The Royal Forums Coat of Arms


Join The Royal Forums Today
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #3061  
Old 03-18-2017, 12:36 PM
Courtier
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Ipswich, United Kingdom
Posts: 775
The King and The Princess Consort, doesn't flow as well as The King and The Queen to me. I don't want 1000 years of history destroyed for the sake of Camilla. I don't want Catherine to be HRH Princess William, The Princess Consort.
__________________

__________________
Reply With Quote
  #3062  
Old 03-18-2017, 12:44 PM
Countessmeout's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: alberta, Canada
Posts: 6,933
It is time to stop punishing Camilla. I am all for a gender neutral title, don't get me wrong. But not just for Camilla. If Camilla is only princess consort, then when William is king, Kate should be princess consort, and George's wife after. Otherwise it seems a petty punishment.

HRH princess Charles or HRH Prince William, princess consort though wouldn't work. Neither man would be a prince anymore, so the title would be wrong.

How Philip was handled seems the best option. When their husband comes to the throne, the wife is made a princess in her own right. Camilla when Charles is king becomes HRH Princess Camilla, princess consort. And so on.

But however it is handled, it needs to be done for generations to come. Not simply for Camilla to appease Diaba fans.
__________________

__________________
Reply With Quote
  #3063  
Old 03-18-2017, 04:35 PM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Pittsburgh, United States
Posts: 2,688
Quote:
Originally Posted by Duc_et_Pair View Post
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.

In Sweden, the consort of the king is not only known as "queen", but actually as "Queen of Sweden" (Sveriges Drottning) , which is presumably the same title Victoria will have as a reigning queen. That is indeed a mess, which was probably overlooked before 1980 because there could not be female sovereigns in Sweden back then. At least in Denmark, they can make the distinction between Dronning af Danmark for a queen consort (as Queen Ingrid was called) and Dronning til Danmark for a reigning queen (although Queen Margrethe actually calls herself Danmarks Dronning instead).

Belgium, Spain and the Netherlands seem to have taken the alternative route of making the king's consort a queen by courtesy, but not "queen of [country's name]" or "queen of [the country's people]". Queen Máxima is still legally a Princess of the Netherlands and a Princess of Orange-Nassau despite being referred to as queen, as BTW Queen Paola and Queen Mathilde are also still legally Princesses of Belgium.

Note , for example, how King Albert II is referred to in Prince Philippe's marriage certificate below as "Sa Majesté le Roi Albert II etc., Roi des Belges, Prince de Belgique", whereas Queen Paola is cited as "Sa Majesté la Reine Paola etc., Princesse de Belgique", but not "Reine des Belges".

Quote:
« Acte de mariage
N° 708 L'an mil neuf cent nonante-neuf, le quatre décembre, à dix heures, devant Nous, Messire François-Xavier Chevalier de Donnea, Ministre d'Etat, Membre de la Chambre des Représentants, Bourgmestre de la Ville de Bruxelles, Officier de l'Etat Civil, Grand Officier de l'Ordre de Léopold, assisté de Marceline Van Baerlem, Echevine de la Ville de Bruxelles, comparaissent à l'Hôtel de Ville :
Son Altesse Royale le Prince Philippe Léopold Louis Marie, Duc de Brabant, Prince de Belgique, Sénateur, Grand Cordon de l'Ordre de Léopold
, titulaire de diverses distinctions honorifiques étrangères, né à Bruxelles, deuxième district, le quinze avril mil neuf cent soixante, domicilié à Bruxelles, rue Brederode 16, fils majeur de Sa Majesté le Roi Albert II Félix Humbert Théodore Christian Eugène Marie, Roi des Belges, Prince de Belgique, Grand Maître de l'Ordre de Léopold, titulaire de diverses distinctions honorifiques étrangères, et de son épouse Sa Majesté la Reine Paola Margherita Maria-Antonia Consiglia des Princes Ruffo di Calabria, Princesse de Belgique, Grand Cordon de l'Ordre de Léopold, domiciliés à Bruxelles, d'une part;
PS: Still on Duc's point, the way the legislators in Sweden seem to have circumvented the confusion between a reigning queen and a queen consort in the constitutional acts is by using language such as "the King or Queen who occupies the throne", or the "the King or Queen who is the Head of State", or simply "the Head of State" without actually mentioning the word "King" or "Queen".
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #3064  
Old 03-18-2017, 04:56 PM
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Waterford, United States
Posts: 1,787
Whatever the reason for the "it is intended" statement all those years ago, it seems important for Charles to be seen as a man of his word when he ascends the Throne. The great British public is quite capable of saying, 'let the old girl be queen' if they wish.
I always assumed that Charles was hoping for such treatment for his long-term elderly spouse - she could easily be 80 when the day comes, and most will have softened toward her. IMO, Charles should not begin his reign by going back on his word.
__________________
"If you look for the bad in people expecting to find it, you surely will.”

