The Royal Forums Coat of Arms

Go Back   The Royal Forums > Reigning Houses > British Royals

Join The Royal Forums Today
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #561  
Old 04-25-2011, 11:51 AM
MRSJ's Avatar
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: ******, United States
Posts: 1,844
Quote:
Originally Posted by Osipi
. He may declare by letters patent and parliament approval that his wife be styled as "Gramma Milla"
Hahahaha- gramma milla .....That's funny ROFL :) :)
__________________

__________________
Reply With Quote
  #562  
Old 04-25-2011, 11:44 PM
PrincessKaimi's Avatar
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Hilo, Malibu, United States
Posts: 1,325
Explain again why she wouldn't be Queen Consort, like the Queen Mum? Could she be - but won't, because Charles won't elevate her to that rank? Or is there some other reasons?

Yes, I'm slow at getting this. Right now, I'm under the impression that this has been decided so as to not aggravate people with a divorced Queen - as Camilla is already a divorced princess (and Charles a divorced prince) even though she doesn't use the title, beginning to use the title upon her husband's ascension to the throne would ease people into the usage, that's what I'm thinking. But she's doing such a great job as his consort now, I don't see why she shouldn't just be Queen Camilla.

(Should I duck?)
__________________

__________________
Reply With Quote
  #563  
Old 04-25-2011, 11:47 PM
PrincessKaimi's Avatar
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Hilo, Malibu, United States
Posts: 1,325
Quote:
Originally Posted by dazzling View Post
I thought the Queen was the one who decided the titles unless the PM already knows what the Queen has decided & his answer was based on that.

About her becoming Queen, I don't think she should, I think King & Queen titles should be reserved to those who are born into it and not made upon it if that makes sense, like the fact Queen Victoria didn't make Albert King.
So you really don't think the Queen Mum should have been titled Queen? I can't imagine Tsar Nicholas not having Tsarina Alexandra. King Louis and Queen Marie Antoinette.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #564  
Old 04-26-2011, 12:23 AM
PrincessKaimi's Avatar
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Hilo, Malibu, United States
Posts: 1,325
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iluvbertie View Post
And in the week before the wedding the question was asked in Parliament if she would in fact be Princess of Wales and Queen Consort after the wedding and at the appropriate time. The relevant minister said 'Yes'.

So even if the intention was made known it was also made known that the only way she won't be Queen is for Parliament to strip her of the title and thus make the marriage a morganatic marriage - something they told Edward VIII wasn't possible in Britain.

Now before I hear that Edward was told that he couldn' marry a divorced woman that actually isn't correct. He was told that Wallis wasn't suitable and that being twice divorced with two ex-husbands still living was one reason but the government of the day knew full well that there was no law against a divorced Queen/King. They told the public a reason that they would swallow rather than cause a total constitutional crisis by admitting that the real reason they wanted the King to go was that he was totally unsatisfactory as a King. Had he been a good king and had a different divorced woman presented herself then the situation may very well have been different. Divorce was a social no-no at that time sure but there was no legal reason why a divorced woman couldn't be the wife of the King.
Good analysis, thank you very much. It's now history, but to hear it spoken about with familiarity is always interesting.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #565  
Old 04-26-2011, 04:08 AM
Duchess of Darwin's Avatar
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 215
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iluvbertie View Post
As the children of an earl they are also Lord and Lady as well as HRH Prince/Princess. As such they are using a lower styling like Camilla is using a different title to the main title of her husband.
Thanks. You learn something new everyday
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #566  
Old 05-17-2011, 08:34 PM
Nobility
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 442
If they plan to downsize the "Royal Family", who will perform all
the royal duties that are covered today including the Commonwealth?
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #567  
Old 05-17-2011, 11:24 PM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 8,427
Simply - if Beatrice and Eugenie aren't going to do the work currently done by the Gloucesters and Kents and even their own uncle and aunt then those duties won't be done by royals.

Very few duties actually get done in Commonwealth countries or the specific realms of the Commonwealth of which the Queen is monarch by actual royals anyway. e.g. Australia has had a short visit from William this year and will have the Queen here later this year for CHOGM and possibly William and Kate but if none of them came we would get along quite fine as we are without them doing any 'duties' here because they don't have any to do here. We have our state governors and the GG to do the official stuff and all the rest is creating roles for people that really could be done by anyone.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #568  
Old 05-18-2011, 12:37 AM
Courtier
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: everywhere, United States
Posts: 566
Could the government step in and reduce the royals or for that matter can they interfere with B & E's future? This could be the wrong thread, so if it is I apologize.

