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
 
  #741  
Old 08-10-2011, 01:28 AM
Aliza's Avatar
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Tel Aviv, Israel
Posts: 254
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tyger View Post
I'm not sure I'm really getting your point. For example: the Queen had sex - we know that because she had 4 children. Did her having sex and having an intimate life with chit-chat impact the perception of her reign? No.

I don't get it. The Charles and Camilla tape was no one's business and I think most people get that - and feel sympathy for them - for any 'celebrity' who has their sex life dragged into the public eye for scrutiny and - I like the work - cackle. Voyeurism!

I don't think anyone judges anyone for sex stuff. Is the public like children who hear about sex for the first time and cannot believe their parents 'did that'? Do you really believe people in general are that 'innocent' these days? I really do not think most people give it a second thought.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tyger View Post
I'm not sure I'm really getting your point. For example: the Queen had sex - we know that because she had 4 children. Did her having sex and having an intimate life with chit-chat impact the perception of her reign? No.

I don't get it. The Charles and Camilla tape was no one's business and I think most people get that - and feel sympathy for them - for any 'celebrity' who has their sex life dragged into the public eye for scrutiny and - I like the work - cackle. Voyeurism!

I don't think anyone judges anyone for sex stuff. Is the public like children who hear about sex for the first time and cannot believe their parents 'did that'? Do you really believe people in general are that 'innocent' these days? I really do not think most people give it a second thought.
The difference between HM and the PoW is that the PoW was engaged in an adulterous affair at the time of his "chit chat" with his also-married mistress, while the Queen was married, took her vows to heart and indeed has never had even a breath of scandal around her intimate life. It will be sixty-five years this November since she married the DoE and I don't believe HM ever engaged in salacious chatting with any man who was not her husband. (Actually, I can't imagine HM engaging in any sort of that phone chat with even Philip, )

I must disagree with you on the perception that the public "does not give a second thought" about what you term "sex stuff". Remember Monica Lewinsky and President Clinton? Again, the adultery word and the privileges of high office figure into that scenario. The public claimed not to be outraged over most of it, but they certainly spent plenty of extra time watching programmes about it and buying newspapers, magazines, and books about the Oval Office goings-on.

I believe I've already averred that I concur that the "Camillagate" tapes were not the public's business; the point, however, is that they were put in the public domain, read avidly, joked about avidly (and continue to be so, look at YouTube, for instance) and now they form a rather large part of the image people of an age to remember have of the PoW.

As I pointed out in a previous post, one only has to go to the threads on this very forum that deal with Prince Albert and Princess Chalrlene of Monaco to see that interest in voyeurism has not declined, to put it mildly. Several times, I personally posted that it needed to stop. Whatever goes on in private between the two of them is none of their business, but people are merrily posting about contracts to conceive children, methods to conceive, nighties, which one is staying at which hotel, etc. That situation actually convinced me that the PoW will carry this baggage with him to the beginning of his reign; it is up to him and the media - as well as the public - to see the issue relegated to the past, as indeed it should be.

You chose a great word, and loved the *cackle* but I do think, IMHO, that voyeurism is rather like gossip on steroids and therefore is part of human nature in its less nice characteristics.

I also think that much of the world, especially less-developed areas of the Commonwealth, is not as jaundiced as the western-style (I'm Israeli, so while not technically "western", in reality we're a little America. nations. For example, some of the African countries or Muslim countries will have quite a different take on all of this than we did and do.

Of course, this assumes he will become Head of the Commonwealth, which is not an automatic hereditary office.

Australian politicians, in particular, have been surprisingly blunt about where they stand on another slightly related issue: Keeping the Monarch of the UK as the Australian Head of State. Several have said they will use the ascension to the Throne of Charles to "break the bond" as they do not have the love for him that they do for his mother. One reason often cited is the "Charles/Diana/Camilla debacle" and "that tape with Camilla" (remember it was first published in Australia). Perhaps they are using those reasons as political flummery, I don't know.

Again, I agree with you in principle, that it should not affect Charles as king, but where we differ is that I think human nature will assure it has some affect on the perception of both Charles and Camilla, particularly at the beginning of his reign. I hope I am wrong.

