The Royal Forums Coat of Arms


Join The Royal Forums Today
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #1141  
Old 07-16-2017, 05:44 AM
Dee Anna's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: Jul 2016
Location: Here, Ireland
Posts: 587
Quote:
Originally Posted by Curryong View Post
I hope you're right, Dee Anna. Is Charles loved in Britain, though? If he is its not shown itself in any polls.
Prince Charles has been next in line for as long as anyone and even himself! can remember!

When the time comes run a poll on King Charles and I bet there will be a difference in the response.

Whether they like to admit it or not, the UK love their Monarchy.
__________________

__________________
Be yourself; everyone else is already taken ..... Oscar Wilde
Reply With Quote
  #1142  
Old 07-16-2017, 05:47 AM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 2,024
They don't "love" it, IMO. Mostly people are indifferent, but they like it better than any other form of Govt and prefer the queen to some aged ex politician as their head of state. And it is cheaper than a Presidency but gives a bit more human interest and a better ceremonial aspect
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #1143  
Old 07-16-2017, 05:52 AM
Lee-Z's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Heerlen, Netherlands
Posts: 2,402
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rudolph View Post
Numbers ticking up

When the couple married in 2005 only 7% surveyed said that Camilla should become Queen when her husband accedes to the throne.

Today that figure stands at 39%.

But the Mirror poll of 2,000 people found that 40% still do not want her to be called Queen.

Read more: Queen Camilla? Survey finds more people are warming to the idea - ITV News
What a silly idea to bring Diana in this poll...she divorced P.Charles before he remarried Diana would never have become queen regardless of Camilla ever coming in the royal family.

I'm not going to take DM comments as indicative in this matter as several of them are combined with a total dislike of royals ("they are all scroungers") (even on articles of non UK royals ) or are made by people who don't actually live in the UK monarchy or commonwealth so with all respect to public opinion, are not a public opinion that matters in the slightest to the british RF.
__________________
Wisdom begins in wonder - Socrates
Reply With Quote
  #1144  
Old 07-16-2017, 06:04 AM
Dee Anna's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: Jul 2016
Location: Here, Ireland
Posts: 587
Quote:
Originally Posted by Denville View Post
Im not so sure there is all this "love". I like Charles, I like the queen and I admire them both. I will feel sad when the queen goes, but I hope that Charles will have several yaers of active working time when he can show his good points
When the Queen does leave this earth, I do think there will be a major outpouring of grief.

When Charles becomes King (Coronation I expect sometime later), emotion to a lesser extent.

On a day to day basis, ask any member of the general public about the current Monarch and you will get a fairly broad response from indifference to enthusiasm.

Coronation Day will see many of the indifferent tuning in because it will be such a unique occasion. Bottom line, the UK does seem to need it's Monarchy.
__________________
Be yourself; everyone else is already taken ..... Oscar Wilde
Reply With Quote
  #1145  
Old 07-16-2017, 07:34 AM
Nico's Avatar
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Paris, France
Posts: 1,868
Quote:
Originally Posted by Madame Verseau View Post
Because cheerleaders like Penny Junor write a book on the anniversary year of Diana's death. A book that drags the late princess through the mud to make her rival look sympathetic is why that 3-way marriage will not go away. Diana was wrong, but Junor's book made her look like a psychotic mess. I wouldn't be surprised if Junor's book, or its excerpts, impacted the poll.

Look at the comment section of the Hail Queen Camilla article in the DM. To say many don't agree the writer's opinion on the subject is an understatement.
I don't the think that the "comment section" of the DM is a reliable source really ...
Ii highly recommend you to read Junor'd book, you will be surprised (but maybe the Morton's book is more to your taste).
Reply With Quote
  #1146  
Old 07-16-2017, 07:46 AM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 1,138
JMHO - -but no doubt in my mind that Charles' reign, when it comes, will be as wildly successful as has that of QEII. People just like to rattle cages with this type of poppycock. BTW, his reign as Prince of Wales has been so long that Charles has almost established himself as virtually "another court" -- not an antagonistic one, just a parallel one. I think that has been beneficial to the UK.

