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
 
  #1401  
Old 02-05-2014, 04:06 AM
Broadway Duchess's Avatar
Gentry
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: Somewhere in America, United States
Posts: 68
IMO, stating that the Duchess of Cornwall would be known as Princess consort at the time of Charles' taking the throne was a PR measure taken to placate the people who felt that Camilla was somehow taking Diana's place. I don't think it was ever really intended to be serious. The palace was betting that HMQ would have the same longevity as her mother and that enough time would pass where cooler heads would prevail and Camilla's rightful title as Charles' wife would be honored. If the public still railed against it, there would be the Princess Consort title to keep the peace.

Honestly, we're getting close to 20 years since Diana's death. And whether or not Camilla "proved herself" as a productive member of the BRF (which she has) isn't the point. She is the wife of the heir; when he assumes the throne, she'll be queen. Period. It isn't a matter of "earned or unearned."

It's clear to me that Camilla just wanted to be married to Charles. She could have just continued a relationship with him without marriage and eliminated the pressures of royal life but she chose to go all in with him. I don't think it's a matter of her wanting the Princess Consort title so much as a) that's the line they've been spouting since 2005; b) the time when this will be relevant is hopefully some time off, long-lived as HM seems to be; and c) she just doesn't care all that much about being queen. Her priority is supporting her husband and that's admirable.

Long story short: Camilla will be queen. I just hope she is styled as such.
__________________

__________________
Reply With Quote
  #1402  
Old 02-05-2014, 05:13 AM
Nobility
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: pinner, United Kingdom
Posts: 424
Quote:
Camilla will be queen. I just hope she is styled as such.
*Here Here*
__________________

__________________
Reply With Quote
  #1403  
Old 02-15-2014, 08:37 PM
Queen Camilla's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Chicago, United States
Posts: 608
I second that.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #1404  
Old 02-15-2014, 08:52 PM
Dman's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Midwest, United States
Posts: 6,660
It's going to be interesting how everything will be addressed and how will things unfold when the time comes. I'm not looking forward to those moments because I think it's going to be one big headache for everybody involved but I hope once things calm down, Charles's succession will go down smoothly.
__________________
"If you are always trying to be normal you will never know how amazing you can be."

Dr. Maya Angelou
Reply With Quote
  #1405  
Old 02-15-2014, 08:54 PM
cepe's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 4,373
I truly want Camilla to be Queen but I've read that she doesn't want to be named as Queen Consort. If that is true then I hope she is persuaded to change her mind. Otherwise, that reason will be denounced as just an excuse and the haters will just say she is not good enough.

I know there will be dissenters but better to face them down and stand as Queen Consort beside your King. I think the majority will support her.
__________________

This precious stone set in the silver sea,......
This blessed plot, this earth, this realm, this England,
Reply With Quote
  #1406  
Old 02-15-2014, 09:48 PM
Gentry
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Perth, Australia
Posts: 88
Quote:
Originally Posted by cepe View Post
I truly want Camilla to be Queen but I've read that she doesn't want to be named as Queen Consort. If that is true then I hope she is persuaded to change her mind. Otherwise, that reason will be denounced as just an excuse and the haters will just say she is not good enough.

I know there will be dissenters but better to face them down and stand as Queen Consort beside your King. I think the majority will support her.

Agree totally. I have always liked her and the fact her and Charles seem so content together, it's heartwarming. They both deserve to be happy and at the end of the day the title should reflect the position.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #1407  
Old 02-15-2014, 10:39 PM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Atlanta, United States
Posts: 1,041
The Monarchy under Charles

To me, it is simple if Camilla is going to do the duties of a Queen Consort then she should be called Queen Consort . It would be different if she wanted to act like a private individual and not do royal duties like the Duchess of Kent did for several years later in her marriage.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #1408  
Old 02-15-2014, 11:17 PM
Royal_Royal's Avatar
Gentry
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: City, Denmark
Posts: 70
Quote:
Originally Posted by Skippyboo View Post
To me, it is simple if Camilla is going to do the duties of a Queen Consort then she should be called Queen Consort . It would be different if she wanted to act like a private individual and not do royal duties like the Duchess of Kent did for several years later in her marriage.
I think Her Royal Highness will perform the duties of Queen the same way she currently performs her duties of Princess of Wales.

