The Royal Forums Coat of Arms


Join The Royal Forums Today
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #1121  
Old 08-14-2012, 07:47 PM
Lumutqueen's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
Royal Blogger
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Carlton, York, United Kingdom
Posts: 17,167
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hilda Thomas
When all is said and done, I do hope that Queen Elizabeth and Camilla are placing bouquet of roses on Wallis Simpson's tomb.
Wallis was in a different time. I see no reason for Camilla and especially not The Queen to lay bouquets on that grave.
__________________

__________________
We Will Remember Them.
Reply With Quote
  #1122  
Old 08-14-2012, 08:39 PM
padams2359's Avatar
Nobility
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: New Orleans, United States
Posts: 388
They did that "Princess Consort" thing to quiet the hens when Camilla was marginally popular. Certainly not her lowest, but far from where she is today. The Queen is a strong believer in Polls. I think Charles has learned that this is a valuable tool from his mother. "Batten Down the Hatches when you are unpopular, and ride the wave when you are popular. ". That is how you survive for over a thousand years with 40 monarchs. Flowers to Wallis? Really people? Really?
__________________

__________________
Reply With Quote
  #1123  
Old 08-14-2012, 08:45 PM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Spring Hill, United States
Posts: 2,526
But it is hypocrisy. Camilla and Wallis are no different. And, when Margaret wanted to marry Armstrong-Jones, she gave up what might have been happiness for her, I say might have, because no one can be certain, because it would cause her sister a problem. Same problem. Margaret and Wallis were many years apart. Charles would not negotiate. So, petulance won out. The Queen, either had standards or not. Her mother persecuted Wallis. So, sorry. You can't explain away the hyypocrisy. Now, I can understand each case and I have no trouble with any of the marriages, including Charles. He loves Camilla. To his credit he fought.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #1124  
Old 08-14-2012, 08:52 PM
sthreats's Avatar
Nobility
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: midwest, United States
Posts: 341
Quote:
Originally Posted by COUNTESS
But it is hypocrisy. Camilla and Wallis are no different. And, when Margaret wanted to marry Armstrong-Jones, she gave up what might have been happiness for her, I say might have, because no one can be certain, because it would cause her sister a problem. Same problem. Margaret and Wallis were many years apart. Charles would not negotiate. So, petulance won out. The Queen, either had standards or not. Her mother persecuted Wallis. So, sorry. You can't explain away the hyypocrisy. Now, I can understand each case and I have no trouble with any of the marriages, including Charles. He loves Camilla. To his credit he fought.
How are Wallis and Camilla the same?. Walllis had been divorced twice had a shady background to put it mildly had ties to the Nazis and Was seeing guy while she was saying the prince. I really don't know what Wallis has to do with this thread
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #1125  
Old 08-14-2012, 09:02 PM
Nobility
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: n/a, United States
Posts: 343
I can certainly understand why Wallis is being brought up, but I think we have to remember that these are vastly different times we're living in with regard to opinion on these sorts of things.

As for the present situation, certainly the royal family has undergone a lot of change in the past couple of decades, and they've had to adapt a lot. At the same time, though, I think the monarchy needs to retain a certain level of tradition to survive. I think keeping the tradition of a king's wife being named queen (regardless of whether she's divorced or unpopular or whatever) is a good one to uphold. That's an overly simplistic interpretation of my views, but it's what they boil down to.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #1126  
Old 08-14-2012, 09:09 PM
Courtier
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Washington, United States
Posts: 852
Quote:
Originally Posted by Madame Royale View Post
I don't at all have an issue with your opinion, I just don't believe it rational to be stereotyped for mine because it's the skapegoat of choice.

Needless to say, I come at it from a different view point and not one that harbours any ill prejudice towards the Duchess.
Perhaps you have explained in the past, but I would like to know why. Personally, I think Camilla has been treated unfairly in the press, but I wonder if she shouldn't be known as "Queen" for the same reason that Philip is not "King."

Now that the rules of succession have changed, wouldn't it make sense to also rethink the role of the monarch's spouse. If a Queen's husband shouldn't be King, I don't know why the King's wife should be treated differently.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #1127  
Old 08-14-2012, 09:13 PM
Nobility
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Top End, Australia
Posts: 340
Quote:
Originally Posted by Isabella View Post
I can certainly understand why Wallis is being brought up, but I think we have to remember that these are vastly different times we're living in with regard to opinion on these sorts of things.
Exactly. In 1936 divorced people were not even allowed at Court, now we have a situation where three of the current monarch's children are divorced as well as her sister. Divorce in the general population is much more common.