Abraham Lincoln
Reply With Quote
  #3065  
Old 03-18-2017, 05:27 PM
Duc_et_Pair's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: City, Netherlands
Posts: 7,288
Quote:
Originally Posted by royalistbert View Post
The King and The Princess Consort, doesn't flow as well as The King and The Queen to me. [.....]
But Her Majesty The Queen and His Royal Highness The Prince is no problem?

The Queen and the Prince (Albert)
The Queen and the Prince (Hendrik)
The Grand Duchess and the Prince (Félix)
The Queen and the Prince (Bernhard)
The Queen and the Prince (Henrik)
The Queen and the Prince (Claus)
The Queen and the Prince (Daniel)
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #3066  
Old 03-18-2017, 09:26 PM
Daenerys Targaryen's Avatar
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Jan 2017
Location: The Blue Ocean, United States
Posts: 174
Quote:
Originally Posted by wyevale View Post
Why not Denville ?

It's not political, nor particularly controversial [imo]
Well, perhaps because Charles, presumably after lengthy and in depth conversations with Camilla, announced that their intention was that she be Princess Consort? I understand that there are some here who seem to take it personally that their favorite be 'deprived' of the title of Queen, but perhaps SHE doesnt want to be and prefers the status quo of the situation?

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.
That is a very cynical view. I would like to believe that he was being truthful and not lying his butt off to get his way in the face of opposition from the government and the public. If that is, in fact, the case that would be deeply distressing and make me not believe anything that came out of his mouth if he was/is prepared to lie like that. I prefer to believe him and take him at his word.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ladongas View Post
Whatever the reason for the "it is intended" statement all those years ago, it seems important for Charles to be seen as a man of his word when he ascends the Throne. The great British public is quite capable of saying, 'let the old girl be queen' if they wish.
I always assumed that Charles was hoping for such treatment for his long-term elderly spouse - she could easily be 80 when the day comes, and most will have softened toward her. IMO, Charles should not begin his reign by going back on his word.
I agree totally re: Charles not setting off with an outright admission of a manipulation/lie. But some of this may be moot. Camilla's family is not as long lived as the female Windsors. If QEII enjoys the longevity of her mother, Camilla would be into her 80's at the time of Charles' ascension
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #3067  
Old 03-18-2017, 09:49 PM
MARG's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Christchurch, New Zealand
Posts: 6,935
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 think we need to put everything in it's time and place to better understand it's significance. After the death of Diana the Prime Minister, Tony Blair was right up in the BRF's grill. (Don't forget, it was his grandstanding that gave us the title "The People's Princess).

Once he was in, he was hard to get rid of, seeming to think that the BRF was just another goverment department he could order around. Not surprisingly a very chilly relationship between the PM and the BRF ensued. And all was not forgiven when he left office, his absence from the Abbey stuck out like a sore thumb at William's wedding.
__________________
MARG
"Words ought to be a little wild, for they are assaults of thoughts on the unthinking." - JM Keynes
Reply With Quote
  #3068  
Old 03-19-2017, 02:32 AM
Lady Nimue's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: Pacific Palisades, United States
Posts: 3,273
Quote:
Originally Posted by Countessmeout View Post
It is time to stop punishing Camilla.
Agree. But I also think that Camilla genuinely has no interest in the matter. She is clearly in this to support Charles, not to grandstand a 'perk'. I find her admirable. Charles could not have found a more suitable second wife imo. He has been very lucky in that.

In the end, what eventuates (how Camilla is called) will be what Charles decides, and Camilla is comfortable with. I could see them deciding not to have her be called Queen (though the tabloids will do whatever they want) just as she chooses not to be called The Princess of Wales. Camilla deferring to Diana, the first wife of what will then be a king and mother of a future king, seems reasonable and not a slight against Camilla. Quite the reverse, it speaks volumes regarding Camilla.

