The Royal Forums Coat of Arms

Go Back   The Royal Forums > Reigning Houses > British Royals > The Prince of Wales and the Duchess of Cornwall

Join The Royal Forums Today
Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #1081  
Old 12-17-2010, 01:00 AM
Roslyn's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Tintenbar, Australia
Posts: 2,691
Yes, but there are enough trouble-making anarchist nuts and misguided, easily led young people out there for there to be the possibility of some noisy unpleasantness. But, as Bertie correctly says, we will just have to wait and see.
__________________

__________________
  #1082  
Old 12-17-2010, 02:30 AM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Los Angeles CA, United States
Posts: 1,075
The fact that Charles mentioned it - isn't it an indication of something? If so, what? Why mention it to begin with unless there is the possibility of his accession nearing somehow. I have thought it might indicate that the Queen and Prince Philip might start to step back a bit, allowing Charles and Camilla to step forward, maybe even give Charles more obvious presence in a 'regnal' way. Is that so unlikely?

Also, doesn't such a situation have precedence? I'm thinking of the remarkable life of the Prince Regent, George, Prince of Wales. In that case he was dealing with his father's erratic mental state - if I've got my history right - but surely aging monarchs have allowed their son or daughter some power before they die to assure a secure transition.

The 'off with their heads' comment was pure adolescent opportunism - and considerably crass - and I say that as not even British. It cannot be taken as an indicator of anything, I don't think.
__________________

__________________
  #1083  
Old 12-17-2010, 03:03 AM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 8,495
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tyger View Post
The fact that Charles mentioned it - isn't it an indication of something? If so, what? Why mention it to begin with unless there is the possibility of his accession nearing somehow. I have thought it might indicate that the Queen and Prince Philip might start to step back a bit, allowing Charles and Camilla to step forward, maybe even give Charles more obvious presence in a 'regnal' way. Is that so unlikely?

Also, doesn't such a situation have precedence? I'm thinking of the remarkable life of the Prince Regent, George, Prince of Wales. In that case he was dealing with his father's erratic mental state - if I've got my history right - but surely aging monarchs have allowed their son or daughter some power before they die to assure a secure transition.

The 'off with their heads' comment was pure adolescent opportunism - and considerably crass - and I say that as not even British. It cannot be taken as an indicator of anything, I don't think.

The difference with George V being Prince Regent was that his father was declared insane and unable to carry out the duties of monarch. There is no suggestion that the Queen is in that situation.

A better comparison is Victoria except that due to the death of Albert she withdraw from public events however she kept the reigns of the monarch very much in her own hands and wouldn't allow her heir any role, even to ease the burden by officially representing her in public, although he did host some visits from other countries representatives but only when the government pushed.

Whileever the Queen can carry out her official duties she will do so. She may cut back on the unofficial stuff and let Charles and Camilla pick up some of those - e.g. Philip is said to be cutting down some of his patronages etc so those unofficial roles could pass to Charles and even to William and Kate.
__________________
  #1084  
Old 12-17-2010, 05:20 AM
Courtier
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 802
Quote:
Originally Posted by scooter View Post
You missed my point entirely. If the moment in time that Charles announces 'Queen Camilla' happens to coincide with a moment of serious unrest for whatever reson there could easily be a perfect storm of unhappiness leading to a shedding of the monarchy all together. Last time in history the words 'off with their heads' were chanted at a royal it didnt end well. And thank you for your thoughts on my education, MARG. I shall be sure to ask for the tuition back from Harvard as it was apparently a complete waste.
Marg made the point that the protests from the other night were about increased university fees, not royals. 'Off with the their heads' weren't the only things chanted, more prominantly were 'Tory scrum" and "It's your government!" The protesters were complaining about the government and Charles and Camilla were seen as representatives of that government. The protest was against the government!

Even currently there aren't enough Brits who have strong enough feelings to protest about Camilla becoming queen. The current Prime Minister supports the idea, young people don't have strong enough feelings to hit the streets, they care more about their education and having to spend the rest of their lives paying for it! It's older people who contain the strong anti-Camilla brigade, will they be around to make a major protest? They didn't even manage it for the 10th anniversary of Diana's death, or the inquest into her death. About 100 people were at the memorial outside the Guards Chapel and daily a handful of people turned up at the inquest. Much to the surprise of the organisers who prepared for 100s. The numbers who leave flowers at Kensington Palace on the anniversary of her death has now dwindled to less than 50 (2010) So I can't see a mass rising of the people complaining about Camilla becoming queen, there will be your hardcore, but in the future they will be considered insignificant.