I have always thought that Harry would be great as a traveling ambassador for the Commonwealth. That could certainly take up a lot of his time and no one would have to wonder about his role in the family.

As for Charles' ideas we are all biased in some way based on who are favorites are. Edward's house situation is tricky as the Queen herself used to pay the rent of several people. She has stopped now but I guess since Edward his her son she might think of things differently. I wonder why the Queen would give such gifts when she knows people can't pay for it. Oh now I went off topic. Sorry I will leave it at that.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #569  
Old 05-18-2011, 03:34 AM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 8,427
Quote:
Originally Posted by jemagre View Post
Could the government step in and reduce the royals or for that matter can they interfere with B & E's future? This could be the wrong thread, so if it is I apologize.
Yes the Parliament could decide to pass legislation limiting who is royal and who isn't.

In Britain Parliament is in control not the RF.

Quote:
I have always thought that Harry would be great as a traveling ambassador for the Commonwealth. That could certainly take up a lot of his time and no one would have to wonder about his role in the family.
But would the Commonwealth want someone in that role. Currently their isn't an Ambassodor for the Commonwealth and as the different countries have many different ideas on things it would be very hard for one person to attempt to represent monarchies, republics, Christian and non-Christian countries, third world and first world countries, countries that allow equal rights for everyone and some that don't etc.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #570  
Old 05-19-2011, 02:44 AM
Courtier
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: everywhere, United States
Posts: 566
Thanks for the info. As for the commonwealth role, the Queen still does a lot for it and Charles is not automatically head of it when he becomes king so they could have a royal connection without a senior person. Edward is the Queen's representative to the games so it is not that far-fetched.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #571  
Old 05-19-2011, 03:06 AM
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: alpine village, Germany
Posts: 1,804
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iluvbertie View Post
Simply - if Beatrice and Eugenie aren't going to do the work currently done by the Gloucesters and Kents and even their own uncle and aunt then those duties won't be done by royals.

.
Sometimes I do wonder why the minor Royals do Royal duties at all. Most of the stuff is pretty boring anyway, then there is the time-consuming travel when the event is not in London. As for Royal PR: They are never recogniced for their work in the national papers anyway, must be glad to be mentioned in the Popplebury Examiner's local part... Okay, if a Royal gets bitten by a dog (or even better, as Camilla said, when a Royal bites a dog) then it might make the Daily Mail or the Telegraph but apart from extraordinary circumstances most Royal engagements are only mentioned in the Court Circular. While Pippa Middleton only needs a well-formed derriere to be in the news daily. That must suck.

Plus the parliament wants to pay less and less for the Royals, even though they grabbed the Crown Estate in exchange of the Civil List and now keep the surplus of the Crown Estate while not paying most Royals anymore. Ok, that is about to change but I'm sure once the financial situation of the RF has been cleared with them getting back part of the income of the Crown Estate instead of the Civil list we'll see an actual change when it comes to Royal duties.

But I doubt Charles thinks of it as a "downgrading" or "reducing" of the RF. Im sure he does not think of taking away Royal titles but he surely thinks about allowing most Royals to retire into their private lifes. Think Lady Ella Windsor: life as a journalist with a Royal background is much more fun than being on the Royal circuit opening hospital units in the deepest countryside. And I doubt Britain will change: the Windsors and the Mountbatten-Windsors will always be considered Royal and on top of society, HRH or not.

So why should they hang on to Royal duties when the "firm" does not reap the fruits of their work in form of public recognition while they could live their own life as they want on still being high society?
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #572  
Old 05-19-2011, 03:17 AM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 8,427
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kataryn View Post
Sometimes I do wonder why the minor Royals do Royal duties at all. Most of the stuff is pretty boring anyway, then there is the time-consuming travel when the event is not in London.
Because the Queen asked them to do so and because it is what royals do.

Quote:
As for Royal PR: They are never recogniced for their work in the national papers anyway, must be glad to be mentioned in the Popplebury Examiner's local part... Okay, if a Royal gets bitten by a dog (or even better, as Camilla said, when a Royal bites a dog) then it might make the Daily Mail or the Telegraph but apart from extraordinary circumstances most Royal engagements are only mentioned in the Court Circular. While Pippa Middleton only needs a well-formed derriere to be in the news daily. That must suck.
They do it because they have been asked to do so not for the PR.