I hope I have clarified what I didn't explain in my last post; it is GMT+2 here and I still haven't been to bed. Hope you have a better night.
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #742  
Old 08-10-2011, 02:05 AM
Courtier
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 802
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aliza View Post
Australian politicians, in particular, have been surprisingly blunt about where they stand on another slightly related issue: Keeping the Monarch of the UK as the Australian Head of State. Several have said they will use the ascension to the Throne of Charles to "break the bond" as they do not have the love for him that they do for his mother. One reason often cited is the "Charles/Diana/Camilla debacle" and "that tape with Camilla" (remember it was first published in Australia). Perhaps they are using those reasons as political flummery, I don't know.
Australian republicans want an Australian based Head of State, whether it's the Queen or one of her heirs is immaterial. The reason given for now waiting for the Queen's death is the fact that that republican support has been consistently dropping in Australia and currently it's at it's lowest in 16 years. An Australian republic is not seen as vital when there are far more important issues affecting Australia. Republicans hope that with the death of the Queen, the new era would affect Australians by having a republic, since the whole republican debate has died. Even the Australian Prime Minister who is a republican, has said there is no push for a republic now so perhaps there will be one when the Queen dies.

As someone who actually lives in Australia I can tell you quite adamantly that the reason NEVER given as to why Australia should become a republic is the Charles/Camilla/Diana triangle and the taped conversation is pretty much forgotten here. People do have lives that don't revolve around tabloid trash. Australians are also not moralistic we've had Prime Ministers who have cheated on their wives, the current Prime Minister is unmarried, lives with her (male) partner in the official residence, is a self pronounced atheist. (She's not popular but that's because of her government's policies not her personal life!) The personal lives of royals are immaterial as to whether or not they remain Australia's Head of State.

Charles is actually quite popular in Australia due to the time he spent here as a teenager.

The Camillagate tapes were first released and published by an Australian magazine to get around British privacy laws. The press could not publish them in the UK so, they were given to an Australian magazine who published the transcript (few Australians would even remember!) and then the British media could report the story 'tapes published in Australian magazine'.

You make the assumption that people generally are moralistic, they are not. Charles would not be the only current in the modern era to have cheated on his (first) wife. King Albert of Belgium fathered an illegitimate daughter, King Juan Carlos of Spain had a 16 year affair (now finished) Even King Carl Gustav of Sweden it emerged this year had an affair in the 1990s. Kings Albert and Juan Carlos are VERY well respected in their countries, it's still early days from the last lot of disclosures on Carl Gustav to see whether he gets back the respect he lost.
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #743  
Old 08-10-2011, 02:23 AM
Aliza's Avatar
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Tel Aviv, Israel
Posts: 254
Quote:
Originally Posted by Charlotte1 View Post
Australian republicans want an Australian based Head of State, whether it's the Queen or one of her heirs is immaterial. The reason given for now waiting for the Queen's death is the fact that that republican support has been consistently dropping in Australia and currently it's at it's lowest in 16 years. An Australian republic is not seen as vital when there are far more important issues affecting Australia. Republicans hope that with the death of the Queen, the new era would affect Australians by having a republic, since the whole republican debate has died. Even the Australian Prime Minister who is a republican, has said there is no push for a republic now so perhaps there will be one when the Queen dies.

As someone who actually lives in Australia I can tell you quite adamantly that the reason NEVER given as to why Australia should become a republic is the Charles/Camilla/Diana triangle and the taped conversation is pretty much forgotten here. People do have lives that don't revolve around tabloid trash. Australians are also not moralistic we've had Prime Ministers who have cheated on their wives, the current Prime Minister is unmarried, lives with her (male) partner in the official residence, is a self pronounced atheist. (She's not popular but that's because of her government's policies not her personal life!) The personal lives of royals are immaterial as to whether or not they remain Australia's Head of State.

Charles is actually quite popular in Australia due to the time he spent here as a teenager.

The Camillagate tapes were first released and published by an Australian magazine to get around British privacy laws. The press could not publish them in the UK so, they were given to an Australian magazine who published the transcript (few Australians would even remember!) and then the British media could report the story 'tapes published in Australian magazine'.