I do agree with Bertie too, should the current Queen live another 10 years, then it will be pretty certain that Camilla will be Queen consort with no controversy.

A little piece of annoyance with me, why do some Americans always try to perpetuate the idea that the monarchy is teetering on the edge of oblivion? It's not and although the abdication rocked it somewhat, Diana's death, irrespective of what the tabloids wrote didn't cause any teetering closer to the edge! Republican support in the UK has remained steadily under 10% since the 1870s!!! The highest profile republican politicians were in the 1960s and 70s, the movement "Republic Now" that the newspapers ask for commentary whenever they want a critical reaction to any royal has a very small membership base. The institution that is the British monarchy is far stronger than individual personalities, it's part of people's lives.
__________________
  #1085  
Old 12-17-2010, 05:50 AM
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: alpine village, Germany
Posts: 1,804
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iluvbertie View Post
Charles has always made it known that he wants her crowned beside him as his Queen but that doesn't change the official line from CH and BP is still that she will be Princess Consort - so Charles has a personal preference and an official line and he will wait and see when the time comes.
One tend to forget that Charles is a very stubborn man used to get his way whenever he can. And that only his mother and probably his father really can gainsay him and order him to do things he doesn't want to do. But as soon as his mother's dead, he is the boss. And if the new king asks his new prime minister to call his wife Queen Camilla, the prime minister will do it. And all will follow suit. There are not enough Scooters in Britain to stop the avalanche of mourning addresses send to the new king and queen. In case of mourning, people normally don't think of riots but they seek to console each other. And that means giving Charles his wish.
__________________
  #1086  
Old 12-17-2010, 06:07 AM
muriel's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: London / Guildford, United Kingdom
Posts: 4,947
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kataryn View Post
One tend to forget that Charles is a very stubborn man used to get his way whenever he can. And that only his mother and probably his father really can gainsay him and order him to do things he doesn't want to do. But as soon as his mother's dead, he is the boss. And if the new king asks his new prime minister to call his wife Queen Camilla, the prime minister will do it. And all will follow suit. There are not enough Scooters in Britain to stop the avalanche of mourning addresses send to the new king and queen. In case of mourning, people normally don't think of riots but they seek to console each other. And that means giving Charles his wish.
Its also not just about Charles being stubborn, or always wanting to get his way. The fact of the matter is that Camilla will be the wife of the King, and the wife of the King is the Queen, like it or not.

The current PM is certainly supportive of the idea of Queen Camilla, and as are most people in the Kingdom.
__________________
  #1087  
Old 12-17-2010, 09:31 AM
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: alpine village, Germany
Posts: 1,804
Quote:
Originally Posted by muriel View Post
Its also not just about Charles being stubborn, or always wanting to get his way. The fact of the matter is that Camilla will be the wife of the King, and the wife of the King is the Queen, like it or not.
Well, I like the idea!!!
__________________
  #1088  
Old 12-17-2010, 01:56 PM
EchoLynn's Avatar
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Chandler, Arizona, United States
Posts: 175
Personally, I think it would be going too far to give her the title of Queen. She's gotten most of what she wants, she is now married to her long time love... a person she had an affair with in public! I think out of respect for William and Harry, and the public in general, she should be content with a lesser title.
__________________
  #1089  
Old 12-17-2010, 02:17 PM
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: alpine village, Germany
Posts: 1,804
Quote:
Originally Posted by EchoLynn View Post
Personally, I think it would be going too far to give her the title of Queen. She's gotten most of what she wants, she is now married to her long time love... a person she had an affair with in public! I think out of respect for William and Harry, and the public in general, she should be content with a lesser title.
Monarchy has next to nothing to do with the actual people holding positions in a Royal family but with traditions and rules. One rule is that the wife of the king is the queen. Another is that the monarch is the fount of all honours in this country so it is the souverain's privilege to bestow or take away honours if there is no letters patent granting it according to the will of a former souverain.

All that together means: it doesn't matter if or if not Camilla "deserves" something. She has a right by law to be the queen one day as she is the wife of the next king. The only person who can do something about this will be her husband. Apart from the current queen, who has shown that she is not willing to change the rules actively. As long as Elizabeth II. rules, nothing will be done except talking about "intentions". Once Charles is king, he would need the parliament to take the title of queen away from his wife. The current prime minister is not willing to do any downgrading of the wife of the next king. I doubt the future prime minister of Charles as king will do it without Charles' explicit wish. I don't see Charles wishing for his wife to be anything else but his queen.

So where is it going "too far"? That's how things are in the British monarchy. If Camlla died tomorrow and Charles married again, then this wife would be the future queen. Because it's not the person who counts but her place in the system. And Camilla's place is being Charles' wife. Charles is the future king, thus she is the future queen.

