The Royal Forums Coat of Arms


Join The Royal Forums Today
Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #3201  
Old 12-01-2017, 03:41 PM
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: England, United Kingdom
Posts: 1,780
Quote:
Originally Posted by Osipi View Post
One thing that has not been brought up along with the amount of working royals is that we don't know just how royal engagements will be scheduled and performed by the time William's children are old enough to take on the roles.

For instance, when Elizabeth became Queen in 1952, it took months for the Queen and Philip to visit other countries. Now, a royal engagement by a member of the British royal family can be done in Norway with being home in time for dinner. With the onset of instant communications and fast travel, global events can be scheduled and pulled off easily. Invictus Games is a prime example of this.

The days of individual, single visits to places to unveil plaques may even be fading into the sunset as more organizations band together under the umbrella of a royal foundation.

We just can't assume that the level and ways of engagements we have today for the working royals are going to be the same 30 years from now. We just have to look and see just how much our world has changed in the past 30 years and the differences that have come about because of those changes.

The bold part I whole heartedly agree with. Remember in the early days of the Queen's reign royal visits were often known as "tours" as they took so long. Also more countries were under 'British rule' therefore requiring more visits. For example Princess Alexandra represented the Queen for Nigeria's 1960s Independence. Bear in mind such events would probably have taken at least two weeks to attend, nowadays that could be done in 2-3 days jetting in and out. If you have a royal away for a month you need someone to take up the events at home.
__________________

  #3202  
Old 12-12-2017, 04:15 AM
Osipi's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: On the west side of North up from Back, United States
Posts: 11,158
My sister, M. Payton, sent me this link and I think it is well worth posting here.

