The Royal Forums Coat of Arms


Join The Royal Forums Today
Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #521  
Old 02-20-2005, 03:26 AM
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: ***, United States
Posts: 16,894
Quote:
That is why Camilla does not deserve any honors, titles, or deference that would normally be due the wife of the Prince of Wales. She should just marry Charles and have a marginal title such as Her Grace, the Duchess of Cornwall.
They can't do that. There's more at issue here than people's feelings about a couple of women the Prince of Wales has been involved with. It was claimed back in the 1930s before the abdication of Edward VIII that a morganatic marriage of a king or someone in the direct line of succession was not legally possible without a change in the law and the approval of the Commonwealth and goodness only knows what else, none of which would be possible in practical terms.

They kicked a king off the throne on the grounds that morganatic marriage didn't exist in British law.

They simply can't backtrack now and say that, OK, Diana was terribly popular and Camilla is seen as the cause of her suffering so she must be satisfied with a morganatic marriage - not less than 100 years after deposing a monarch on the grounds that such a marriage wasn't possible. Charles and Camilla are pushing 60 - Charles is almost certainly going to have a short reign if he even outlives his mother, and in practical terms he's really not going to make much impression on kingship with half the country focussed on William already - it simply isn't worth the legal awfulness to push the morganatic marriage option when it isn't a long-term issue anyway. It makes a total mockery of the abdication and would show that Edward VIII had been got rid of illegally. It simply isn't worth it.
__________________

  #522  
Old 02-20-2005, 03:39 AM
tiaraprin's Avatar
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Near NY City, United States
Posts: 1,839
Quote:
Originally Posted by Elspeth
They can't do that. There's more at issue here than people's feelings about a couple of women the Prince of Wales has been involved with. It was claimed back in the 1930s before the abdication of Edward VIII that a morganatic marriage of a king or someone in the direct line of succession was not legally possible without a change in the law and the approval of the Commonwealth and goodness only knows what else, none of which would be possible in practical terms.

They kicked a king off the throne on the grounds that morganatic marriage didn't exist in British law.

They simply can't backtrack now and say that, OK, Diana was terribly popular and Camilla is seen as the cause of her suffering so she must be satisfied with a morganatic marriage - not less than 100 years after deposing a monarch on the grounds that such a marriage wasn't possible. Charles and Camilla are pushing 60 - Charles is almost certainly going to have a short reign if he even outlives his mother, and in practical terms he's really not going to make much impression on kingship with half the country focussed on William already - it simply isn't worth the legal awfulness to push the morganatic marriage option when it isn't a long-term issue anyway. It makes a total mockery of the abdication and would show that Edward VIII had been got rid of illegally. It simply isn't worth it.
While I do see some of your point Elspeth, there should be provisions made that she NOT become Queen. It is wrong, no matter who Charles was married to. Charles is already planning to throw aside the Princess Consort title to make her Queen. It is just wrong morally and would also damage the monarchy.
__________________

  #523  
Old 02-20-2005, 03:43 AM
susan alicia's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: , Netherlands
Posts: 2,529
the curtsying bit was discussed on feb 13 #345 posting of elspeth:

Far as I know, as the wife of the Prince of Wales and an HRH, she becomes the second lady in the land. Officially that means the other royal ladies (apart from the Queen) would have to curtsey to her, but I don't think the royal family tends to be so formal, apart from curtseying to the Queen at official functions (not sure about private ones).



Quote:
Originally Posted by tiaraprin
I appreciate the fact Trinny that you are asking why I feel the way I do. I have no problem explaining my feelings to you. Just as Diana stirred in me great feelings of love and admiration, Camilla stirs feelings of anger and hatred inside of me because she hurt the monarchy, Diana, Diana's sons, her own children, and her own marriage.

I see Camilla as a major factor in the breakup of the Wales' marriage. Yes, there were other problems of incompatibility, the pressure for Charles to marry, and the pressure for Diana to marry into the royal family. However, Charles and Camilla were cheating and degrading Diana before she took the adulterous steps they did.