Edit: Another point. It wasn't Camilla who had her affair with Charles "in the public". It was Diana who made the affair public and it was the media who wouldn't let Camilla live a quiet and discreet life. It was only after Diana's death (and some years after it) that Charles went public with Camilla and a short time later he married her. William and Harry surely were taught from a very young age to respect the rules and traditions of the monarchy they are a part of. They surely won't mind if Camilla takes her rightful place as their father's wife.
__________________
  #1090  
Old 12-17-2010, 02:25 PM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Los Angeles CA, United States
Posts: 1,075
Quote:
Originally Posted by Charlotte1 View Post
Marg made the point that the protests from the other night were about increased university fees, not royals. 'Off with the their heads' weren't the only things chanted, more prominantly were 'Tory scrum" and "It's your government!" The protesters were complaining about the government and Charles and Camilla were seen as representatives of that government. The protest was against the government!

Even currently there aren't enough Brits who have strong enough feelings to protest about Camilla becoming queen. The current Prime Minister supports the idea, young people don't have strong enough feelings to hit the streets, they care more about their education and having to spend the rest of their lives paying for it! It's older people who contain the strong anti-Camilla brigade, will they be around to make a major protest? They didn't even manage it for the 10th anniversary of Diana's death, or the inquest into her death. About 100 people were at the memorial outside the Guards Chapel and daily a handful of people turned up at the inquest. Much to the surprise of the organisers who prepared for 100s. The numbers who leave flowers at Kensington Palace on the anniversary of her death has now dwindled to less than 50 (2010) So I can't see a mass rising of the people complaining about Camilla becoming queen, there will be your hardcore, but in the future they will be considered insignificant.

I do agree with Bertie too, should the current Queen live another 10 years, then it will be pretty certain that Camilla will be Queen consort with no controversy.

A little piece of annoyance with me, why do some Americans always try to perpetuate the idea that the monarchy is teetering on the edge of oblivion? It's not and although the abdication rocked it somewhat, Diana's death, irrespective of what the tabloids wrote didn't cause any teetering closer to the edge! Republican support in the UK has remained steadily under 10% since the 1870s!!! The highest profile republican politicians were in the 1960s and 70s, the movement "Republic Now" that the newspapers ask for commentary whenever they want a critical reaction to any royal has a very small membership base. The institution that is the British monarchy is far stronger than individual personalities, it's part of people's lives.

Thank you for expressing all this - I am learning a great deal on this Board. In particular I have become heartened to realize that the impression that is being created over here in the US - through our tabloid press - is not accurate. We are 'fed' a very different picture of the Diana thing and especially the popularity of Charles - and poor Camilla.

It is curious to me that it seems to be Americans who are expressing the disaffection with Camilla and the sainting of Diana. Isn't that odd? I think so.
__________________
  #1091  
Old 12-17-2010, 02:30 PM
Osipi's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: On the west side of North up from Back, United States
Posts: 3,909
Quote:
Originally Posted by EchoLynn View Post
Personally, I think it would be going too far to give her the title of Queen. She's gotten most of what she wants, she is now married to her long time love... a person she had an affair with in public! I think out of respect for William and Harry, and the public in general, she should be content with a lesser title.
One thing I've realized over the years is that Camilla is not a limelight nor title seeking type of woman. What matters to her is Charles and I don't recall any instance where it could be construed that she was out to get something from him. For over 30+ years she's been a pal, confidante, shoulder to lean on, lover and then wife. If that isn't a remarkable definition of what a Queen Consort is.. I don't know what is. The fact remains that the moment Charles becomes King, Camilla is his Queen. Charles would like that, the PM would like that and I think a lot of the public sees how well she supports her husband and would accept her as Queen Consort.

There is one more angle to look at about the style Princess Consort. It very well could be that this style is what Camilla herself would prefer to be known as. This is the same woman that out of respect for the late Diana and her boys, chose to be styled The Duchess of Cornwall. At the time of their marriage, jumping into the public fishbowl was something totally alien to Camilla although she very well knew how it all worked. She understands Charles and has done her very best I think to play a supporting role for him over the last 5 years. I think she'd rather the spotlight be on Charles rather than on her. To me, Princess Consort should it be used, denotes more strongly that she is the King's support.

