The Royal Forums Coat of Arms


Join The Royal Forums Today
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #601  
Old 11-06-2014, 03:15 PM
Duc_et_Pair's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: City, Christmas Island
Posts: 5,920
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rudolph View Post
"the highest rank and dignity in the realm after her husband assigned to her by law"

So in Britain this is a Queen with the style of Majesty. The title of HRH The Princess Consort doesn't exist in common law. Even if Camilla were created a princess in her own right that doesn't make her Princess Consort. It makes her Princess Camilla. She will still be Queen
She can be created Princess-Consort, like was done earlier:

CHARLES THE THIRD by the Grace of God of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland King and Defender of the Faith,
To all to whom these Presents shall come Greeting:

Whereas We are desirous that Our most dearly beloved consort, the honourable lady Camilla Rosemary Mountbatten-Windsor née Shand should have and enjoy a distinctive title indicating her rank and station in Our United Kingdom by which she may in all places and on all occasions be designated and known.

Now therefore in testimony of the great affection which We bear towards Our said consort and in order to manifest the same to all other persons whomsoever We do by these Presents grant unto the said lady Camilla Rosemary Mountbatten-Windsor née Shand the Title and Dignity of Princess Consort to be held and enjoyed by her during Our joint lives in all places and on all occasions as her proper Title and Dignity And We do further of Our Royal favor and affection grant unto her, Our said Royal Consort, that by the said title of Princess Consort she shall have and enjoy the Rank, Place, Pre-eminence and Precedence directly after Us.

In Witness &c Witness &c

__________________

Reply With Quote
  #602  
Old 11-06-2014, 03:19 PM
KittyAtlanta's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: KittyLand Junction, United States
Posts: 3,126
Well, if that happens, I don't want any commoner wife of any future king to be queen. Seems only fair, doesn't it?
__________________

__________________
Yes, I said it. No, I won't apologize. Yes, I will say it again.
Reply With Quote
  #603  
Old 11-06-2014, 03:34 PM
KittyAtlanta's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: KittyLand Junction, United States
Posts: 3,126
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rudolph View Post
What I don't like is the seemingly cavalier attitude towards Camilla being Queen. When William decides to spend Christmas with the Middletons people pull their hair out as if the future of the monarchy depends on him being at Sandringham and yet here we have C&C thumbing their noses at hundreds of years of tradition and common law because of some PR stunt. I just don't get it
Ah HA!!!! The root emerges...

It's not about Charles and Camilla's possible title at all. It's about William and Catherine.
__________________
Yes, I said it. No, I won't apologize. Yes, I will say it again.
Reply With Quote
  #604  
Old 11-06-2014, 03:39 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: *******, Canada
Posts: 4,380
Duc_et_Pair - Under Common Law every wife of a British King has been a Queen. No exceptions in history.

The Constitution doesn't give Charles a choice in the matter
Reply With Quote
  #605  
Old 11-06-2014, 04:04 PM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 10,191
I am sure if George IV had had the ability to deny the title of Queen Consort to his wife he would have done so. He was able to lock her out of Westminster Abbey on his coronation day but he couldn't do anything to deny her the title of Queen and so she was from his accession until her death - HM The Queen.

If a simple set of LPs would have changed that he would have done so but he knew that it wasn't possible to deny her the title. He could deny her the privileges etc but not the title.

That was because then, as now, every wife in the UK has the right to take any and all of her husband's titles and styles in the female form. The UK doesn't recognise morganatic marriages and to deny Camilla the title of Queen - or even to create for her a title other than Queen that isn't also one of Charles' - would be to say that the marriage is morganatic.
Reply With Quote
  #606  
Old 11-06-2014, 04:13 PM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 10,191
Quote:
Originally Posted by muriel View Post
Prince Philip is merely an HRH and not an HM, and he does not curtsy to other monarchs or consorts, so I doubt if Camilla (should she be Princess Consort) will.

Philip mightn't 'curtsy' to the other monarchs and consorts but he most definitely does 'bow' to them as seen as recently as the events in London overnight where he clearly bowed to King Philip of the Belgians at the opening of the new memorial to WWI.

He has regularly been seen to bow to foreign monarchs and their spouses and when the consort is female he usually bows while also kissing their hand.
Reply With Quote
  #607  
Old 11-06-2014, 04:14 PM
Duc_et_Pair's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: City, Christmas Island
Posts: 5,920
The monarchy is pretty fluïd these days: the ban on marrying Catholics has been lifted, the succession becomes gender neutral, royals can remarry with a divorcee, commoners are very welcome, etc. The monarchy anno 2014 is incomparable with the times of Victoria or George V...

;-)

With other words: anything is possible
Reply With Quote
  #608  
Old 11-06-2014, 04:17 PM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: pinner, United Kingdom
Posts: 1,079
I really do not know how many permutations of words reiterating the SAME FACTS need to be made by Iluvbertie, Rudolph, myself and others before it is accepted Camilla will legally be Queen !
Reply With Quote
  #609  
Old 11-06-2014, 05:16 PM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Waterford, United States
Posts: 1,454
“It is intended that The Duchess will be known as HRH The Princess Consort when The Prince of Wales accedes to The Throne.”

