The Royal Forums Coat of Arms


Join The Royal Forums Today
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #1161  
Old 07-16-2017, 11:53 AM
Nico's Avatar
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Paris, France
Posts: 1,924
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mbruno View Post
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.
Again, you are comparing oranges and apples.
Leopold and Lilian's children were indeed HRH, bot not seen as members of the Royal Family (and as such not in the order of succession). If you take a simple look at the Belgian royals website, you'll see that the princesses Esmeralda, Marie-Christine and Léa are not included.
In Lilan's case, her title "princess of Rethy, princess of Belgium" was a "fait accompli" from Leopold III, without any legal base and during a very special time in history in Belgium. At the end it was more simple to call the mariage "morganatic" because, in a way, it was (exclusion from the order of sucession) and it wasn't (still HRHs). Lilian suffered all her life from this legal loophole.

Camilla needs and deserves a legal title. Under the current law, she will be Queen Consort.
__________________

__________________
Reply With Quote
  #1162  
Old 07-16-2017, 12:02 PM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Pittsburgh, United States
Posts: 2,689
Quote:
Originally Posted by Osipi View Post
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.

Osipi,


OK, I get your point, but my point was that the British and Canadian posters here often raise the issue that, under common law, a wife takes the rank and style of her husband. Applying that rule, Wallis would be an HRH if David was also an HRH. So, in that sense, George VI's LPs overrode common law without an special act of Parliament being necessary to do so. Couldn't that be done also in Camilla's case ?
__________________

__________________
Reply With Quote
  #1163  
Old 07-16-2017, 12:14 PM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Pittsburgh, United States
Posts: 2,689
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nico View Post
Again, you are comparing oranges and apples.
Leopold and Lilian's children were indeed HRH, bot not seen as members of the Royal Family (and as such not in the order of succession). If you take a simple look at the Belgian royals website, you'll see that the princesses Esmeralda, Marie-Christine and Léa are not included.
In Lilan's case, her title "princess of Rethy, princess of Belgium" was a "fait accompli" from Leopold III, without any legal base and during a very special time in history in Belgium. At the end it was more simple to call the mariage "morganatic" because, in a way, it was (exclusion from the order of sucession) and it wasn't (still HRHs). Lilian suffered all her life from this legal loophole.
Nico,

Esmeralda and Marie-Christine would never be in the line of succession anyway, because, when they were born, women could not inherit the throne in Belgium and the 1991 amendment to the constitution didn't retroactively extend succession rights to female lines other than those who descended from Albert (namely Astrid and her children).

As for Alexandre, it is a controversial case. Some authors claim, like yourself, that he never had succession rights, which would have been unconstitutional as he was a legitimate male line descendant of Léopold I. Others, on the other hand, in my opinion correctly, argue that he had succession rights, but lost them when he married without King Baudouin's consent in violation of the constitution. In any case, since the prince is no longer alive and he diidn't have children, the question became academic.

The important point though is that Lilian not being called queen didn't affect Fabiola, Paola, or Mathilde, which was what I wanted to emphasize. BTW, there is no royal decree or constitutional provision in force today in Belgium that actually regulates the titles of the wife of the King of the Belgians. Legally, Mathilde's title is "Princess of Belgium", which she got in her own right by royal decree. She's called HM and Queen by courtesy only, while still using "Princess of Belgium" after "HM Queen Mathilde {Marie Christine Ghislaine comtesse d'Udekem d'Accoz)" in her long style. Máxima is in a similar situation, ie. her only legal titles are "Princess of the Netherlands" and "Princess of Orange-Nassau" and she is called"HM Queen Máxima, Princess of the Netherlands, Princess of Orange-Nassau" by courtesy only. Letizia is the only one among the "new queen consorts" who explicitly has by royal decree the title of "Queen" and the style Majesty (though not the title of "Queen of Spain") .
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #1164  
Old 07-16-2017, 12:32 PM
Osipi's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: On the west side of North up from Back, United States
Posts: 9,670
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mbruno View Post
Osipi,


OK, I get your point, but my point was that the British and Canadian posters here often raise the issue that, under common law, a wife takes the rank and style of her husband. Applying that rule, Wallis would be an HRH if David was also an HRH. So, in that sense, George VI's LPs overrode common law without an special act of Parliament being necessary to do so. Couldn't that be done also in Camilla's case ?
Sure. It could happen. Charles could issue letters patent creating Camilla a Princess of the UK in her own right (like George VI did with Philip) and therefore she'd be known as The Princess Consort. The marriage would still be morganatic as far as common law goes with Camilla's title being lesser than her husband's. Its my understanding that to be called "Princess", Camilla would either have to be a princess in her own right or take the feminine style from her husband such as The Princess of Wales or The Duchess of Cornwall.