My bet is on that she'll be Queen Consort though once Charles does become King.
__________________
  #1092  
Old 12-17-2010, 02:33 PM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Los Angeles CA, United States
Posts: 1,075
Quote:
Originally Posted by EchoLynn View Post
Personally, I think it would be going too far to give her the title of Queen. She's gotten most of what she wants, she is now married to her long time love... a person she had an affair with in public! I think out of respect for William and Harry, and the public in general, she should be content with a lesser title.
Why do you think she had an affair in public? From what I know, the affair was conducted very discreetly - it was Diana who 'outed' it and took every opportunity to mention it.

Stating what Camilla has 'wanted' is shaky territory - she has never presented as someone that wanted the limelight or 'wanted' to be wife and Queen of Charles. She was propelled into the situation and has taken something on that she never opted for willingly it looks like to me. Diana is the sole source for thinking otherwise of Camilla and Diana is not a reliable source in this regard.

Out of respect for William and Harry it would be good for people in the public realm not to seek to harm or injure people William and Harry love and value - which they clearly do with Camilla, as well as their father. This continual ranting against Camilla must be hurtful to them, don't you think?
__________________
  #1093  
Old 12-17-2010, 03:10 PM
SelenaWolf's Avatar
Newbie
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Hamilton, Canada
Posts: 2
My opinion has not changed since the wedding. I was deeply disappointed in both Prince Charles and the Duchess of Cornwall for their behaviour, and continue to be. I don't wish either of them ill, but I lost a great deal of respect for them.
__________________
  #1094  
Old 12-17-2010, 03:12 PM
Lenora's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Moscow, Russia
Posts: 2,057
Quote:
Originally Posted by SelenaWolf View Post
My opinion has not changed since the wedding. I was deeply disappointed in both Prince Charles and the Duchess of Cornwall for their behaviour, and continue to be. I don't wish either of them ill, but I lost a great deal of respect for them.
Yes,that's very sad anyway.If they loved each other,why didn't they marry at their time?
__________________
  #1095  
Old 12-17-2010, 03:15 PM
AnnEliza's Avatar
Nobility
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Seattle, United States
Posts: 325
Quote:
Originally Posted by Charlotte1 View Post
A little piece of annoyance with me, why do some Americans always try to perpetuate the idea that the monarchy is teetering on the edge of oblivion? It's not and although the abdication rocked it somewhat, Diana's death, irrespective of what the tabloids wrote didn't cause any teetering closer to the edge! Republican support in the UK has remained steadily under 10% since the 1870s!!! The highest profile republican politicians were in the 1960s and 70s, the movement "Republic Now" that the newspapers ask for commentary whenever they want a critical reaction to any royal has a very small membership base. The institution that is the British monarchy is far stronger than individual personalities, it's part of people's lives.
Ha, I am an American, and I was going to ask basically the same question! Rather, I have noticed that some folks seem to think there has to be a vote or something for Camilla to be queen, as if she were being voted in as vice president or something. Well, I have to admit to having been a fan of royalty most of my life, and maybe that's why I understand that it's not a question of popularity, it's a question of tradition and law, and so Camilla will be Queen Consort as soon as Charles becomes King, regardless of popularity. Would that bring the monarchy down? I very much doubt it, the monarchy has survived the abdication of Edward VIII, the scandals and divorces of Diana and Sarah, and plenty of other problems. I doubt that the title of the King's wife will bring down a system so entwined with British culture and tradition. Perhaps that's why I like the monarchy so much, since our political system here in the U.S. is so personality-driven, and media-managed.
__________________
  #1096  
Old 12-17-2010, 03:23 PM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Los Angeles CA, United States
Posts: 1,075
Quote:
Originally Posted by SelenaWolf View Post
My opinion has not changed since the wedding. I was deeply disappointed in both Prince Charles and the Duchess of Cornwall for their behaviour, and continue to be. I don't wish either of them ill, but I lost a great deal of respect for them.
Interesting how we see different things in the same event. I saw a very nervous Camilla, taking a step for Charles, not for herself, and my respect for her was born (not that I dis-respected her before then). It was then I realized that there was something odd about the anti-Camilla rhetoric. If any of it were true - I am going to go out on a limb here - but if any of it were even half-way true, I doubt the Queen would have given permission for the marriage. That alone says something about Camilla and the way it must 'really be' not the way it gets spun in some quarters.
__________________
  #1097  
Old 12-17-2010, 03:41 PM
Lady Ann's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: IN THE CITY, United States
Posts: 857
Quote:
Originally Posted by EchoLynn View Post
Personally, I think it would be going too far to give her the title of Queen. She's gotten most of what she wants, she is now married to her long time love... a person she had an affair with in public! I think out of respect for William and Harry, and the public in general, she should be content with a lesser title.
I think she would be content with a lesser title, being that I beleive she is in love with Charles the man not Charles The Prince of Wales. It is Charles who I think would have a problem with her not being Queen...IMO of course ..Also, I beleive that we will see HM Queen Camillia in the furture and good for him to have his great love by his side as he rules.
__________________
Lady Ann
Life began with waking up and loving my mother's face…~ George Eliot ~
  #1098  
Old 12-17-2010, 04:51 PM
KittyAtlanta's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: KittyLand Junction, United States
Posts: 2,854
Quote:
Originally Posted by scooter View Post
You missed my point entirely. If the moment in time that Charles announces 'Queen Camilla' happens to coincide with a moment of serious unrest for whatever reson there could easily be a perfect storm of unhappiness leading to a shedding of the monarchy all together. Last time in history the words 'off with their heads' were chanted at a royal it didnt end well. And thank you for your thoughts on my education, MARG. I shall be sure to ask for the tuition back from Harvard as it was apparently a complete waste.
Scooter, when did you graduate -- I got my degree in 1969. Veritas, christo et ecclesiae.
__________________
  #1099  
Old 12-17-2010, 05:41 PM
Courtier
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: everywhere, United States
Posts: 566
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iluvbertie View Post
I think they have been honest. The intention then, as it still is, is that she will be known as Princess Consort.