Once again, JMHO, but I just don't see the some level of enthusiasm from W.

The "dark" press likes to drum-up all types of stuff. Remember back to the early 80s when Charles and Diana were first married and everyone thought that they were the gold standard and the Queen was passe. Same thing today with W&K v. Charles (and Camilla) ... it's just filler copy.
Reply With Quote
  #1147  
Old 07-16-2017, 08:22 AM
Osipi's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: On the west side of North up from Back, United States
Posts: 8,942
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nico View Post
I don't the think that the "comment section" of the DM is a reliable source really ...
Ii highly recommend you to read Junor'd book, you will be surprised (but maybe the Morton's book is more to your taste).
I actually believe that in order to get the most information on which to make up one's mind, its advisable to read all the sources available on the subject matter. There are boatloads of books out there and each one of them has different viewpoints and different information and sources. Morton's book, with the assistance of Diana will present a totally different view than Jonathan Dimbleby's biography of Charles for an example. Junor's written books on quite a few members of the royal family.

As for the Fail comments? Its my opinion that those that "comment" there go no further than tabloid articles for their information. Heck, most times the tabloids themselves can't get their information right and write what will stir up the "sheeple" readers. One glaring example would be to print Her Royal Highness, The Queen. Go figure.

Charles has been Prince of Wales since 1958 and virtually had to establish what his role as PoW was over the many decades he's been the heir apparent. He's had his ups and downs but for the most part, people are not familiar with his endeavors, his successes and what he still hopes to accomplish. Its easier to see the man as the tabloids paint him than to really do any research into who Charles, the man is.