Long story short: The Duchess of Cornwall will be a hard-working and devoted Queen.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #1409  
Old 02-16-2014, 12:14 AM
Gentry
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Reading, United Kingdom
Posts: 84
Quote:
Originally Posted by Broadway Duchess View Post
IMO, stating that the Duchess of Cornwall would be known as Princess consort at the time of Charles' taking the throne was a PR measure taken to placate the people who felt that Camilla was somehow taking Diana's place. I don't think it was ever really intended to be serious. The palace was betting that HMQ would have the same longevity as her mother and that enough time would pass where cooler heads would prevail and Camilla's rightful title as Charles' wife would be honored. If the public still railed against it, there would be the Princess Consort title to keep the peace.

Honestly, we're getting close to 20 years since Diana's death. And whether or not Camilla "proved herself" as a productive member of the BRF (which she has) isn't the point. She is the wife of the heir; when he assumes the throne, she'll be queen. Period. It isn't a matter of "earned or unearned."

It's clear to me that Camilla just wanted to be married to Charles. She could have just continued a relationship with him without marriage and eliminated the pressures of royal life but she chose to go all in with him. I don't think it's a matter of her wanting the Princess Consort title so much as a) that's the line they've been spouting since 2005; b) the time when this will be relevant is hopefully some time off, long-lived as HM seems to be; and c) she just doesn't care all that much about being queen. Her priority is supporting her husband and that's admirable.

Long story short: Camilla will be queen. I just hope she is styled as such.
The reason why it was announced -formally, let's not forget- by the palace at the event of Charles and Camilla's wedding (which after all was not that long ago) that she would be styled Princess Consort when he becomes king may have been whatever it may have been -a sincere statement or one reasoned as you describe above. The heart of the matter is, it was official -and as official as it could be. Nothing has officially retracted it since. And nothing can do it. If the palace said so -when they had every expectation as you say that Elizabeth will live long-, it stays, whatever the reason for saying it might have been. It's a matter of dignity and decency for them to stick to it. If they don't, it's just going to hurt enormously the monarchy and Charles' reign -alas in a manner that will show in further depth of time. I really hope they don't. And if those who wish the best for Charles' reign want to be of any of use of him, I hope they don't advise him otherwise.
Camilla as Princess Consort will formally be the woman standing next to the King. And she can be as good and helpful consort to him as Albert was to Victoria. It's stupid to risk the seriousness of a whole insitution for something more than that -this is good enough already. For God's sake, people who easily voice opinion otherwise, should simply lend an ear to the arguments of the republicans on the matter...
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #1410  
Old 02-16-2014, 12:19 AM
Royal_Royal's Avatar
Gentry
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: City, Denmark
Posts: 70
Quote:
Originally Posted by tamta View Post
The reason why it was announced -formally, let's not forget- by the palace at the event of Charles and Camilla's wedding (which after all was not that long ago) that she would be styled Princess Consort when he becomes king may have been whatever it may have been -a sincere statement or one reasoned as you describe above. The heart of the matter is, it was official -and as official as it could be. Nothing has officially retracted it since. And nothing can do it. If the palace said so -when they had every expectation as you say that Elizabeth will live long-, it stays, whatever the reason for saying it might have been. It's a matter of dignity and decency for them to stick to it. If they don't, it's just going to hurt enormously the monarchy and Charles' reign -alas in a manner that will show in further depth of time. I really hope they don't. And if those who wish the best for Charles' reign want to be of any of use of him, I hope they don't advise him otherwise.
Camilla as Princess Consort will formally be the woman standing next to the King. And she can be as good and helpful consort to him as Albert was to Victoria. It's stupid to risk the seriousness of a whole insitution for something more than that -this is good enough already. For God's sake, people who easily voice opinion otherwise, should simply lend an ear to the arguments of the republicans on the matter...
They said it is intended that The Duchess of Cornwall would be called Princess Consort, so I think they simply opened a possibility and not settled the matter. There's still room for The Duchess of Cornwall be Queen, and that's what she should be, when we take law and tradition in consideration.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #1411  
Old 02-16-2014, 12:42 AM
Gentry
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Reading, United Kingdom
Posts: 84
Quote:
Originally Posted by Royal_Royal View Post
They said it is intended that The Duchess of Cornwall would be called Princess Consort, so I think they simply opened a possibility and not settled the matter. There's still room for The Duchess of Cornwall be Queen, and that's what she should be, when we take law and tradition in consideration.