To deny Camilla her title because she is divorced and remarried (and that's the only genuine reason why it would happen) is not only insulting to her but tells all divorcees that they are second class people.

Thank you also to those of you who answered my question about the legislation in other realms.

But we seem to have wandered off topic again, sorry moderators.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #1128  
Old 08-14-2012, 09:15 PM
Nobility
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Top End, Australia
Posts: 340
Quote:
Originally Posted by US Royal Watcher View Post
Perhaps you have explained in the past, but I would like to know why. Personally, I think Camilla has been treated unfairly in the press, but I wonder if she shouldn't be known as "Queen" for the same reason that Philip is not "King."

Now that the rules of succession have changed, wouldn't it make sense to also rethink the role of the monarch's spouse. If a Queen's husband shouldn't be King, I don't know why the King's wife should be treated differently.
Oh, imagine the screams of horror from the Daily Mail if their beloved Kate were to be denied the title of Queen.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #1129  
Old 08-14-2012, 09:22 PM
Newbie
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Freeport, United States
Posts: 6
I absolutely agree! Becoming the Queen consort is NOT a popularity contest. It is on the condition of marrying a King. It does not matter whether the public likes her or not. Prince Charles loves her, married her and she should become Queen Camilla when the time comes.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #1130  
Old 08-14-2012, 09:26 PM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 8,602
Quote:
Originally Posted by Artemisia View Post
Australia had similar path, although it declared war on Germany immediately after Britain, on 3 September 1936. It was, however, completely the decision of the Australian Government who was not bound by Britain's declaration of war. Australian Government explained their decision by the fact the country's interests were too closely linked to those of Britain and that Britain's potential defeat could have harsh consequences for Australia (most notably, threat from Japan was mentioned). Unlike Canada, where the decision to enter the war was somewhat controversial, the majority of Australians strongly supported their government's position.
Menzies did not 'declare war' at all. His statement was 'as a consequence we are at war' a very different thing.

In 1942 the new PM even backdated the declaration of war to 1939 when he had the Parliament ratify the Westminster Agreement.

Curtin's action was to retroactively declare war but Menzies didn't declare war because Britain had done so on our behalf.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #1131  
Old 08-14-2012, 09:30 PM
Newbie
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Freeport, United States
Posts: 6
The reasons behind a sitting Queen deciding NOT to have her husband be King are rooted in power. If he becomes King, she automatically (as Queen) becomes his subject which is insane since she became Queen through royal blood and her husband (ie - Prince Phillip would become King by nothing more than being married to her). The problem would end up being the power he would have over her.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #1132  
Old 08-14-2012, 09:33 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Melbourne & Sydney, Australia
Posts: 3,983
Quote:
Originally Posted by US Royal Watcher View Post
Perhaps you have explained in the past, but I would like to know why. Personally, I think Camilla has been treated unfairly in the press, but I wonder if she shouldn't be known as "Queen" for the same reason that Philip is not "King."

Now that the rules of succession have changed, wouldn't it make sense to also rethink the role of the monarch's spouse. If a Queen's husband shouldn't be King, I don't know why the King's wife should be treated differently.

I have indeed explained my position in the past and at length so you are more than welcome to research my posts on the matter.
__________________