We have to remember too that the HRH we're discussing as far as David and Wallis goes isn't actually a title or a style. Its a form of address that denotes a person's closeness to the throne. George VI didn't override common law as far as the Duke and Duchess of Windsor but just set conditions on the form of address. David, as a son of a monarch was still entitled to the HRH but George VI took pains to denote that his wife and any children wouldn't be entitled to that sort of form of address.

At least that's how I understand 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
  #1165  
Old 07-16-2017, 12:42 PM
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: pinner, United Kingdom
Posts: 1,668
Quote:
The marriage would still be morganatic as far as common law goes with Camilla's title being lesser than her husband's
Which is another reason why this is not possible.. There is NO such thing as morganatic unions in UK law... This was one of the problems in 1936. Had Mrs Simpson married Edward VIII whilst he was King, she would have been Queen, there was simply no provision in law for her to be anything else..
And this remains true today.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #1166  
Old 07-16-2017, 12:42 PM
Pranter's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Midwest, United States
Posts: 6,372
That's how I understood it as well, in any of the biographies I've read. They deliberately denied Wallis the titles...and of course that didn't sit so well with David.


LaRae
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #1167  
Old 07-16-2017, 12:44 PM
Pranter's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Midwest, United States
Posts: 6,372
Quote:
Originally Posted by wyevale View Post
Which is another reason why this is not possible.. There is NO such thing as morganatic unions in UK law... This was one of the problems in 1936. Had Mrs Simpson married Edward VIII whilst he was King, she would have been Queen, there was simply no provision in law for her to be anything else..
And this remains true today.
Does anyone here actually think she won't be Queen? Now as to what she is called that can be a different matter...but legally yes Queen.


LaRae
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #1168  
Old 07-16-2017, 12:49 PM
Osipi's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: On the west side of North up from Back, United States
Posts: 9,670
I truly believe that when the time does come, Camilla will be HM, The Queen.

There was another option suggested but don't know too much about it. As the monarch is automatically the Duke of Lancaster which supplies the monarch with a personal income, it may be possible then for Camilla to be known as the Duchess of Lancaster.

The bottom line is that if something isn't broken, don't fix 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
  #1169  
Old 07-16-2017, 12:53 PM
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: pinner, United Kingdom
Posts: 1,668
It really BAFFLES me how some Women here [obv i'm assuming their gender], are fine with the idea that someone of their sex should be specifically singled out for demotion/public punishment SOLELY for her [50% part] in a [once adulterous] relationship.
Do they perhaps ostracise Women they know 'in real life' that fit into that category ?
Do they know ANY woman in a second marriage who is not treated as the equal of their Husband ?
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #1170  
Old 07-16-2017, 12:54 PM
Pranter's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Midwest, United States
Posts: 6,372
Wouldn't she automatically be the Duchess of Lancaster anyway? Or would that have to be officially done?


LaRae
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #1171  
Old 07-16-2017, 01:02 PM
Osipi's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: On the west side of North up from Back, United States
Posts: 9,670
That's what I'm not sure about. We don't hear of HM being called the Duke of Lancaster all that much but that's the actual title QEII holds. Not Duchess of Lancaster but Duke of Lancaster. It may be that there's only a Duke.

Actually, with all the success that Camilla has had as far as supporting her husband, doing so well on her solo endeavors and with the honors that the Queen has bestowed on her for personal service and the new bit of information I didn't know before of Camilla being the first princess to marry into the BRF that has been named to the Privy Council, to be anything lesser than Queen when the time comes would be a huge slap in the face with no legitimate reasoning behind it

If up until the time of the Wales' divorce, it was believed that Charles' wife would still be crowned as Queen regardless of the blatant attacks on the BRF, her own adulteries and all the other mishaps she got herself into, it just doesn't quite cut it with me that the same conditions wouldn't apply to Camilla.
__________________
“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
  #1172  
Old 07-16-2017, 01:05 PM
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: England, United Kingdom
Posts: 1,584
Its not a question of what title she will have, she will be Queen unless Charles or Parliament actively sign a new law/act/LP denying it to her. Her popularity has turned around enough that I don't think even Parliament would feel comfortable doing that.