https://www.historyofroyalwomen.com/...establishment/
__________________

__________________
I dream of a better tomorrow, where chickens can cross the road and not be questioned about their motives.

~~~Ralph Waldo Emerson~~~
  #3203  
Old 12-13-2017, 11:27 AM
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Chicago, United States
Posts: 1,629
I see the passing of the Queen as a benchmark for change for the Monarchy. The Queen and Prince Phillip did so much to restore the honor of the Monarchy after the events in the 1930's. The mess of everything in the 80's and early 90's, coupled with the handling of Diana's passing almost pushed it to the edge.

The Queen has been steadfast in her role. Charles...outspoken. His marriages had and have their challenges. The younger royals have grown up with a desire to be us but still be them.

I sometimes think in their goodhearted desire to be more open, William, Catherine and Harry have behaved along the lines of reality TV people, and not royals in the sense of one must not let the daylight in, so to speak.

I think a certain wedding has moved it closer to that sense of E! reality.........

I do also think you will see countries currently part of the Commonwealth may vote to leave after he becomes King.

One must still realize what the psychology of the what is "popular" and PC does not translate into an automatic acceptance being forced down peoples' throats.

I guarantee you changes are coming from other countries after she passes.

It is sadly in SOME respects to close to a Bravo or E! show.
  #3204  
Old 12-13-2017, 11:41 AM
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: May 2017
Location: Midwest, United States
Posts: 1,641
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lady Marmalade View Post

It is sadly in SOME respects to close to a Bravo or E! show.
I disagree--not even close for the past 20 years.
  #3205  
Old 12-13-2017, 11:43 AM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Location: Norfolk, United States
Posts: 2,798
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lady Marmalade View Post
The Queen has been steadfast in her role. Charles...outspoken. His marriages had and have their challenges. The younger royals have grown up with a desire to be us but still be them.

I sometimes think in their goodhearted desire to be more open, William, Catherine and Harry have behaved along the lines of reality TV people, and not royals in the sense of one must not let the daylight in, so to speak.
We have to remember that this letting the daylight in thing started with the Queen. I do think there are improvements that the younger generation has made in terms of talking about issues that weren't talked about before. The younger ones have not made it into a reality television by any means. I would say the reality television aspect of the royal family started well before the actual reality television with the War of Waleses. Charles is hugely unpopular due to the stiffiness he gives off at times and also his marriages. However, one thing I don't think he gets enough credit for is the work he has done as Prince of Wales. They seem to be taking a backseat because people aren't as interested in the mundanes of issues rather than the drama that is the royals' personal life.

I think even during the Queen's reign, there has been criticisms of her and how she runs of the monarchy, but she has adapted to a certain extent and has been around for so long that people nowadays have a lot of deference for her.
  #3206  
Old 12-13-2017, 12:28 PM
Lady Nimue's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: Pacific Palisades, United States
Posts: 4,002
Quote:
Originally Posted by jacqui24 View Post
We have to remember that this letting the daylight in thing started with the Queen.
Agree. It was the Queen in the late 1960's who began opening up the monarchy with that initial documentary. Charles continued to follow that lead with all the documentaries he allowed in the 1980's with his marriage to Diana. Even so, the openness still had a boundary. It was Diana who breached all boundaries and ran with an 'openness' with the media in a way the Queen (and Charles) never dreamed (I think we can safely say that). Wayyyy too much daylight was let in with Diana taking 'openness' to a full throttle extreme.

With William and Harry we now have a reverting to the privacy and closed aspect of the pre-documentaries days (so I would disagree with a previous poster on this). Would others agree? It is true that Harry exhibits more of his mother's tendency to use the media/public as a shoulder but I don't think the tabloid press coverage of William, Catherine and Harry (altogether) should be conflated with 'openness' by these three royals. If anything these three are far tighter with their privacy than Diana. JMO.
__________________
Russian National Anthem: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bGoNaLjQrV8
O Magnum Mysterium: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dWU7dyey6yo
  #3207  
Old 12-13-2017, 01:22 PM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Location: Norfolk, United States
Posts: 2,798
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lady Nimue View Post
With William and Harry we now have a reverting to the privacy and closed aspect of the pre-documentaries days (so I would disagree with a previous poster on this). Would others agree? It is true that Harry exhibits more of his mother's tendency to use the media/public as a shoulder but I don't think the tabloid press coverage of William, Catherine and Harry (altogether) should be conflated with 'openness' by these three royals. If anything these three are far tighter with their privacy than Diana. JMO.
I don't think Harry necessarily used the public as a shoulder. He talked about the issues he's had with his mom's death only after he's dealt with it. And it wasn't done to whine or do a poor me tour, but rather highlight and issue that he wants to improve on. He only shared his struggles to tell others it is ok to admit having this problem and seek help. As for the statement about Meghan, I saw that as more pushing back on quite disgusting coverage of his personal life rather than opening up his personal life. I think if the press had just outed that they were dating, and the thinly veiled headlines didn't happen, he would've just gotten on with it.
  #3208  
Old 03-09-2018, 06:01 PM
Majesty
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: *******, Canada
Posts: 6,986
“Prince Charles and Camilla's new website has removed statements saying she will be known as Princess Consort when he becomes King”

Read more: Queen Camilla: Duchess of Cornwall poised to get title as Princess Consort plan is 'ditched'
  #3209  
Old 03-09-2018, 06:29 PM
Courtier
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Bridgetown, Barbados
Posts: 962
I was an avid Princess Diana fan but goodness...the woman has been dead for more than 20 years! I have recently started to warm up to Charles and Camilla, especially with their support of Harry and Meghan. It's time that this nonsense ends...Camilla should be called the Princess of Wales and be the future Queen. end of story.
  #3210  
Old 03-09-2018, 07:34 PM
rominet09's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: LIEGE, Belgium
Posts: 3,867
Quote:
Originally Posted by Terri Terri View Post
I was an avid Princess Diana fan but goodness...the woman has been dead for more than 20 years! I have recently started to warm up to Charles and Camilla, especially with their support of Harry and Meghan. It's time that this nonsense ends...Camilla should be called the Princess of Wales and be the future Queen. end of story.
I totally agree with you ! And I have always felt this !
  #3211  
Old 03-09-2018, 07:44 PM
Dman's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Midwest, United States
Posts: 13,992
I think Camilla won over a lot of respect by not officially going by the title of Princess of Wales. She simply didn’t need to be addressed by that title. She very successfully carved out her own royal role under the title Duchess of Cornwall. A very smart move by a very smart cookie!!

By The Queen appointing the Duchess to Her Majesty’s Most Honourable Privy Council, I think it’s pretty obvious that Camilla is on her way to being Queen Consort.

The Mark Bolland campaign worked.
__________________
"WE CANNOT PRAY IN LOVE AND LIVE IN HATE AND STILL THINK WE ARE WORSHIPING GOD."

A.W. TOZER
  #3212  
Old 03-10-2018, 12:53 PM
Madame Verseau's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: Jul 2015
Location: Louisville, United States
Posts: 840
If you go by a recent poll there is still pushback by the public for Camilla to be queen consort. This news about the website looks like a trial balloon to test current attitudes, especially with Meghan and Harry on the scene. I wonder if all the stories of Camilla being a sounding board for Meghan and Kate for marrying into the BRF a PR effort to soften Camilla's image more?
  #3213  
Old 03-10-2018, 01:09 PM
Courtier
 
Join Date: Sep 2017
Location: jersey shore, United States
Posts: 771
She should be Queen.
  #3214  
Old 03-10-2018, 01:17 PM
Osipi's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: On the west side of North up from Back, United States
Posts: 11,158
I, for one, have always thought that as a married couple, when Charles becomes King, Camilla should be his Queen Consort. Its been the tradition of how things have been done for a very long time and to bring in the couple's private life and times and people's opinion on it just seems to be very wrong to me.

If the precedent is set with Camilla being Princess Consort (or anything other than Queen Consort), it would be something set into motion that would affect not only Camilla but also Kate and all future wives of Kings. To single out Camilla solely because "the public doesn't like her" is discriminatory and to me, persecuting a person for actions made in their private life.

I don't believe this will happen. It would rule out any woman in the future from being Queen Consort and, in that respect, tarnish the monarchy itself.
__________________
I dream of a better tomorrow, where chickens can cross the road and not be questioned about their motives.