The general public as a whole can tend to be a pretty fickle bunch of folks that more often than not paint a totally different picture of those in the limelight than what the people that have to put up with the limelight really are like.
__________________
“In my walks, every man I meet is my superior in some way, and in that I learn from him.”
~~~Ralph Waldo Emerson~~~
Reply With Quote
  #1148  
Old 07-16-2017, 09:21 AM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: pinner, United Kingdom
Posts: 1,336
Soo 61% want a [long] dead Woman as Queen.. not only dead, but a Divorcee who had she fastened her seat belt that FATEFUL night would never have been Queen anyway..

This is why it is good that Public opinion is irrelevant in this matter, and why Camilla WILL be Charles' Queen when the time comes. Just as the lady was 'non-negotiable'in his life so it will be, when he is King...
Reply With Quote
  #1149  
Old 07-16-2017, 09:26 AM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 4,474
Why wasn't Charles's first wife, the woman who bore him two sons, 'non-negotiable' from the beginning?
Reply With Quote
  #1150  
Old 07-16-2017, 09:29 AM
duchessrachel's Avatar
Nobility
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Birmingham, United States
Posts: 278
Quote:
Originally Posted by Curryong View Post
But surely it also shows that a woman who has been dead for twenty years was and is still beloved by the British public. If she hadn't been and isn't, her name wouldn't come up. This survey shows that Charles's first marriage, its demise and the part Camilla played in it still lingers in the public memory.
It may have to reach a point where Prince William and Prince Harry have to let the word out that they want her to be called Queen. That will go a long way in smoothing out the issue.
Reply With Quote
  #1151  
Old 07-16-2017, 09:31 AM
Nico's Avatar
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Paris, France
Posts: 1,868
Quote:
Originally Posted by Curryong View Post
Why wasn't Charles's first wife, the woman who bore him two sons, 'non-negotiable' from the beginning?
Because it didn't work, it's as simple as that.
Reply With Quote
  #1152  
Old 07-16-2017, 09:32 AM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: pinner, United Kingdom
Posts: 1,336
Quote:
Why wasn't Charles's first wife, the woman who bore him two sons, 'non-negotiable' from the beginning?
For the numerous reasons re-hashed ENDLESSLY on this Forum as elsewhere..

Camilla will be the 'Kings Wife' and the title that goes with that position IS Queen...
Reply With Quote
  #1153  
Old 07-16-2017, 09:36 AM
Al_bina's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: City, Kazakhstan
Posts: 7,402
Quote:
Originally Posted by duchessrachel View Post
It may have to reach a point where Prince William and Prince Harry have to let the word out that they want her to be called Queen. That will go a long way in smoothing out the issue.
It would be American to make Prince William and Prince Henry issue a statement about Camilla's status. Why should they do it?
__________________
"I never did mind about the little things"
Amanda, "Point of No Return"
Reply With Quote
  #1154  
Old 07-16-2017, 09:42 AM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: pinner, United Kingdom
Posts: 1,336
Quote:
issue a statement
Nothing so formal is required.. Just 'When my Step-Mother is Queen' will do, dropped into a conversation overheard by journalists...
Reply With Quote
  #1155  
Old 07-16-2017, 09:55 AM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Pittsburgh, United States
Posts: 2,553
Quote:
Originally Posted by wyevale View Post
For the numerous reasons re-hashed ENDLESSLY on this Forum as elsewhere..

Camilla will be the 'Kings Wife' and the title that goes with that position IS Queen...

For obvious reasons, it is distasteful to speculate about the Queen's future and I don't want to do that. However, just for the sake of argument, I believe that there is a non-neglible chance that Charles might actually become regent before he becomes king. Camilla would have in that scenario then the chance of proving herself as the regent's wife before being the king's wife.
Reply With Quote
  #1156  
Old 07-16-2017, 10:03 AM
Osipi's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: On the west side of North up from Back, United States
Posts: 8,942
I think William, Harry and Kate already show in quite a few ways that they're supportive of not only their father, but also his wife. They greet each other warmly, its been said that William and Kate take the kids over to Clarence House for Sunday dinners when possible and they most definitely there to celebrate Camilla's 70th birthday.

There was animosity in the Spencer family when Johnnie married Raine but I've yet to see any signs that there is any animosity in the Prince of Wales' household. They all get along. They've all moved on from the drama of the past. They all have better things to do than keep alive negativities that surrounded the family years ago.

Another aspect that we're looking at too as far as Camilla not being styled as "Queen" is that should a change be made that denotes the wife as a king as a "Princess Consort", it will be something that is permanent and will not only apply to Camilla but all future consorts of the king in the future. It would then apply to Kate and to George's future wife. It would be a major change in the way the British monarchy is perceived and totally different from a history of titles that have survived for hundreds of years.

So, then is it possible really that "public opinion" should dictate on this matter? Camilla being "Princess Consort" as to not offend then a bit further down the line having the "public opinion" once again demanding that Kate should rightfully be William's Queen Consort? Big can of worms if you ask me and I'm not going fishing.
__________________
“In my walks, every man I meet is my superior in some way, and in that I learn from him.”
~~~Ralph Waldo Emerson~~~
Reply With Quote
  #1157  
Old 07-16-2017, 10:04 AM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: pinner, United Kingdom
Posts: 1,336
She has ALREADY proved a very capable 'second Lady in the land', [FAR more balanced, and SANE than her predecessor in that role], so I REALLY cannot see what more she has to prove ?
Reply With Quote
  #1158  
Old 07-16-2017, 10:19 AM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Pittsburgh, United States
Posts: 2,553
Quote:
Originally Posted by Osipi View Post
.

Another aspect that we're looking at too as far as Camilla not being styled as "Queen" is that should a change be made that denotes the wife as a king as a "Princess Consort", it will be something that is permanent and will not only apply to Camilla but all future consorts of the king in the future.

.
Not at all. Camilla alone could be easily stripped of the title of Queen by an act of Parliament that only affects her, as Wallis alone was stripped of the HRH style by George VI's LPs without affecting any other future wives of HRHs. In fact, I don't even think it is necessary to take the title from Camilla by special legislation; it suffices instead to issue LPs giving her another title, e.g. Princess Consort, which the Court would use then on a daily basis just as today she uses her title of Duchess of Cornwall rather than the title of Princess of Wales, which she technically also holds under common law. I don't know though how the matter of the HM vs HRH style would be handled.