However, that intention may change in the future to be that she will be known as Queen Consort.

To say they weren't honest from the start is simply unfair, unless you have concrete evidence that all along the intention was that she would be Queen.

There is a difference between what the official intention is and what Charles would like as well. It would be right to say that all along Charles has wanted Camilla to be his Queen but that is normal for any man who loves his wife - that she would take his titles in full. However Charles, more than anyone, knows the way the public took to his first wife and that Camilla wouldn't be accepted that way and thus realises that the time isn't right for a change in the stated intention.

If the Queen died tomorrow I think Camilla would be Princess Consort but if the Queen survives another 10 years then she could become Queen.
It is a perception issue. Even to this day he still says something like she might be Queen. I think the palace should stop waffling and pick a side or at least clear-up the legal side of things. If he wants her to be Queen then just say so and let go of the Princess Consort thing otherwise when asked the question say no she will the princess consort. I don't think that it will change public opinion one way or another. Most people already know how they feel on the issue and they don't appear to be changing.
__________________
  #1100  
Old 12-17-2010, 07:51 PM
scooter's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: katonah, United States
Posts: 2,379
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kataryn View Post
One tend to forget that Charles is a very stubborn man used to get his way whenever he can. And that only his mother and probably his father really can gainsay him and order him to do things he doesn't want to do. But as soon as his mother's dead, he is the boss. And if the new king asks his new prime minister to call his wife Queen Camilla, the prime minister will do it. And all will follow suit. There are not enough Scooters in Britain to stop the avalanche of mourning addresses send to the new king and queen. In case of mourning, people normally don't think of riots but they seek to console each other. And that means giving Charles his wish.
Your description of Charles is one that I have subscribed to for many years as do many others......

As far as the PM of the day, depending on the tenor of the day when that happens, ie...it could easily be 20 years....Camilla is not as long lived familialy as the Windsors, it may be a moot point...the economy could be booming which makes people far more tolerant. We are all at the whim of fate in this life.
__________________

__________________
Closed Thread

Tags
camilla, duchess of cornwall, prince charles, prince of wales, relationships, royal duties


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
Charles and Camilla: Visit to Portugal - 28-30 March 2011 Princess Agnes The Prince of Wales and the Duchess of Cornwall 45 04-06-2011 07:24 PM
Charles and Camilla current events 9: Feb-March 2006 Elspeth Current Events Archive 203 03-08-2006 12:30 PM




Additional Links
Popular Tags
abdication birth charlene crown prince frederik crown prince haakon crown princess letizia crown princess mary crown princess mette-marit engagement fashion grand duchess maria teresa grand duke henri hohenzollern infanta leonor infanta sofia jewellery jordan king abdullah ii king carl xvi gustav king constantine ii king felipe king felipe vi king harald king juan carlos king philippe king willem-alexander luxembourg olympic games olympics ottoman poland pom prince albert prince albert ii prince carl philip prince constantijn prince felipe prince floris prince maurits prince pieter-christiaan princess aimee princess anita princess astrid princess beatrix princess charlene princess claire princess laurentien princess letizia princess mabel princess madeleine princess marilene princess mary princess of asturias queen anne-marie queen letizia queen mathilde queen maxima queen paola queen rania queen silvia royal royal fashion russia sofia hellqvist spain state visit the hague visit wedding winter olympics 2014



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 04:34 PM.

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]