As for what title she will be known, well thats a different matter. I suspect they will say she can be known by either Queen or Princess Consort and slowly use Queen officially.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #1173  
Old 07-16-2017, 01:07 PM
Osipi's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: On the west side of North up from Back, United States
Posts: 9,670
I think really as far as Camilla is concerned with all of this, she'd be just as happy if they all decided that they'll be known as Fred and Gladys and nothing else. Camilla never comes across to me as the type of a person that needs her ego stroked.
__________________
“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
  #1174  
Old 07-16-2017, 01:17 PM
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: pinner, United Kingdom
Posts: 1,668
Quote:
Camilla never comes across to me as the type of a person that needs her ego stroked.
I'm sure that's correct.. Charles tho' IS likely to have a problem with the demotion of his wife, into something, somehow 'lesser'..
WHO would want that for their beloved ?
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #1175  
Old 07-16-2017, 01:27 PM
Lee-Z's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Heerlen, Netherlands
Posts: 2,463
Small article in dutch mag Prive "Camilla is now getting recognition"
Camilla krijgt nu wel erkenning|Prive| Telegraaf.nl

google translated
__________________
Wisdom begins in wonder - Socrates
Reply With Quote
  #1176  
Old 07-16-2017, 01:31 PM
Skippyboo's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Atlanta, United States
Posts: 4,108
Quote:
Originally Posted by tommy100 View Post
Its not a question of what title she will have, she will be Queen unless Charles or Parliament actively sign a new law/act/LP denying it to her. Her popularity has turned around enough that I don't think even Parliament would feel comfortable doing that.



As for what title she will be known, well thats a different matter. I suspect they will say she can be known by either Queen or Princess Consort and slowly use Queen officially.


Well you just can't use Princess Consort because it doesn't exist. The King has to create it
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #1177  
Old 07-16-2017, 02:21 PM
ROYAL NORWAY's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: somewhere, United Kingdom, Norway
Posts: 3,107
Is this thread about Camilla's future titles/styles?

Back to the Camilla and the public part: (at least for me)

I wonder if some of the Diana fans are living on the same planet like the rest of us....
Comparing the popularity of a beloved, iconic Head of State who is the reason the UK still is a monarchy with a former wife of the heir who damaget it as alomost now other in modern times.

So here I go aagain: (longer than usual)

Camilla: Are the commentators who now call her popular (even loved) right? No, they are not.

She is still unliked by many, but everyone who meets her, yes, they like her.

Will she be popular? No.

Will she be beloved? No.

Will she be respected by a majority in the UK? Not sure, but I think she will be accepted.

Does she need to be all those thing stated above to be a good consort? No, she don't.

Philip: Is philip a good consort? Yes.

Do I or the UK majority like Philip? No.

Is he popular, beloved? No.

Is he respected by a majority?

When he was young? Yes. In the 80s/90s and 2000s? No. Now? Maybe, but thats becaause he is old.

I know that this thread is for Camilla, but since the popularity of other royals has been discussed her (and I thinks it fits here), then let's go through the whole bunch of them:

Charles: Accepted, but still controversial.

Around 70% approval ratings and 60% thinks he's going to be a good king? Not bad for a man who has received so much criticism. And he is actually wery good at conecting with people - have you seen him on a walkabouts.

Is he going to be popular/beloved and admirred like his mother? No way, but I think/hope that he vill be respected.

William: 2010-2013 - Very popular, more than Diana and even more than what Harry is now - why? Because he wasn't criticized by the press.

Now - Criticized, but popular/liked with approval ratings at 75 to 80%.

When he is monarch: Likely to be quite popular, but not beloved as HM.

Kate: 2010-2013 - Very popular - why? Because she was almost not criticized by the press.

Now - Criticized, but still popular/liked by a UK majority.

Harry: Very popular (but not beloved) - why? Charismatic and good with people, but mostly because he has hardly been criticized in recent years.

Diana: Very popular in the 80's and right after the separation in 1992, but not beloved (Camilla had also been that if she had been the one to marry him at that time.)

Before she died? Controversial.

Now? Adored by her fans, not liked by people who is the opposite of her fans and the others (the majority) don't care.