However it goes, I think we should want Camilla to be happy and comfortable.
__________________
Russian National Anthem: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bGoNaLjQrV8
O Magnum Mysterium: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dWU7dyey6yo
Reply With Quote
  #3069  
Old 03-19-2017, 10:24 AM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 2,363
well Daenerys, you may believe that Charles never tells a lie.. I don't. I thnk it was spin, and perhaps it would have been more sensible to just say nothing about her future title.. but they did. If he was telling the truth then, why is it that botht he and Camilla have said when asked about the title "we will have to see"? why not a firm "yes of course, in due course she will be Princess Consort just as we said years ago."
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #3070  
Old 03-19-2017, 10:39 AM
muriel's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: London / Guildford, United Kingdom
Posts: 7,073
Quote:
Originally Posted by Denville View Post
well Daenerys, you may believe that Charles never tells a lie.. I don't. I thnk it was spin, and perhaps it would have been more sensible to just say nothing about her future title.. but they did. If he was telling the truth then, why is it that botht he and Camilla have said when asked about the title "we will have to see"? why not a firm "yes of course, in due course she will be Princess Consort just as we said years ago."
As I have stated previously, this matter can be easily dealt with within hours of Charles' accession. The government of the day can advise the King that his wife should be styled in line with her legal title, ie HM Queen Camilla.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #3071  
Old 03-19-2017, 10:43 AM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 2,363
I'm sure that it will be, they are nto going to say anything beforehand.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #3072  
Old 03-19-2017, 10:44 AM
muriel's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: London / Guildford, United Kingdom
Posts: 7,073
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 have to disagree. The world was very different in early 2005. There were grave questions around the potential acceptance of Camilla as a senior member of the BRF. This was a necessary sop to keep things moving. 12 years on, she is well accepted as Charles' consort, and an active and senior member of the BRF. That we are having this conversation only proves how accepted she is, and when the time comes, the "intention" to make her Princess Consort will be quietly dismissed.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #3073  
Old 03-19-2017, 10:54 AM
Skippyboo's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Atlanta, United States
Posts: 4,108
The Monarchy under Charles

With hindsight, it would have been best if they never mentioned the Princess Consort bit. Let's not forget, it was basically Charles that was pushing for acceptance for Camilla and then marriage. I think Camilla would have probably preferred to remain in background as Charles's companion without the spotlight of being his wife and the royal role with it. They could have made some sort of deal that she would try the royal life with a option to withdrawal from royal duties sort like what the Duchess of Kent did.

However, she has grown into her role as a royal and if she is going to alongside King Charles as his partner, she should use her legal title of Queen.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #3074  
Old 03-19-2017, 11:46 AM
Osipi's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: On the west side of North up from Back, United States
Posts: 9,660
In a recent article that was posted in another thread, it gives details of what is to happen when the time comes and the Queen passes. One section reminded me of this discussion and found it interesting that it stated:

"King Charles is currently expected to introduce Queen Camilla at his Accession Council on D+1. On that day, too, Westminster Hall will be locked, cleaned and its stone floor covered with 1,600 yards of carpet, ready for the lying-in-state. Candles, their wicks already burnt in, will be brought over from the Abbey."

