 'Queen' will only be held by a regnant and not a consort.
I wholeheartedly agree with your last alinea. With male consorts coming up in Sweden, Norway, the Netherlands, Belgium and Spain, it is time to make the title of a consort gender-neutral.

In the Netherlands Máxima is -de jure- Princess of the Netherlands. I hoped the Government would stick to that. But "the longstanding social custom that a wife of a titled gentleman can be addressed by her husband's title" has been used as Government thought it was "undesirable" that Princess Máxima would have a "lesser" title than her counterparts. Why this undesireable situation did not stretch out to the three successive male predecessors of Princess Máxima was not mentioned...

So I still hope that indeed in all monarchies the consort will become known as HRH The Prince / HRH The Princess. This is crisp, clear, fair, transparent and logic.
Reply With Quote
  #3054  
Old 03-18-2017, 08:26 AM
Stefan's Avatar
Super Moderator
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Esslingen, Germany
Posts: 3,737
Quote:
Originally Posted by Duc_et_Pair View Post
I wholeheartedly agree with your last alinea. With male consorts coming up in Sweden, Norway, the Netherlands, Belgium and Spain, it is time to make the title of a consort gender-neutral.
And give them the Title of King-Consort. For Spain that wold be nothing new but following their tradition and not change it.
Reply With Quote
  #3055  
Old 03-18-2017, 08:40 AM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Pittsburgh, United States
Posts: 2,554
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stefan View Post
And give them the Title of King-Consort. For Spain that wold be nothing new but following their tradition and not change it.
Spain, however, has recently changed its own tradition as the Royal Decree 1368/1987 says that the consort of the Queen of Spain shall have the dignity only of "Prince" with the style "Royal Highness", whereas the wife of the King of Spain shall have the dignity of "Queen" (but not "Queen of Spain") with the style "Majesty".

Curiously, the husband of the titular Princess of Asturias is still to be known as "Prince of Asturias" with the same style, titles and dignity as his wife.
Reply With Quote
  #3056  
Old 03-18-2017, 08:59 AM
Nico's Avatar
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Paris, France
Posts: 1,868
It's pretty clear that back in 2005 Clarence House more or less shot itself in the foot with the "Princess consort" thing.
I always thought that the perfectly legit title of "Queen Consort" would have been a better choice.
Reply With Quote
  #3057  
Old 03-18-2017, 09:07 AM
Duc_et_Pair's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: City, Netherlands
Posts: 6,982
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stefan View Post
And give them the Title of King-Consort. For Spain that wold be nothing new but following their tradition and not change it.
For the Netherlands, and probably for more monarchies, it would clash with the Constitution where it is worded that the Bearer of the Crown is King, and no one else. When the Netherlands got a female monarch (for 123 consecutive years...) a special law was needed: "When the kingship is executed by a Queen, all references to The King in all acts, decrees, treaties, must be read as "The Queen" including all necessary grammatical and linguïstic changes as a consequence of this".

I think it is easier in all monarchies, for sure now Sweden, Norway, Belgium and Spain will see male consorts too, that this title is made gender neutral and not the same as he one used by the bearer of the crown.
Reply With Quote
  #3058  
Old 03-18-2017, 09:47 AM
Stefan's Avatar
Super Moderator
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Esslingen, Germany
Posts: 3,737
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mbruno View Post
Spain, however, has recently changed its own tradition as the Royal Decree 1368/1987 says that the consort of the Queen of Spain shall have the dignity only of "Prince" with the style "Royal Highness", whereas the wife of the King of Spain shall have the dignity of "Queen" (but not "Queen of Spain") with the style "Majesty".

Curiously, the husband of the titular Princess of Asturias is still to be known as "Prince of Asturias" with the same style, titles and dignity as his wife.
This is why i said follow their traditions and not change it. We don't know what will hapen when Leonor ascends the throne. Perhaops then a new Royal Decree will issued which given her Consort the Title of King Consort. I think when the Royal Decree in 1987 was published the did not expect a reigining Queen in the near future as there was a male Heir and the succession law was (and still is) male primogenitur.
Reply With Quote
  #3059  
Old 03-18-2017, 09:54 AM
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: England, United Kingdom
Posts: 1,523
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nico View Post
It's pretty clear that back in 2005 Clarence House more or less shot itself in the foot with the "Princess consort" thing.
I always thought that the perfectly legit title of "Queen Consort" would have been a better choice.

I actually think it would have been best for Clarence House to say nothing at all. Clarence House has always refused to comment on anything that will happen when Charles is King saying its "inappropriate to comment on what would happen as it means the death of his mother". They should have said the same about Camilla's title. They didn't because they engaged in a campaign to try remove any obstacles or objections to the wedding and thought it would help but didn't think longer term.
Reply With Quote
  #3060  
Old 03-18-2017, 09:57 AM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: pinner, United Kingdom
Posts: 1,339
I think most people in the UK [who care] would be appalled if they thought Catherine would be 'Princess Consort' when/if William becomes King. They would see it as a 'demotion'..
The LAW and tradition here is that a wife takes the female form of her husbands title, and I can see no earthly reason to change that...
__________________

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 after Elizabeth II ysbel British Royals 490 09-20-2017 03:42 AM
Monarchy vs Republic marian Royalty Past, Present, and Future 393 08-14-2017 05:32 AM
The Monarchy in Greece Fireweaver The Royal Family of Greece 309 10-31-2016 05:54 PM
The Monarchy And The Media Alexandria Royal House of Norway 12 04-08-2004 04:06 PM




Popular Tags
albania best outfit birthday carl gustaf chris o'neill crown princess mary crown princess mary fashion crown princess victoria current events denmark fashion poll general news hereditary grand duchess stéphanie hereditary grand duke guillaume infanta cristina infanta leonor infanta sofia iñaki urdangarín king felipe king felipe vi king philippe letizia monarchy news november 2016 october 2016 picture of the week prince alexander prince carl philip prince charles prince daniel prince felix prince gabriel prince nicholas prince oscar princess claire of luxembourg princess estelle princess leonore princess madeleine princess mary princess mary fashion 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 mathilde daytime fashion queen mathilde fashion queen maxima queen maxima casual wear queen maxima daytime fashion queen maxima fashion queen maxima hats queen maxima style queen rania queen silvia state visit stephanie succession sweden swedish royal family the duchess of cambridge casual wear the duchess of cambridge daytime fashion the duchess of cambridge fashion the duchess of cambridge hats victoria


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

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- Social Knowledge, LLC All Rights Reserved.

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 04:05 AM.

Social Knowledge Networks

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