The Queen Mother: Very popular and admirrred for the things she did during the war and her commitment to duty, but I wont call her beloved (I'm personally not a big fan of her)

Now? People know who she was, but (as with Diana) the majority don't care much about her. The same thing that happens to everyone who have been dead for awhile (with exception of historical persons as heads of states or heads of governments).

HM, The Queen: She is (as commentators/experts says) the most beloved, popular, iconic, famous and most successful head of state (many would say person) in the world.

Almost everyone I know in the UK likes her and almost all the comments on The Royal Family, the British Monarchist League and the British Monarchist Society & Foundation facebook pages are positive.

Even many of the ignorant and evil minded thugs in the DF comment section (the best rated comments) and on twitter likes her.

Her Ipsos MORI approval ratings were above 70% from 1992 to 2000 (with the exception of 66% in 1998, but above 70% after Dianas death in 1997), over 80% from 2002 to 2016 (sometimes 90%) just 5% dissatisfied in 2016, a YouGov approval rating in 2012 showed 86%.

And let's go through the YouGov most admired person in the UK poll:

2014 - The 30 most admired persons in the UK:
1: The Queen with 18,74%
9: William with 2,6%
19: Kate with 0,80%
Harry was not even included in the poll.

2015 - The 15 most admired Women in the UK:
1: The Queen with 17%
5: Kate with 5,2%

2015 - The 15 most admired Men in the UK:
5: William with 6,5%
8: Harry with 5,9%

2016 - The 30 most admired Women in the UK:
1: The Queen with 19,5%
7: Kate with 3,6%

2016 - The 30 most admired Men in the UK:
4: Harry with 6,4%
6: William with 5,6%

The Queen was also polled the most admirred woman in Canada, Australia, New Zealand and Germany in the 2016 poll.

The unserious/stupid favourite royal polls are meaningless, but let us go through them:

The Queen came first (over both the Queen Mother and Diana) in almost all of the few polls that were made in the 80/90s.

From 2002 to 2010, the Queen came first in almost all of the few polls that were made.

The Queen has (since 2011) shared the first place with William, Kate and Harry. But as you see in polls when you ask, who is the most popular/admired person in the UK, then she beats all of them.

8 points about the Queen:

1. QEII is the reigning monarch of 16 countries - including the UK, Canada, Australia and New Zealand. She is head of the Commonwealth and is in that capacity figurehead for 2 billion people. She has reigned for 65 years. This makes her the world's most Iconic, famous and well-known head of state (many will say person).

2. She traveled around the UK until she was 86. She used to be driven along the crowds in the Queenmobile (open car) from 1952 to 2012 (did it in 2016 on the occasion of her 90th birthday). Went on several walkabout (walked through the crowds with her smile) from 1970 to 2013. (did it in 2016 on the occasion of 90th birthday). She traveled around the Commonwealth/world from 1952 to 2011 (Italy, France Germany and Malta in 2014/2015). She is known for her kindness and there are so many touching stories about her. She comforts her employees, traumatized aid workers etc.

3. Our beloved, iconic, remarkable Elizabeth II is the UK and the Commonwealth and she is as Obama said (last year) a jewel to the world.

4. She is an international icon and the embodiment of royalty. She has dedicated her life to the UK and the Commonwealth, and have spent the last 63 years building relations and friendship between nations as no other. She's was known as the world's top diplomat until at least 2011 (when she almost stopped traveling) She was also with her parents, sister and Winston Churchill a symbol of peace during World War II.

5. She is as several of the so-called experts said on British/American/Canadian television during her 90th birthday celebrations and Jubilee celebrations in 2012 a symbol of continuity and goodness in the world. And as Baroness Scotland said during an interview: She is kind, caring, warm, forgiving and concerned with poor people, young people and people who are struggling. Monarchs, Presidents, former Prime Ministers, former employees and family member have said the same and the Queen herself has mentioned many of these topics several times in her speeches over the years.

6. She is simply THE QUEEN and world leders around the world admirer her, and she make me proud to be half-British. We should be proud to live in this admirable lady's reign.

7. There will be no one like her again, and I agree with Tony Parsons that she will be the last monarch who will be a truly unifying force in our nation, but the monarchy will continue to endure in to future with Charles, William and George (if they don't does stupid things).