You make the assumption that people generally are moralistic, they are not. Charles would not be the only current in the modern era to have cheated on his (first) wife. King Albert of Belgium fathered an illegitimate daughter, King Juan Carlos of Spain had a 16 year affair (now finished) Even King Carl Gustav of Sweden it emerged this year had an affair in the 1990s. Kings Albert and Juan Carlos are VERY well respected in their countries, it's still early days from the last lot of disclosures on Carl Gustav to see whether he gets back the respect he lost.
I must ask your understanding until tomorrow evening for me to provide the links and names for the assertions I made about Australian politicians. I assure you I did not invent this out of thin air. I can't seem to access the books I was using a week or two ago when I came across this, but I have been up for almost twenty four hours straight!

My husband and I lived in Sydney for five years and honestly, I never heard too much pro or con about any of the BRF; seemed like a non subject in our circles, anyway.

If you read my post carefully, you'll see I make a distinction between developed countries and non westernized or non developed countries. Members of the Commonwealth with strong Muslim populations and/or strong Christian populations are possibly inclined to view matters differently and are more moralistic than Europeans, for certain. For that matter, I find Americans much more moralistic than Canadians and definitely more than Europeans.

Again, I hope Charles gets his fresh start. Diana is dead and life is meant to be lived. He is now happily married and deserves a chance to make what he will out of his reign when it comes. I guess I'm not expressing myself clearly because I am not expressing my personal views on the perception "problem" or "non problem" when he ascends the Throne. I am commenting on human nature and IMHO, it is voyeuristic and it will be remembered in a negative context. Particularly by the over forty generation. (I'm in my thirties, have been a teacher for many years and see quite clearly how moralism and morality itself have both declined in the "western world", IMHO - to our detriment.

Have a wonderful day; Australia is an amazing country and we absolutely adored our time there. In fact, my husband prefers it to the United States, where we have also been stationed.

In your opinion, will Charles be maintained as Head of State of Australia and do you think he will become Head of the Commonwealth? I think the second question in particular will have great influence in whether his reign will be seen to have great beginnings or not. I do hope it's the former case.
Reply With Quote
  #744  
Old 08-10-2011, 02:24 AM
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: alpine village, Germany
Posts: 1,868
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aliza View Post
One of his "accomplishments" that will be well remembered into his reign will be his desire to be reincarnated as a tampax or anything else that would "allow him to live in *Camilla's* knickers.
I personally think it is grossly unfair to accuse Charles because of information which comes from some sort of hacking into a very private phone call. I'm not interested in Charles' erotic fantasies because they are not something I should know about. And to reduce this man who has done so much for his country to this very private wish tells a lot about what one wishes for in a king: not a good monarch but one who is erotically "mainstream". What criteria!
Reply With Quote
  #745  
Old 08-10-2011, 02:40 AM
Aliza's Avatar
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Tel Aviv, Israel
Posts: 254
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kataryn View Post
I personally think it is grossly unfair to accuse Charles because of information which comes from some sort of hacking into a very private phone call. I'm not interested in Charles' erotic fantasies because they are not something I should know about. And to reduce this man who has done so much for his country to this very private wish tells a lot about what one wishes for in a king: not a good monarch but one who is erotically "mainstream". What criteria!
Once more; this is not my opinion. I think it is human nature that this memory of Camillagate will be a hindrance to his reputation at the start of his reign. That is very different from using it as my criterion for what makes a good king. Over and over I have repeated that I think it is wrong that transcript was published, that it should not be held against him and that I hope he will be given the chance to start his reign without any of that hanging round his neck like an albatross.

But the fact remains that this conversation was published and many people remember and it influences, rightly or wrongly, their opinions about Charles. I do not happen to belong to that group of people as I have amply made clear in several posts on this thread.

While I wish HM The Queen to have an extremely long life and reign (same thing in HM's case, I believe), I do not want Charles passed over for William like some people do; I firmly believe he can be a good king depending on the decisions he makes. A good PoW does not necessarily make a good king as can be seen with Edward VIII. But Charles has done much good and deserves a chance to continue to do so as King.

I don't mean to be offensive to anyone, including you - but I sincerely hope this makes my position clear and anyone doubting my word should read all of my posts on this subject prior to jumping all over me for an opinion I don't even hold. And if I did hold that opinion, it would be my right and this could be a civilized debate; isn't that the whole point of forums? To exchange different opinions?
Reply With Quote
  #746  
Old 08-10-2011, 02:49 AM
PrincessKaimi's Avatar
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Hilo, Malibu, United States
Posts: 1,328
It will be interesting to see if there's any revival of Camillagate upon Charles's accession (if we all live so long). No way to know (I sort of doubt it, because in the time that has passed, people have gotten used to scandal - and they want fresh scandal, not old scandal).