"Dressing is a way of life" - Monsieur Saint Laurent
Reply With Quote
  #1133  
Old 08-14-2012, 09:45 PM
Frelinghighness's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: New England, United States
Posts: 2,727
Quote:
Originally Posted by Princess Tina View Post
The reasons behind a sitting Queen deciding NOT to have her husband be King are rooted in power. If he becomes King, she automatically (as Queen) becomes his subject which is insane since she became Queen through royal blood and her husband (ie - Prince Phillip would become King by nothing more than being married to her). The problem would end up being the power he would have over her.
Very good point especially after having seen the wonderful 50's flick Young Bess about Queen Elizabeth I worth seeing!
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #1134  
Old 08-15-2012, 03:44 AM
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: alpine village, Germany
Posts: 1,804
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lumutqueen View Post
Wallis was in a different time. I see no reason for Camilla and especially not The Queen to lay bouquets on that grave.
As Wallis is buried at Frogmore (IIRC?), I believe her grave will be properly tended by HM's staff. That should be enough, really.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #1135  
Old 08-15-2012, 06:50 AM
Courtier
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Washington, United States
Posts: 852
Quote:
Originally Posted by Princess Tina View Post
The reasons behind a sitting Queen deciding NOT to have her husband be King are rooted in power. If he becomes King, she automatically (as Queen) becomes his subject which is insane since she became Queen through royal blood and her husband (ie - Prince Phillip would become King by nothing more than being married to her). The problem would end up being the power he would have over her.
Exactly my point. Now that a first born female may ascend the throne essentially means that the titles "king" and "queen" are equal. The idea that a woman automatically becomes submissive and is subjugated to her husband is old-fashioned and should be abolished.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #1136  
Old 08-15-2012, 06:51 AM
maryr0249's Avatar
Gentry
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Franklin, NC, United States
Posts: 68
Quote:
Originally Posted by Princess Tina View Post
The reasons behind a sitting Queen deciding NOT to have her husband be King are rooted in power. If he becomes King, she automatically (as Queen) becomes his subject which is insane since she became Queen through royal blood and her husband (ie - Prince Phillip would become King by nothing more than being married to her). The problem would end up being the power he would have over her.
I'm glad to see this issue addressed. As a young idealist I might have thought the same thing: why shouldn't the consort of a queen become king? In the 21st Century, especially if we are ready for girls to become monarch before their brothers, why not? But the two situations are drastically different. History has proven that women monarchs are at least as effective as men, but when a King and Queen in name, in a Judeo-Christian household, share rule, no matter whose birth takes precedence, the people have genuine reason for concern. In micro-kingdoms all over the world, battles rage every day about whether men or women are supposed to take charge of the home. In the larger world, biology rules, as does the King, just as he still does in the marketplace. Britain is wise.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #1137  
Old 08-15-2012, 07:10 AM
maryr0249's Avatar
Gentry
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Franklin, NC, United States
Posts: 68
Quote:
Originally Posted by US Royal Watcher View Post
Exactly my point. Now that a first born female may ascend the throne essentially means that the titles "king" and "queen" are equal. The idea that a woman automatically becomes submissive and is subjugated to her husband is old-fashioned and should be abolished.
Equal? Not a chance, in the bodies we have now. Have you seen a "traditional" wedding lately? There's plenty of need to shoot for the stars. But men still rule the world, and as a rule, this one should stand.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #1138  
Old 08-15-2012, 07:25 AM
SLV's Avatar
SLV SLV is offline
Courtier
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Amsterdam, Netherlands
Posts: 671
Quote:
Originally Posted by US Royal Watcher
Exactly my point. Now that a first born female may ascend the throne essentially means that the titles "king" and "queen" are equal. The idea that a woman automatically becomes submissive and is subjugated to her husband is old-fashioned and should be abolished.
Actually I think that when you have a reigning queen, like in GB and in other European countries. The queen is actually king And queen. At least that is the situation in my country, the Netherlands.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #1139  
Old 08-15-2012, 07:44 AM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Melbourne & Sydney, Australia
Posts: 3,983
A king or Queen regnant are as equals. Their sex matters not in the slightest.

They are the sovereign Lord and Lady's of their respective Kingdoms.
__________________

"Dressing is a way of life" - Monsieur Saint Laurent
Reply With Quote
  #1140  
Old 08-15-2012, 09:10 AM
Zonk's Avatar
Administrator
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Somewhere in, United States
Posts: 10,267
Let's get back on topic...this thread is suddenly all over the place.

Any and all posts that have nothing do with Charles and Camilla's marriage from April 2005 on will be deleted without notice.
__________________

__________________
.

Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
camilla, duchess of cornwall, marriage, prince charles, prince of wales


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
abdication belgium birth carl philip charlene chris o'neill crown prince frederik crown prince haakon crown princess mary crown princess mette-marit crown princess victoria current events engagement fashion genealogy grand duchess maria teresa grand duke henri hohenzollern infanta leonor infanta sofia jewellery jordan king abdullah ii king carl xvi gustav king felipe king felipe vi king harald king juan carlos king philippe king willem-alexander luxembourg nobility olympics ottoman poland president hollande prince albert prince albert ii prince carl philip prince constantijn prince floris prince maurits prince pieter-christiaan princess aimee princess anita princess beatrix princess charlene princess claire princess laurentien princess mabel princess margriet princess mary princess mary fashion queen letizia queen mathilde queen maxima queen rania queen silvia queen sofia royal royal fashion russia sofia hellqvist spain state visit sweden the hague visit wedding winter olympics 2014



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 05:52 AM.

Social Knowledge Networks

eXTReMe Tracker
Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2014
Jelsoft Enterprises

Royal News Delivered to your Email!

You can get the latest Royal News right in your inbox.

unsusbcribe at anytime with one click

Close [X]