8. I'm not a person who brags unconditionally of people, but when it comes to this lady, then I don't keep anything back.

And as David Walliams said it, she is the heart and soul of UK (and as others have said) to the rest of the world too.

I've said it before and I'll say it again, I simply can't imagine a world without Elizabeth II, our beloved history-making monarch with her record breaking reign.

And I agree with what some commentators said in 2012/2016, she truly is Elizabeth the Great and has defined the Second Elizabethan Age.
__________________
The Queen is the most wonderful, forgiving, non judgmental person I know. Sarah Ferguson speaking in 2011.
Reply With Quote
  #1178  
Old 07-16-2017, 02:56 PM
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: England, United Kingdom
Posts: 1,584
The fact as time goes on fewer and fewer people see a reason to dislike Camilla for her involvement with Charles.

People of my generation (20-30year olds) don't remember Diana and they see a women in her 70s who does public duties from time to time.

As Royal Norway says, will she be beloved and popular? No necessarily. But equally I don't think she'll be vilified or disliked.

IMO most people in the UK are by default neutral about members of the RF so its how the media present them thats forms opinion. Look at how Anne went from young beautiful daughter of the sovereign to cranky cold royal and now is widely credited by the media as being 'hardworking and respected' . Over the past 60 odd years has the British public massively changed their position and opinion about her? No. Most people in the UK don't particularly care about the RF and don't think about them apart from when asked or confronted by them (jubilee's, weddings etc) so they follow the opinion of the newspapers and media.Camilla's coverage in the media has got better and better as its become less acceptable to simply go on about her involvement in the War of the Wales'.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #1179  
Old 07-16-2017, 04:18 PM
ROYAL NORWAY's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: somewhere, United Kingdom, Norway
Posts: 3,107
Quote:
Originally Posted by tommy100 View Post
The fact as time goes on fewer and fewer people see a reason to dislike Camilla for her involvement with Charles.

People of my generation (20-30year olds) don't remember Diana and they see a women in her 70s who does public duties from time to time.

As Royal Norway says, will she be beloved and popular? No necessarily. But equally I don't think she'll be vilified or disliked.

IMO most people in the UK are by default neutral about members of the RF so its how the media present them thats forms opinion. Look at how Anne went from young beautiful daughter of the sovereign to cranky cold royal and now is widely credited by the media as being 'hardworking and respected' . Over the past 60 odd years has the British public massively changed their position and opinion about her? No. Most people in the UK don't particularly care about the RF and don't think about them apart from when asked or confronted by them (jubilee's, weddings etc) so they follow the opinion of the newspapers and media.Camilla's coverage in the media has got better and better as its become less acceptable to simply go on about her involvement in the War of the Wales'.
Agree with this two points and the rest of your post.
__________________
The Queen is the most wonderful, forgiving, non judgmental person I know. Sarah Ferguson speaking in 2011.
Reply With Quote
  #1180  
Old 07-16-2017, 04:18 PM
duchessrachel's Avatar
Nobility
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Birmingham, United States
Posts: 426
Quote:
Originally Posted by wyevale View Post
Nothing so formal is required.. Just 'When my Step-Mother is Queen' will do, dropped into a conversation overheard by journalists...
Something like that is what I meant.
__________________

__________________
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
austria birthday carl gustaf chris o'neill crown princess mary crown princess victoria current events denmark duchess of cambridge eveningwear earl of snowdon family french general news gloucester hereditary grand duchess stéphanie hereditary grand duke guillaume infanta cristina infanta leonor infanta margarita infanta sofia italy iñaki urdangarín juan urdangarín king felipe king felipe vi king philippe king willem-alexander letizia liechtenstein monarchy morgan news nobel 2017 prince alexander prince carl philip prince daniel prince felix prince gabriel prince harry prince liam prince nicholas prince oscar prince sebastian princess beatrice princess claire of luxembourg princess estelle princess leonore princess madeleine princess mary casual style princess mary current events princess of asturias princess sofia princess sofia eveningwear princess victoria queen elizabeth ii queen letizia queen letizia casual outfits queen letizia daytime fashion queen letizia fashion queen mathilde queen mathildes hats queen maxima queen silvia state visit stephanie sweden swedish royal family the duchess of cambridge fashion vatican victoria



Copyright 2002- Social Knowledge, LLC All Rights Reserved.

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 10:56 PM.

Social Knowledge Networks

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