"It is intended", in formal palace language shows -or is meant to show- decision, decisiveness. I don't see what other verb could be used anyway; they couldn't say "she will be called Princess Consort", because referring with such positivity to anything that lies in the future is inacurate, to say the least (one might not live to enter that position, or might divorce, or a number of other 'technical' possibilities that prohibit the use of such language of certainty..)
Furthermore, we all knew from day one that the legal framework for calling her queen had not and would not be changed; the initial announcement about the title intended to be used by her, thus, came despite that legal framework, or the existing tradition -and therefore, it is by all means a commitment superseding them.
I'll say it once again: Palace formal statements are not -supposed to be- diplomatic wishy-washy stuff. They are meant to be serious. It will only hurt the institution if they themselves come about as pretending they never occured, and will CERTAINLY contribute to the fading of the prestige of the family and the throne in the long run. Let's not pretend we can ignore the obvious.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #1412  
Old 02-16-2014, 12:48 AM
Royal_Royal's Avatar
Gentry
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: City, Denmark
Posts: 70
Quote:
Originally Posted by tamta View Post
Let's not pretend we can ignore the obvious.
Isn't not calling her Queen when the time comes ignore the obvious? Because the obvious is that the wife of the british King is Queen.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #1413  
Old 02-16-2014, 12:50 AM
cepe's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 4,373
Quote:
Originally Posted by tamta View Post
"It is intended", in formal palace language shows -or is meant to show- decision, decisiveness. I don't see what other verb could be used anyway; they couldn't say "she will be called Princess Consort", because referring with such positivity to anything that lies in the future is inacurate, to say the least (one might not live to enter that position, or might divorce, or a number of other 'technical' possibilities that prohibit the use of such language of certainty..)
Furthermore, we all knew from day one that the legal framework for calling her queen had not and would not be changed; the initial announcement about the title intended for her, thus, came despite that legal framework, or the existing tradition -and therefore, it is by all means a commitment superseding them.
I'll say it once again: Palace formal statements are not -supposed to be- diplomatic wishy-washy stuff. They are meant to be serious. It will only hurt the institution if they themselves come about as pretending they never occured, and will CERTAINLY contribute to the fading of the prestige of the family and the throne in the long run. Let's not pretend we can ignore the obvious.
It could be changed given a legal ruling; the title of Princess Consort does not exist currently. "Known as" Princess Consort is ambiguous. A legal debate could ensue.

Could we be in for a messy debate in parliament?

She is married to the heir to the throne; when he becomes king on the death of the existing monarch, his wife automatically becomes Queen Consort.

Is the answer that this is her preference, but legally now advised it is not possible

So many questions. All in all, we could be in for a bumpy ride one way or the other.
__________________

This precious stone set in the silver sea,......
This blessed plot, this earth, this realm, this England,
Reply With Quote
  #1414  
Old 02-16-2014, 02:43 AM
Roslyn's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Tintenbar, Australia
Posts: 2,629
I've just arrived home from a day trip to a very hot Brisbane, and therefore it is possible that my brain has been addled by the heat, but right now I am of the view that the tradition that wives take their husband's styles and titles is just that: a tradition. A tradition is not law, and traditions can change. Nowhere is it stated in UK legislation that a wife must do that, and since the monarch is the fount of all honours it is my belief that once he becomes king Charles can issue Letters Patent declaring that henceforth Camilla shall be known as HRH The Princess Consort.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #1415  
Old 02-16-2014, 04:07 AM
Gentry
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Perth, Australia
Posts: 88
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roslyn View Post
I've just arrived home from a day trip to a very hot Brisbane, and therefore it is possible that my brain has been addled by the heat, but right now I am of the view that the tradition that wives take their husband's styles and titles is just that: a tradition. A tradition is not law, and traditions can change. Nowhere is it stated in UK legislation that a wife must do that, and since the monarch is the fount of all honours it is my belief that once he becomes king Charles can issue Letters Patent declaring that henceforth Camilla shall be known as HRH The Princess Consort.

Yeah...... I do wonder however if this type of move sets a precedence that breaks with tradition and relies solely on a popularity contest. Will this be a case of the 'Diana Camp' verses the 'Camilla Camp'. If we are going purely on tradition where does that leave us?
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #1416  
Old 02-16-2014, 05:24 AM
MARG's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Christchurch, New Zealand
Posts: 3,976
I fear you are correct. Should Camilla be named "Princess" Consort it will open the whole ugly mess again because it will have to happen at the moment of the Queen's Death.

So, instead of a show of British stoicism, dignity whereby the Queen is mourned and buried with all the tradition inherent in the passing of a monarch, as she should be, the whole focus will be on "lets chuck out the entire history of the British Monarchy and mess around with the title of the King's Consort because, well, some people think she shouldn't be Queen because, you know, nudge, nudge, wink, wink, she has to be seen to be being punished, for all that, you know . . .