Quote:
Plus the parliament wants to pay less and less for the Royals, even though they grabbed the Crown Estate in exchange of the Civil List and now keep the surplus of the Crown Estate while not paying most Royals anymore. Ok, that is about to change but I'm sure once the financial situation of the RF has been cleared with them getting back part of the income of the Crown Estate instead of the Civil list we'll see an actual change when it comes to Royal duties.
The Crown Estates, at the time that George III first surrendered them paid a lot more than just the expenses of the King but also funded large parts of the government - as they do today.

Quote:
But I doubt Charles thinks of it as a "downgrading" or "reducing" of the RF. Im sure he does not think of taking away Royal titles but he surely thinks about allowing most Royals to retire into their private lifes. Think Lady Ella Windsor: life as a journalist with a Royal background is much more fun than being on the Royal circuit opening hospital units in the deepest countryside. And I doubt Britain will change: the Windsors and the Mountbatten-Windsors will always be considered Royal and on top of society, HRH or not.

So why should they hang on to Royal duties when the "firm" does not reap the fruits of their work in form of public recognition while they could live their own life as they want on still being high society?


As for the 'royal duties' - I agree that they don't have to be done by royals but not because of the recognition factor - simply because it could be done by anyone - I mean does it really matter whether it is the Duke of Gloucester or the Mayor who opens the new wing of the hospital?
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #573  
Old 05-19-2011, 03:32 AM
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: alpine village, Germany
Posts: 1,804
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iluvbertie View Post

As for the 'royal duties' - I agree that they don't have to be done by royals but not because of the recognition factor - simply because it could be done by anyone - I mean does it really matter whether it is the Duke of Gloucester or the Mayor who opens the new wing of the hospital?
I tried to view it from the Royal's side: if they do such engagements they want something out of it and that is recognition and/or securing the monarchy by being present in the public eye. But the question is: how many of the Royals are needed for that aim and how many engagements do they have to fulfill? Once BP sold the idea that "downsizing" the RF is a way to bring in more democracy/ people-orientation to the monarchy and the people believe it, then the minor Royals can safely start living their lives as they want it.

EG Beatrice and Eugenie: they see how their cousins Wiliam and Harry are full-serving officers and still have to do as much Royal duties as possible in their free time. Both girls are students at the moment. Why should they want to become "working Royals" when they only got negative press so far? When they could lead a private life with an interesting job and enough free time to enjoy life at the top of the society pyramid?

And it is true: of course anyone in a certain position can open the local library or lay a wreath. So doing this is not even a guarantee for positive press or press at all. if the RF was a true business, they would have checked their efforts and their results decades ago and acted on the idea of optimization. As I see it, Charles will do that.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #574  
Old 05-19-2011, 04:10 AM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 8,427
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kataryn View Post
I tried to view it from the Royal's side: if they do such engagements they want something out of it and that is recognition and/or securing the monarchy by being present in the public eye.

Why do they need to want to get anything out of it?

Not everything we do is for what we get out of it. That is a shallow way of looking at things.

The older royals were raised, with Queen Mary very much in the picture and she drilled into her grandchildren that being royal came with responsibilities - that the privileged position they hold in society meant that they had to repay that society through duties.

The Queen Mum had the same attitude and passed that on to her children and grandchildren but the present Queen, her children and most particularly the spouses of those children have raised their children, William, Harry, Beatrice, Eugenie etc with the idea of living 'normal' lives rather than simply one of duty in return for privilege.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #575  
Old 05-19-2011, 05:51 PM
Vasillisos Markos's Avatar
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Crete, United States
Posts: 1,158
And didn't the royals, especially the Queen Mother, open hospital wings, go to bazaars, etc., as a way to promote various charities at a time when the public was needed to fund hospitals to keep them operating? The royal presence guaranteed publicity and crowd attendance which helped generate the funding. I think the Queen Mother deplored the nationalization of health care and enterprises and socialized medicine as taking away the unique character of many of these enterprises.