As I mentioned before, there is a similar precedent in another country, namely Belgium, when Léopold III married Lilian Baels and she became HRH The Princess of Réthy (a title especially created for her) rather than HM The Queen. Some posters here claim that marriage was considered morganatic in Belgium, but I'm not sure that is correct as the three children of the marriage (half siblings of Kings Baudouin and Albert II) were/are princes or princesses of Belgium with the style HRH. The children of Lilian's daughters are not royal, but not because of the morganatic status of their grandparents' marriage, but rather because, under the current Belgian laws, as descendants of Léopold I in maternal line who do not descend simultaneously from Albert II, they are not in the line of succession and are not entitled to an HRH.

I know that UK is not Belgium, but the precedent should be noted.
Reply With Quote
  #1159  
Old 07-16-2017, 10:33 AM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: pinner, United Kingdom
Posts: 1,336
Quote:
Camilla alone could be easily stripped of the title of Queen by an act of Parliament that only affects her, as Wallis alone was stripped of the HRH style by George VI's LPs without affecting any other future wives of HRHs.
And why EXACTLY would the new King who has 'moved mountains' to have his beloved wife at his side allow such a thing ?
Is 'punishing' an 'adulteress' or Divorcee [for this can only be the motivation for such a 'demotion'] acceptable in this day and age, when 50 % of British marriages now end in Divorce? To single out one WOMAN [notice the gender] in this manner is beyond outrageous..
Reply With Quote
  #1160  
Old 07-16-2017, 10:42 AM
Osipi's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: On the west side of North up from Back, United States
Posts: 8,942
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mbruno View Post
Not at all. Camilla alone could be easily stripped of the title of Queen by an act of Parliament that only affects her, as Wallis alone was stripped of the HRH style by George VI's LPs without affecting any other future wives of HRHs. In fact, I don't even think it is necessary to take the title from Camilla by special legislation; it suffices instead to issue LPs giving her another title, e.g. Princess Consort, which the Court would use then on a daily basis just as today she uses her title of Duchess of Cornwall rather than the title of Princess of Wales, which she technically also holds under common law. I don't know though how the matter of the HM vs HRH style would be handled.
Just to clarify, Wallis never had the HRH address to be stripped of. When George VI issued his letters patent in the case of David and Wallis, what he did was create David as the Duke of Windsor and *restored* David's HRH with the certain provisions to it.
__________________

__________________
“In my walks, every man I meet is my superior in some way, and in that I learn from him.”
~~~Ralph Waldo Emerson~~~
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
albania best outfit birthday carl gustaf chris o'neill crown princess mary crown princess mary fashion crown princess victoria current events denmark fashion poll general news hereditary grand duchess stéphanie hereditary grand duke guillaume infanta cristina infanta leonor infanta sofia iñaki urdangarín king felipe king felipe vi king philippe letizia monarchy news november 2016 october 2016 picture of the week prince alexander prince carl philip prince charles prince daniel prince felix prince gabriel prince nicholas prince oscar princess claire of luxembourg princess estelle princess leonore princess madeleine princess mary princess mary fashion princess of asturias princess sofia princess victoria queen elizabeth ii queen letizia queen letizia casual outfits queen letizia daytime fashion queen letizia fashion queen mathilde queen mathilde daytime fashion queen mathilde fashion queen maxima queen maxima casual wear queen maxima daytime fashion queen maxima fashion queen maxima hats queen maxima style queen rania queen silvia state visit stephanie succession sweden swedish royal family the duchess of cambridge casual wear the duchess of cambridge daytime fashion the duchess of cambridge fashion the duchess of cambridge hats victoria


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 05:57 PM.

Social Knowledge Networks

eXTReMe Tracker
Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2017
Jelsoft Enterprises