Then why was this statement released by Clarence House (and presumably authorized by the PoW)? They either don't know what they are talking about, or else it was a deliberate falsehood in order to keep the common folk calm.
__________________
"If you look for the bad in people expecting to find it, you surely will.”

Abraham Lincoln
Reply With Quote
  #610  
Old 11-06-2014, 05:28 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: *******, Canada
Posts: 4,380
From 2007. Constitutional Affairs minister Christopher Leslie says the marriage is not morganatic

Camilla WILL be Queen | UK | News | Daily Express
Quote:
Government. Constitutional Affairs minister Christopher Leslie said the marriage was not “morganatic”, implying the monarch’s titles could be passed on to the wife and any children from the union.

Legal sources said at the time that only an Act of Parliament could be used to prevent Camilla becoming Queen if she was married to Charles when he became King.

The precedent was set during the abdication crisis of 1936 when Edward VIII wanted to marry his divorced, American lover Wallis Simpson. Advised that the sovereign’s wife would become Queen, that only new laws could change the situation and that the public would not accept it, he chose to quit the throne.
Reply With Quote
  #611  
Old 11-06-2014, 05:28 PM
Skippyboo's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Atlanta, United States
Posts: 3,327
Intentions can change. I intend to lose 5 lbs of weigh -doesn't mean it will happen. A 1000 years of common law says a wife takes the rank of a husband. There is no written constitution in the UK. Charles can add titles but parliament is the only power to remove them.


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community
Reply With Quote
  #612  
Old 11-06-2014, 05:59 PM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: katonah, United States
Posts: 2,582
Quote:
Originally Posted by ladongas View Post
“It is intended that The Duchess will be known as HRH The Princess Consort when The Prince of Wales accedes to The Throne.”

Then why was this statement released by Clarence House (and presumably authorized by the PoW)? They either don't know what they are talking about, or else it was a deliberate falsehood in order to keep the common folk calm.
Exactly so.
Reply With Quote
  #613  
Old 11-06-2014, 06:22 PM
Jacknch's Avatar
Super Moderator
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Suffolk/Budapest, Hungary
Posts: 4,925
Quote:
Originally Posted by ladongas View Post
“It is intended that The Duchess will be known as HRH The Princess Consort when The Prince of Wales accedes to The Throne.”

Then why was this statement released by Clarence House (and presumably authorized by the PoW)? They either don't know what they are talking about, or else it was a deliberate falsehood in order to keep the common folk calm.
I will never understand why this statement was made. The royal family - and Charles in particular - have ridden many storms, which have always blown over. The common folk have put up with a lot over the years, but have always rallied in the end and much has been forgiven and/or forgotten. In any event, the common folk were hardly in uproar when the marriage was announced, there was no revolution, many people apart from the 1000 or so folk in polls probably were not bothered one way or the other.
Surely any controversy that did exist back in 2005 was more to do with the marriage itself and not some event to happen 20 years away?
Even if they had said nothing and just mentioned the Cornwall title, there would have been no more uproar, no more debate than this princess consort business would create.
__________________
JACK
Reply With Quote
  #614  
Old 11-06-2014, 07:17 PM
AdmirerUS's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Midwest, United States
Posts: 4,442
Jacknch (sp?):
Well, as I remember it, the "only Diana will do" contingent was still very strong when POW and Camilla married. Not everyone in the COE was sanguine about the divorced lady issue. The POW's popularity was not at an all time high. There was a real sense of unease about the marriage. Hope-fullness but still, unease. I always thought the statement was intended to placate the opposition and I NEVER thought Camilla cared. She's just a trooper and an old time style friend of the royals. And I always thought this was a consensus decision with the COE, Queen, POW and staff all weighing in on what would work best.
That and (and this is my opinion) no one foresaw what marrying Camilla would do for the POW's attitude toward life in general over 5, 10 years and beyond.
Clearly, when you look at those jubilant pictures of him this week in Columbia and Mexico - this is a man transformed. How can anyone look at these pictures and still think he needs to do reparations for the mess created by the life and death of his first wife.
And by that, I am not saying that Diana was that a mess - rather that the handling of their obvious unease with one another, the divorce and her death had messy PR elements.
You have to critique the decision over what Cams is called in light of the time that the decision was made. To make the decision today - I think it would be quite different.
Given the happiness and ease she has helped the future monarch find, I hope the Duchess, upon Charles' elevation the the Throne, is called whatever she wants to be called. But again, I don't think that matters much to her. She is clearly happy in her role of supporting Charles and making a difference with her patronages. IMHO.
__________________
A hero is someone who understands the responsibility that comes with his freedom.
Read more at: http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/au...bob_dylan.html
Reply With Quote
  #615  
Old 11-06-2014, 07:17 PM
MARG's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Christchurch, New Zealand
Posts: 6,048
I think everyone has an agenda and, with the thoroughly undeserved avalanche of hate the BRF endured with the death of Diana, I think it left them vulnerable to poor advice.