My two daughters have absolutely no recollection of the event, and if they found out about it now, I think it would occupy a nanosecond of their thinking about the BRF.
Reply With Quote
  #747  
Old 08-10-2011, 03:11 AM
MARG's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Christchurch, New Zealand
Posts: 6,053
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aliza View Post
But the fact remains that this conversation was published and many people remember and it influences, rightly or wrongly, their opinions about Charles. I do not happen to belong to that group of people as I have amply made clear in several posts on this thread.
And if, heaven forfend, memories fade with the passing of more than twenty years, there will be many people just like you to remind us of every sordid little detail. With good will to all and malice to none!
__________________
MARG
"Words ought to be a little wild, for they are assaults of thoughts on the unthinking." - JM Keynes
Reply With Quote
  #748  
Old 08-10-2011, 07:13 AM
olebabs's Avatar
Nobility
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Århus, Denmark
Posts: 283
We each have our past and nothing can change that. Upon his succesion to the throne, his life will be displayed in various documentaries. One hopes they don't bring up ALL the sordid detailes, but never the less it is part of who he is.
Reply With Quote
  #749  
Old 08-10-2011, 07:32 AM
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: alpine village, Germany
Posts: 1,868
Quote:
Originally Posted by olebabs View Post
We each have our past and nothing can change that. Upon his succesion to the throne, his life will be displayed in various documentaries. One hopes they don't bring up ALL the sordid detailes, but never the less it is part of who he is.
It was a story which made headlines because he was not married to Camilla back then, but now he is and I believe the reaction of lots of people here is an example of how these old intimacies between an elderly and now happily married couple are being viewed: old news and of no relevance to today's situation. And I doubt anyone will bring these "memories" back from the past once Charles is king because I do believe (or at least hope) that the media has respect of the office of the king, even if not for the man who holds this office.
Reply With Quote
  #750  
Old 08-10-2011, 07:37 AM
Commoner
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 19
When The Prince of Wales becomes King at the passing of Her Majesty. I hope at his Coronation he uses the Grand Robes and of course St Edward's Crown and not just uses his military uniform. For there has been talk of just his uniform. I also hope that the Duchess of Cornwall upon becoming Queen Consort...becomes Queen Consort and not Princess Consort and uses the Crown of Mary (Charles's great grandmother). I dont particularly like the Crown of the Queen Mother. And I hope he retains the traditional elements and customs of monarchy like Her Majesty The Queen.
Reply With Quote
  #751  
Old 08-10-2011, 06:38 PM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 10,197
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sam20045 View Post
When The Prince of Wales becomes King at the passing of Her Majesty. I hope at his Coronation he uses the Grand Robes and of course St Edward's Crown and not just uses his military uniform. For there has been talk of just his uniform. I also hope that the Duchess of Cornwall upon becoming Queen Consort...becomes Queen Consort and not Princess Consort and uses the Crown of Mary (Charles's great grandmother). I dont particularly like the Crown of the Queen Mother. And I hope he retains the traditional elements and customs of monarchy like Her Majesty The Queen.

He will keep some of the traditions but he will also change some of them - just as the Queen has done throughout her reign e.g. removing debutantes being presented to her at BP and adding the idea of garden parties there instead, the walkabouts, which we take for granted now weren't there when the Queen became Queen.

Charles will make changes because the institution of monarchy has evolved to meet the needs and desires of the people.

He will wear his uniform, of course but whether he wears any robes - who knows and does it really make a difference??
Reply With Quote
  #752  
Old 08-11-2011, 07:01 PM
Commoner
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Brooklyn, United States
Posts: 13
Should Prince Charles change his name when he becomes king?

Prince Charles would be Charles III when his mother dies, but I'd imagine Charles to be an unlucky name considering the last two. Would he take another name? Based on his full name, he could be Charles III, Philip I, Arthur I, or George VII. Philip would be a nod to his father, of course, but it isn't a very British name. Arthur would be obvious if he wanted to go for the ancient historical link to old Britain, but there's never been an Arthur before. George would be a good homage to his maternal grandfather and paternal great-grandfather, two previous kings, but the Georges have some bad luck too. What do you think, would he change his name?
Reply With Quote
  #753  
Old 08-12-2011, 07:11 AM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Melbourne & Sydney, Australia
Posts: 3,978
Quote:
Charles to be an unlucky name considering the last two.
And in response to that, I'd suggest anyone who considers the use of this name as an "omen" to move on and leave the past in the past. Should Charles himself be concerned by it, then that doesn't speak much about the man's ability to think logically and sensibly. It is his name and to use any other name which is not his own Christian name is just rediculous.