~~~Ralph Waldo Emerson~~~
  #3215  
Old 03-10-2018, 01:43 PM
Courtier
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 846
Quote:
Originally Posted by Osipi View Post
I, for one, have always thought that as a married couple, when Charles becomes King, Camilla should be his Queen Consort. Its been the tradition of how things have been done for a very long time and to bring in the couple's private life and times and people's opinion on it just seems to be very wrong to me.

If the precedent is set with Camilla being Princess Consort (or anything other than Queen Consort), it would be something set into motion that would affect not only Camilla but also Kate and all future wives of Kings. To single out Camilla solely because "the public doesn't like her" is discriminatory and to me, persecuting a person for actions made in their private life.

I don't believe this will happen. It would rule out any woman in the future from being Queen Consort and, in that respect, tarnish the monarchy itself.
I wonder if this reluctance/hesitation regarding the queen consort title might also have to do with the perceived gender inequity of the male version of the Camilla conumdrum so famously objected to by the late Danish Prince Consort Henrik i.e. why can't men be kings when they marry a Queen
  #3216  
Old 03-10-2018, 01:49 PM
Gentry
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: East Coast, United States
Posts: 100
I think the spouse - whether male or female - should always be a lessor title than the monarch. So, just like Philip is Prince (Consort), so too should Camilla (and Kate and George's wife) be Princess Consort. In a sense, this is more equal - to keep the spouse's styling/title the same whether the monarch is male or female. Maybe a compromise could be to have the spouse created a prince/princess in their own right. So - again, as with Prince Philip - Camilla would become Princess Camilla and Kate would be Princess Catherine.

I also think it has been Charles's plan all along to have her crowned queen, so I don't appreciate what, to me, has been his sneakiness/dishonesty/manipulation about "oh no, she'll be princess consort, not queen" and then the little trial balloon comments like "we'll see" when someone asked him (and her) years ago about whether Camilla will be queen. I feel like if it was his wish and/or intention from the start then he should have been honest and fought for her to get the title he wanted and just taken whatever lumps came along with people being upset about it.