Perhaps it is time to revisit the website with a new eye.
__________________
MARG
"Words ought to be a little wild, for they are assaults of thoughts on the unthinking." - JM Keynes
Reply With Quote
  #616  
Old 11-06-2014, 08:29 PM
Queen Camilla's Avatar
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Chicago, United States
Posts: 1,861
Prince Charles is not computer savvy and a decade ago he was less tech savvy.

It might be a simple case of someone working on his website wrote Princess Consort because the idea had been tossed around privately prior to the engagement of C&C as title for Camilla rather than Princess of Wales before they settled on Duchess of Cornwall.

The 'Princess Consort' could be nothing more than a 'typo' on the POW website by a staff writer.

Prince Charles became aware of the 'error' but as of yet has not been able to rectify the error without a small group of people becoming ballistic.
Reply With Quote
  #617  
Old 11-06-2014, 08:53 PM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Waterford, United States
Posts: 1,454
Quote:
Originally Posted by Queen Camilla View Post
Prince Charles is not computer savvy and a decade ago he was less tech savvy.

It might be a simple case of someone working on his website wrote Princess Consort because the idea had been tossed around privately prior to the engagement of C&C as title for Camilla rather than Princess of Wales before they settled on Duchess of Cornwall.

The 'Princess Consort' could be nothing more than a 'typo' on the POW website by a staff writer.

Prince Charles became aware of the 'error' but as of yet has not been able to rectify the error without a small group of people becoming ballistic.
An interesting suggestion, but what kind of a King will he make if he has allowed a staff error to smoulder for years, and if he is afraid to be straightforward about his real intentions?

It makes him look weak, if this is the explanation. Or, if the "it is intended" statement was never really intended, it makes him look like a liar. Did he just say that to suit his mother, thinking he would do what he wanted to when he is King?

I like Camilla, and I'm happy Charles 'made an honest woman' of her by marrying her (even though I think what happened to the Wales' marriage was unforgivable). It's obviously made him very happy.

But if he begins his reign (in some far off time!) by going back on his word, then he will be thought of as a man whose word is not his bond. That would be far worse for the future of the Monarchy than any quibbling about what Camilla's title could be.

He needs to 'man up' in advance and say exactly what he intends. Of course, that's what the original 'it is intended' statement was meant to be.
There is no easy out for him in this situation.

IMO
__________________
"If you look for the bad in people expecting to find it, you surely will.”

Abraham Lincoln
Reply With Quote
  #618  
Old 11-06-2014, 09:01 PM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Spring Hill, United States
Posts: 2,822
Quote:
Originally Posted by Queen Camilla View Post
Prince Charles is not computer savvy and a decade ago he was less tech savvy.

It might be a simple case of someone working on his website wrote Princess Consort because the idea had been tossed around privately prior to the engagement of C&C as title for Camilla rather than Princess of Wales before they settled on Duchess of Cornwall.

The 'Princess Consort' could be nothing more than a 'typo' on the POW website by a staff writer.

Prince Charles became aware of the 'error' but as of yet has not been able to rectify the error without a small group of people becoming ballistic.
I am not arguing one way or another. But a typo with princess and queen is impossible and silly. It was not a typo.
Reply With Quote
  #619  
Old 11-06-2014, 09:02 PM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: katonah, United States
Posts: 2,582
Quote:
Originally Posted by Queen Camilla View Post
Prince Charles is not computer savvy and a decade ago he was less tech savvy.

It might be a simple case of someone working on his website wrote Princess Consort because the idea had been tossed around privately prior to the engagement of C&C as title for Camilla rather than Princess of Wales before they settled on Duchess of Cornwall.

The 'Princess Consort' could be nothing more than a 'typo' on the POW website by a staff writer.

Prince Charles became aware of the 'error' but as of yet has not been able to rectify the error without a small group of people becoming ballistic.
Charles may not be savvy, but he has an army of attendants who are. There were also an army of advisors to package/market the marriage in order to make it possible for Charles to marry Camilla and still stay in the succession.
Reply With Quote
  #620  
Old 11-06-2014, 09:41 PM
Skippyboo's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Atlanta, United States
Posts: 3,327
Camilla is not a Roman Catholic so the Act of Settlement is not in play and the Queen gave approval for the wedding so the Royal Marriage Act was taken care of. Charles wasn't in danger of losing his place in the succession.


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community
__________________

Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
camilla, duchess of cornwall, public opinion


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





Popular Tags
ascot 2016 best gown best gown september 2016 best hat best outfit best outfit october 2016 camillas outfits 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 e-mail fashion poll grand duke jean greece kate middleton king abdullah ii king felipe king felipe vi king willem-alexander martha louise member introduction monarchy multiple births new zealand nobel gala norway november 2016 october 2016 opening of parliament picture of the week prince bernhard prince charles princess madeleine princess marie princess mary princess mary daytime fashion princess mary fashion princess mary hats princess victoria princess victoria fashion 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 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 09:51 PM.

Social Knowledge Networks

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