Also, I'd think it a great shame should he choose not to wear any robes at his coronation. By the Prince's own actions, he'll be setting a precedent for change that in the long run, I don't believe will benefit the monarchy in any real capacity.

What I fail to understand is why he should not wear them. If ever there should be an occasion to wear such finery, then surely it should be the day of his crowning. He could wear it once, be painted in them for a state portrait or two and then never wear them again.

I mean what next? Diamond tiara's will no longer be worn, orders shall be bestowed but never seen and royal carriages will only be viewed in a museum? Should red carpets be replaced by bare pavements and the royal box at the opera will make a "wonderful" intermission kiosk I'm sure!

Set about unecessary and trivial change for the purpose of PR and for all intents and purposes, it will only ever harm the institution. Currently, succession rights and sizing of the royal family are the only issues of importance that require change at some forseeable time, imo. To continue retaining the aesthetic majesty of the monarchy is vitally important for it's continued longevity. No one does pomp and ceremony like the British and as was seen with the Cambridge wedding, it sells the royal brand and sells it hard!

People will bitch, they always have, but when all's said and done there is a nationalistic pride that is at stake. Take elements of it away, and imo you dishonour the institution for it personifies the ritual of tradition and all the embellishments which are associated. It is these things which have captivated the curiosity of people far and wide for centuries and it is these things (whether deemed insignfication to some, or otherwise) which keep the magic alive.
__________________

"Dressing is a way of life" - Monsieur Saint Laurent
Reply With Quote
  #754  
Old 08-12-2011, 08:48 AM
MARG's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Christchurch, New Zealand
Posts: 6,053
I really can't see Charles being known as anything other than, well, Charles. At his age if they called him George (or whatever), he'd forever be looking around for George.

As for his coronation? Well you only have to look at his son's wedding where he wore his uniform with all it's accoutrement's. I hardly think he is likely to turn up in an unmarked car wearing a suit to his own coronation!

The BRF are fully aware of the supreme importance of such an occasion. I wouldn't mind betting the entire ceremony, from the Archbishop of Canterbury to the shine on his shoes has been planned down to the last detail with lot's of input from his parents. They all know that like his mother's funeral, his coronation is the passing of the baton from one generation to another and must be handled in the correct way for Britain and the Commonwealth to ensure a smooth transition.
__________________
MARG
"Words ought to be a little wild, for they are assaults of thoughts on the unthinking." - JM Keynes
Reply With Quote
  #755  
Old 08-12-2011, 08:52 AM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 10,197
Whatever his regnal name will be he will still be Charles to his family of course - or Pa or Uncle Charles or whatever.

The planning of his coronation has been well and truly planned by the Earl Marshal with regular updates - this is what the Earl Marshal does and he also has the records of earlier coronations at his fingertips.

The Earl Marshal (The Duke of Norfolk) is an hereditary position that includes the responsibilities for planning coronations and funerals in particular.

Every so often there are reports of what Charles is planning and people think he is trying to jump into his mother's shoes rather then the fact that he is simply reviewing what is currently planned so that it can come together in about a year.

This is the same with the Queen and Philip's funerals. They will have been planned in quite some detail and the Earl Marshal will have those plans.
Reply With Quote
  #756  
Old 08-12-2011, 09:16 AM
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: alpine village, Germany
Posts: 1,868
It will be interesting to see which name he chooses.

Charles III. , for the Jacobites, was Charles Edward Louis John Stuart, eldest son of James II./VII.'s only son and legitimate heir James Francis Edward Stuart.

James, his father, was born in St. James' Palace in 1688 as only son of the reigning king and his queen, thus he was Duke of Cornwall and Rothesay from birth. Only days after his birth, his father created him "The Prince of Wales" on 4. July 1688. His father lost his throne on 23. december 1688 when he fled England never to come back.

After James' death in 1766, Charles (aka Bonnie Prince Charlie") declared himself rightful king as Charles III. He died in 1788, leaving no legitimate children but only a brother who was a Roman Catholic priest and Cardinal in Rome.