Operation London Bridge: Plans for the Queen's death | Daily Mail Online

No mention of the "intended" Princess Consort. Although, from comments here at TRF, this article was swiped verbatim just about from the Guardian, being the Daily Mail, I half expected a hue and cry in the comment section about Queen Camilla. From what I scanned over, not a mention so in and of itself, that is a good sign. I do think Camilla will be presented as Queen Consort and the whole matter of the "intended" Princess Consort dropped. The reasoning behind the intention may have been sound and logical back in 2005 but as time passed and Camilla found her footing in her royal role and carried them out with grace and warmness, perhaps she as well as the people have come to realize that she'd make one heck of a fantastic Queen at Charles' side.
__________________
“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
  #3075  
Old 03-19-2017, 12:06 PM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: NN, Lithuania
Posts: 1,495
Quote:
Originally Posted by muriel View Post
I have to disagree. The world was very different in early 2005. There were grave questions around the potential acceptance of Camilla as a senior member of the BRF. This was a necessary sop to keep things moving. 12 years on, she is well accepted as Charles' consort, and an active and senior member of the BRF. That we are having this conversation only proves how accepted she is, and when the time comes, the "intention" to make her Princess Consort will be quietly dismissed.
I agree with you. It's enough to read this forum's threads from 2004 or 2005. They are heavy moderated but still you can feel that many royal watchers hated Camilla.
Now people's feelings has completely changed.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #3076  
Old 03-19-2017, 02:20 PM
Lady Nimue's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: Pacific Palisades, United States
Posts: 3,273
I see no contradiction. We all know that Camilla is The Princess of Wales, and can be rightly so referenced, though the preference is The Duchess of Cornwall. Charles introducing Camilla as his Queen does not preclude Camilla being referenced as Princess Consort, though it just occurs to me that it's not a 'legit title' like the Duchess thing is (which has likely already been mentioned) so that is the crux.
__________________
Russian National Anthem: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bGoNaLjQrV8
O Magnum Mysterium: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dWU7dyey6yo
Reply With Quote
  #3077  
Old 03-19-2017, 02:34 PM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Pittsburgh, United States
Posts: 2,688
Quote:
Originally Posted by muriel View Post
As I have stated previously, this matter can be easily dealt with within hours of Charles' accession. The government of the day can advise the King that his wife should be styled in line with her legal title, ie HM Queen Camilla.
Why would the government do that ? The only titles and styles that are regulated by an act of Parliament in the UK are the titles and style of the sovereign properly. The titles of other members of the Royal Family have long been left to the discretion of the sovereign and I don't see why the government would want to get involved.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #3078  
Old 03-19-2017, 02:36 PM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 2,363
Quote:
Originally Posted by Osipi View Post
In a
No mention of the "intended" Princess Consort. Although, from comments here at TRF, this article was swiped verbatim just about from the Guardian, being the Daily Mail, I but as time passed and Camilla found her footing in her royal role and carried them out with grace and warmness, perhaps she as well as the people have come to realize that she'd make one heck of a fantastic Queen at Charles' side.
I think that simply people don't care any more. yes there will be some diehard Diana fans who will but most wont. I think that they wil just go on saying nothing, until after the passing of the queen and then Charles and Camilla will be known as King and QUeen and be on for a coronation in due course. But if they are asked again, I think they'll give vague answers, as they have done before...
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #3079  
Old 03-19-2017, 02:41 PM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Pittsburgh, United States
Posts: 2,688
Quote:
Originally Posted by Osipi View Post
In a recent article that was posted in another thread, it gives details of what is to happen when the time comes and the Queen passes. One section reminded me of this discussion and found it interesting that it stated:

"King Charles is currently expected to introduce Queen Camilla at his Accession Council on D+1. On that day, too, Westminster Hall will be locked, cleaned and its stone floor covered with 1,600 yards of carpet, ready for the lying-in-state. Candles, their wicks already burnt in, will be brought over from the Abbey."

Operation London Bridge: Plans for the Queen's death | Daily Mail Online

No mention of the "intended" Princess Consort. Although, from comments here at TRF, this article was swiped verbatim just about from the Guardian, being the Daily Mail, I half expected a hue and cry in the comment section about Queen Camilla. From what I scanned over, not a mention so in and of itself, that is a good sign. I do think Camilla will be presented as Queen Consort and the whole matter of the "intended" Princess Consort dropped. The reasoning behind the intention may have been sound and logical back in 2005 but as time passed and Camilla found her footing in her royal role and carried them out with grace and warmness, perhaps she as well as the people have come to realize that she'd make one heck of a fantastic Queen at Charles' side.
Clarence House has already refuted that article as nonsense, In any case, it is extremely unlikely that Charles would use his accession speech, i.e. his first act as king, to talk about Camilla's title.

The official position remains that Camilla is intended to be known as HRH The Princess Consort and I don't see any credible evidence that Charles has backed down from that statement, or that he can realistically change it after sticking with it for so many years.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #3080  
Old 03-19-2017, 03:07 PM
hel hel is offline
Nobility
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Location: Kitchener, Canada
Posts: 415
Quote:
Originally Posted by Daenerys Targaryen View Post
I agree totally re: Charles not setting off with an outright admission of a manipulation/lie. But some of this may be moot. Camilla's family is not as long lived as the female Windsors. If QEII enjoys the longevity of her mother, Camilla would be into her 80's at the time of Charles' ascension
As DT points out, there is a reasonable chance that Charles will be ascending the throne as a twice-widowed man, as sad as that is. So I personally can't get that invested in the outcome of a decision that may not even be necessary.
__________________

__________________
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