I think, in the end, she'll be styled queen consort. I don't really care all that much, but I don't like Charles's lying about it from the start (since I do think this was his plan all along, as I stated above).


Gerry - the male consort can't be style king because king outranks queen and you can't have the spouse outranking the monarch. Hence my argument that it is more equitable for all spouses (regardless of gender of the monarch) to be prince/princess.
  #3217  
Old 03-10-2018, 02:00 PM
Osipi's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: On the west side of North up from Back, United States
Posts: 11,158
I don't think Camilla's title when Charles is King has anything whatsoever to do with Prince Henrik's espousing he wanted to be king.

None of this title conundrum for Camilla would ever have come about if the War of the Wales wasn't such a public spectacle and the grand soap opera of the 80s and 90s. People took sides and declared camps and some of those people just cannot let that war go decades later.
__________________
I dream of a better tomorrow, where chickens can cross the road and not be questioned about their motives.

~~~Ralph Waldo Emerson~~~
  #3218  
Old 03-10-2018, 02:06 PM
Majesty
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: *******, Canada
Posts: 6,986
The Princess Consort was a fugazy from the start.

The darn thing about is its a problem of Charles own making. Polls show Camilla is liked but shouldn’t be Queen. Well it was CH who gave the public a ‘b’ option.

We’ve never had Princess Consorts. It would be a complete fabrication.

Unbelievably it’s the tabloids that now have the moral authority.

They can say “aha you lied for 13 years”.

For the record she’ll be Queen and deserves it simply by right of marriage.
  #3219  
Old 03-10-2018, 02:18 PM
Pranter's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Midwest, United States
Posts: 8,956
The fact that the heir to the throne was allowed to marry a divorcee with a living husband ...you can forget about the rest of the objections. Doesn't make much difference about her title. Just like the PoW issue..she IS the PoW she just does't use the title.


LaRae
  #3220  
Old 03-10-2018, 03:19 PM
Somebody's Avatar
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: Somewhere, Suriname
Posts: 1,376
I think it was a wise decision to have her be known as 'the Duchess of Cornwall' as the title 'Princess of Wales' was very much linked to Diana. However, Diana never was nor would have been if still alive Queen Diana, so I have never grasped why Camilla couldn't be known as queen.
__________________

Closed Thread

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 523 05-22-2018 02:06 PM
The Monarchy in Greece Fireweaver The Royal Family of Greece 310 04-09-2018 01:37 PM
Monarchies & Republics: Future and Benefits marian Royalty Past, Present, and Future 425 04-02-2018 05:12 PM
The Monarchy And The Media Alexandria Royal House of Norway 12 04-08-2004 04:06 PM




Popular Tags
camilla chris o'neill crown princess victoria current events denmark duchess of brabant family fashion general news germany grandchild hereditary grand duchess stéphanie hereditary grand duke guillaume hereditary princess sophie history infanta cristina infanta leonor infanta sofia iñaki urdangarín james bond king felipe king felipe vi king philippe king willem-alexander letizia meghan markle news nobel porphyria prince alexander prince charles prince daniel prince gabriel prince harry prince harry of wales prince louis prince nicholas prince oscar princess alexandra princess beatrice princess estelle princess leonore princess madeleine princess of asturias princess sofia princess victoria queen letizia queen letizia casual outfits queen letizia daytime fashion queen letizia fashion queen mary of teck queen mathilde queen mathilde daytime fashion queen maxima queen maxima daytime fashion queen maxima hats queen sofia royal ancestry royal geneology royal wedding spanish royal family events state visit stephanie sweden swedish royal family victoria visit from sweden wedding windsor castle working visit



Copyright 2002- Social Knowledge, LLC All Rights Reserved.

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 01:05 AM.

Social Knowledge Networks

eXTReMe Tracker
Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2018
Jelsoft Enterprises