So for "our" Charles to announce he will be known as Charles III. means that he is fully agreeing with the Act of Succession of 1701 because according to that Act there never was a Charles III. before. Deciding on George VII. would leave this question open.

I wonder what the queen thought when she named her heir Charles? And what does Charles think? Did he ever talk about this topic - Jacobite Succession?
Reply With Quote
  #757  
Old 08-12-2011, 09:25 AM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 10,197
How can he not fully approve of the Act of Settlement? Without it there were about 50 people with a better claim to the throne than George I and it is from that Act and that Act alone that the present royals claim the throne.

No Act of Settlement and there would be heaps of people ahead of Elizabeth II able to claim the throne - all the descendents of the older siblings of Sophia, Electress of Hanover along with the Jacobites.
Reply With Quote
  #758  
Old 08-12-2011, 09:26 AM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Melbourne & Sydney, Australia
Posts: 3,978
Quote:
I wonder what the queen thought when she named her heir Charles?
No doubt that that would be the regnal name her son would use when King.

The Queen doesn't strike me as being a superstitious woman with a fear of the past.

Forward thinking and sensible though, certainly.
__________________

"Dressing is a way of life" - Monsieur Saint Laurent
Reply With Quote
  #759  
Old 08-12-2011, 12:10 PM
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: alpine village, Germany
Posts: 1,868
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iluvbertie View Post
How can he not fully approve of the Act of Settlement? Without it there were about 50 people with a better claim to the throne than George I and it is from that Act and that Act alone that the present royals claim the throne.

No Act of Settlement and there would be heaps of people ahead of Elizabeth II able to claim the throne - all the descendents of the older siblings of Sophia, Electress of Hanover along with the Jacobites.
You think it would only be 50 persons? I doubt that as both daughters of Henriette Anne d'Orleans (daughter of Charles I.) and the children of her successor Elisabeth Charlotte d'Orleans (second wife of the duke d'Orleans and daughter of Sophia's eldest brother) alone were quite prolific. All current French pretenders from the Orleans-family have a better claim without the 1701 Act than Charles. And these are only the descendants of Philippe d'Orleans, the only son of the Duke d'Orleans. Then there were the girls.... Not the least Elisabeth Charlotte, who became the mother of Franz I. Stephan of Lorraine - thus all living Habsburg-Lothringens have a Jacobite claim before Charles....
Somehow I believe all other (catholic) Royals of Europe might have a better claim than the Windsors if it wasn't for the Act of Settlement...
Reply With Quote
  #760  
Old 08-12-2011, 12:14 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Edinburgh, United Kingdom
Posts: 3,502
I've no problems with "Charles the Third" as a regnal number - although I object to him actually becoming King.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monarchical_ordinal - lovely article...
__________________

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 in Greece Fireweaver The Royal Family of Greece 309 10-31-2016 06:54 PM
Monarchy vs Republic marian Royalty Past, Present, and Future 392 10-16-2016 10:14 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 05:06 PM




Popular Tags
ascot 2016 best gown best gown september 2016 best hat best outfit catherine middleton style coup d'etat crown prince haakon crown princess mary crown princess mary fashion crown princess mette-marit current events duchess of cambridge dutch state visit e-mail fashion poll grand duke jean greece haakon iceland kate middleton king abdullah ii king felipe king felipe vi king willem-alexander member introduction monarchy new zealand nobel gala norway november 2016 october 2016 opening of parliament picture of the week prince bernhard prince charles princess marie princess marie eveningwear princess mary princess mary daytime fashion princess mary eveningwear princess mary fashion princess mary hats queen elizabeth ii queen letizia queen letizia casual outfits queen letizia daytime fashion queen letizia fashion queen letizia style queen mathilde queen mathildes outfits queen maxima queen maxima casual wear queen maxima daytime fashion queen maxima fashion queen maxima hats queen maxima style queen rania royal fashion september 2016 sheikh hamdan bin mohammed state visit state visit to denmark succession sweden the duchess of cambridge the duchess of cambridge casual wear the duchess of cambridge daytime fashion the duchess of cambridge fashion the duchess of cambridge hats


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 03:17 AM.

Social Knowledge Networks

eXTReMe Tracker
Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2016
Jelsoft Enterprises