So, in addition to repaying a debt to society, the royals were also supporting a good cause.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #576  
Old 06-14-2011, 01:21 PM
Gentry
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Boston, United States
Posts: 56
I don't know if this is the right place to ask this question, but what will happen to (for lack of a better word, I'll call them) "peripheral royals" when Charles takes the throne? As his own, immediate family (the boys), will be "elevated" what happens to those like the Kents, Gloucesters, etc, (even his own siblings' children) who will be in a different relationship to the new monarch?

In watching all of the events over the past few days I was just wondering how things will change when Charles is King - do the garter knights change when the new monarch takes the throne? Will Camilla's children now participate, e.g.?

I'm not being too clear, but does anyone get what I'm asking? Not that I want QE to die at all, I'm just curious how things change from one monarch to the next. Who gets rotated in and out?
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #577  
Old 06-14-2011, 01:31 PM
Lumutqueen's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
Royal Blogger
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Carlton, York, United Kingdom
Posts: 17,105
I can pretty much be certain that Camilla's children will never participate in royal events.
__________________
We Will Remember Them.
Reply With Quote
  #578  
Old 06-14-2011, 01:41 PM
Gentry
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Boston, United States
Posts: 56
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lumutqueen View Post
I can pretty much be certain that Camilla's children will never participate in royal events.
That was my initial thought too, but weren't some of her grandchildren on the balcony at the trooping the color? So is it that far fetched that once Charles if king that he might want her children there as well (and the children were at the wedding, right?)? Actually, I just assumed some of those kids were her grandkids because I thought there was a picture with her and them on the balcony...but I guess that doesn't mean they were related.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #579  
Old 06-14-2011, 01:48 PM
Lumutqueen's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
Royal Blogger
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Carlton, York, United Kingdom
Posts: 17,105
The kids on the balcony were Eloise and Estella Taylor, Lady Margarita Armstong-Jones, Lady Louise Windsor, the Taylor boys were on the left hand side. Laura, Harry, Tom, Sara and their children are not royal and are not in line to the throne. They are there own people, private citizens. Just with a future Queen Consort as their mum.
__________________
We Will Remember Them.
Reply With Quote
  #580  
Old 06-14-2011, 01:58 PM
Gentry
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Boston, United States
Posts: 56
Thanks, Lumutqueen! I know they aren't and won't become in line to the throne, I just wasn't sure how much Charles felt like their step father (i.e. how close they are) and whether or not he would then want to bring them into the fold at all once he is in charge of those kinds of decisions.

Do you know what will happen with the Kents and Gloucesters? Will they have to leave KP?

How about Beatrice and Eugenie? I know it's rumored (fact?) that the Queen said they will get regular jobs and not become FT working royals and while it seem more normal to see them at all these events this week as the grandchildren of the monarch...would that be the same when they are just the niece of the monarch? Or would they continue to attend everything since they are in line to the throne?
__________________

__________________
Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
british, camilla, charles of wales, duchess of cornwall, legacy, prince charles, prince of wales, titles


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
Monarchy vs Republic marian Royalty Past, Present, and Future 327 06-12-2014 06:11 PM
The Monarchy in Greece Fireweaver The Royal Family of Greece 283 01-29-2014 09:57 AM
The Monarchy after Elizabeth II ysbel British Royals 311 12-29-2012 04:36 PM
The Monarchy And The Media Alexandria Royal House of Norway 12 04-08-2004 04:06 PM




Additional Links
Popular Tags
birth charlene chris o'neill crown prince frederik crown prince haakon crown princess letizia crown princess mary crown princess mette-marit crown princess victoria current events diana engagement fashion genealogy grand duchess maria teresa grand duke henri habsburg hohenzollern infanta sofia jewellery jordan king abdullah ii king carl xvi gustav king felipe king felipe vi king harald king juan carlos king philippe king willem-alexander luxembourg olympics ottoman pom prince albert prince albert ii prince carl philip prince constantijn prince felipe prince felix prince floris prince pieter-christiaan princess princess alexia (2005 -) princess anita princess ariane princess beatrix princess catharina-amalia princess charlene princess laurentien princess letizia princess mabel princess madeleine princess margriet princess marilene princess mary princess of asturias queen letizia queen mathilde queen maxima queen paola queen rania queen silvia queen sofia royal russia sofia hellqvist spain state visit wedding william



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 11:21 PM.

Social Knowledge Networks

eXTReMe Tracker
Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2014
Jelsoft Enterprises

Royal News Delivered to your Email!

You can get the latest Royal News right in your inbox.

unsusbcribe at anytime with one click

Close [X]