What a shameful sight will the UK be, laughed at and scorned because they are disrespectful of the passing of HM and more interested in placating some very distasteful people. The entire history of the British Monarchy changes at that moment. Tradition is no longer revered and adhered to, and sets the entire RF on a new course. Is it just Camilla that is to be relegated to Princess Consort, or Catherine and later, George's wife?

Expecting Charles first act as Monarch to be the signing of a letter of patent to strip his wife of her rightful title is unbelieveable. The first thing he, the rest of the BRF and the government should be doing is seeing to a very large, very dignified State Funeral and time of State Mourning with all it's inherent tradition, pomp and circumstance.

Anything less would be disrespecting the passing of a beloved Mother and Monarch, a truly unique and remarkable woman and an institution. It will also make the the BRF seem small and petty, seeming to fly in the face of maintaining the very institution that both Queen Elizabeth and her father, King George VI dedicated their lives to restoring and maintaining.

And in Europe the only King without a Queen will be Charles. A truly outstanding achievement and somewhat dubious honour.
__________________
MARG
"Words ought to be a little wild, for they are assaults of thoughts on the unthinking." - JM Keynes
Reply With Quote
  #1417  
Old 02-16-2014, 05:34 AM
Nobility
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: pinner, United Kingdom
Posts: 424
The one 'cast iron' way to settle this thorny issue, [and irrevocably silence the doubters] is for the present Queen [with all her enormous gravitas and accumulated prestige] to announce that Camilla WILL make a fine Queen when the time comes..
How she might phrase this is something she, the prime Minister and their advisors could best decide, but it seems to me that this would be the easiest way to ensure a smooth succession for Charles and his rightful Queen, when the time comes.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #1418  
Old 02-16-2014, 06:42 AM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 8,444
Just a note - it was made clear in 2005 that for Camilla to be Princess Consort instead of Queen Consort legislation would be needed as the British don't recognise morganatic marriages and to have her with any other title would mean exactly that. They weren't the exact words used but it was the PM of the day who said legislation would be needed (and possibly not only in the UK but in the other realms where the BRF and not just the monarch actually holds official rank). So the first act of the new reign will be Parliament having to meet to pass the legislation to strip her of a title and downgrade her - and what happens if one of the other realms that has to do so doesn't do so - she is Queen in one realm and Princess Consort in another. Given how long they are taking to pass the Succession to the Crown Act that one would raise a whole new set of problems in the relevant realms.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #1419  
Old 02-16-2014, 08:14 AM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Atlanta, United States
Posts: 1,041
The Monarchy under Charles

In hindsight, it seem that they should have just not made the princess consort remarks at the time of the wedding.

If they really want to use the Princess title (I'm not not sure that they want to), could not Charles issue LPs making Camilla a Princess of the UK in her own rite? Then she chooses to use this title instead of Queen. Not actually strip the title but give a secondary one like it is now.

I imagine that when the time comes, William will refer to Camilla as Queen to his father's King. It would cut out the arguments from the Diana faction , if her son doesn't have a problem with it.

It boils down to what Charles and Camilla really want -King and Queen?
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #1420  
Old 02-16-2014, 09:32 AM
Dman's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Midwest, United States
Posts: 6,660
I don't think Charles, Camilla, palace officials, Parliament and even the royal family are looking forward to dealing with this situation. I think they must be dreadding the moment when this problem arise, which they know is getting closer to happening than ever before.
__________________

__________________
"If you are always trying to be normal you will never know how amazing you can be."

Dr. Maya Angelou
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 287 08-24-2014 07:56 AM
Monarchy vs Republic marian Royalty Past, Present, and Future 327 06-12-2014 06:11 PM
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
abdication 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 duchess of cambridge dutch royal history fashion grand duchess maria teresa grand duke henri hohenzollern infanta leonor infanta sofia jordan king abdullah ii king carl xvi gustav king felipe king felipe vi king harald king juan carlos king philippe king willem-alexander luxembourg olympic games ottoman poland pom prince albert prince albert ii prince carl philip prince constantijn prince felipe prince floris prince pieter-christiaan princess aimee princess alexia (2005 -) princess anita princess ariane princess beatrix princess catharina-amalia princess charlene princess claire princess laurentien princess letizia princess mabel princess madeleine princess margriet princess marilene princess mary queen letizia queen mathilde queen maxima queen rania queen silvia queen sofia royal russia sofia hellqvist spain state visit sweden visit wedding winter olympics 2014



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 02:49 AM.

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]