Diana was a very young 19, and Camilla picked her out of a list of potential brides because she would be the least trouble to her liasion with Charles. Diana was set up from day one and no one cared--Charles, Camilla, the royal family, or the Spencer family. To do this to another human being is deplorable. Diana's hand was forced and she made a tremendous mistake marrying Charles. All Diana wanted was to have a husband that loved her, children, and a good marriage. Love and a warm marriage were never going to be in the cards with Charles just marrying for the sake of marrying; Camilla picking "a mouse" that would not undermine her position; a royal family that wanted an heir and not another "Uncle David"; and the Spencer family who wanted to be forever tied to the Windsors. How could Diana possibly win and have any hopes of a happy life with all of this?? This is what makes me side with her. Yes, Diana made mistakes in her attempts to free herself from the disaster she found herself in the middle of. However, she stood up for women everywhere by not accepting the shoddy behavior being accorded to her.

Camilla betrayed her own marriage, inflicted unknown damage upon her own children to follow in the footsteps of her great-grandmother, Alice Keppel. Diana did do similar things when she was forced into lonliness, despair and the misguided hope of saving her marriage. Camilla did it out of ambition and greed.

That is why Camilla does not deserve any honors, titles, or deference that would normally be due the wife of the Prince of Wales. She should just marry Charles and have a marginal title such as Her Grace, the Duchess of Cornwall.
How can Camilla deserve the curtseys of Sophie and the other royal ladies who have lead exemplary lives thus far?? How could William's or Harry's future wives curtsey to the woman that brought such unhappiness to their mother?? It is UNACCEPTABLE and DEPLORABLE. If I were a British citizen, I would NEVER curtsey to her or Charles. Curtseying to her is a betrayal of the monarchy. My heart is made of steel when it comes to Camilla, and there is nothing she could ever do to change it--not that she would care.

I would curtsey to William and Harry--even as an American!!
  #524  
Old 02-20-2005, 03:59 AM
Nobility
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 414
I would think that Princess Anne wouldn't have to curtsey to Camilla, no matter how senior she may be.
__________________
The English take the breeding of their horses and dogs more seriously than they do their children- HRH Princess Michael of Kent
  #525  
Old 02-20-2005, 04:42 AM
susan alicia's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: , Netherlands
Posts: 2,529
always found the being blessed and forgiven the most important bit of the church, their condemnations less important.
(But I am greek orthodox and certain things that were visible about greek priests are now in the news)



Quote:
Originally Posted by Elspeth
No, it isn't being sanctioned. It's a civil wedding, not a CofE one. The service of prayer and dedication afterwards is perfectly standard and has been the way things have been done for years. You might argue that it's hypocritical of the church to forbid these marriages and then appear to sanction them by this service of prayer and dedication, and I'd tend to agree with you, but it's not something they dreamed up specially for Charles, it's the way things have been done for decades.
  #526  
Old 02-20-2005, 05:05 AM
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: ***, United States
Posts: 16,894
Quote:
While I do see some of your point Elspeth, there should be provisions made that she NOT become Queen. It is wrong, no matter who Charles was married to. Charles is already planning to throw aside the Princess Consort title to make her Queen. It is just wrong morally and would also damage the monarchy.
Well, my suspicion is that the "men in grey suits" making these decisions have said and done as little as possible about matters for the longer term as possible, on the grounds that there's a real possibility that the Queen will outlive Charles and none of the stuff about what to call Camilla when Charles is king will ever come to anything anyway. No point in stirring up hornets' nests if you don't need to.

For the present, they have to give Camilla the HRH title because of the quicksand of the issue of morganatic marriage. It's only speculation that Charles wants to make her Queen and the "Princess Consort" title is just a smoke screen. I mean, I tend to agree that he'd want to make her Queen if he could, but that's just an unsupported hunch.

There's also the issue of whether she wants it. It's been rumoured that she didn't want to be HRH and doesn't want to be Queen because of the duties and lack of freedom and privacy involved. She's had the best of both worlds up till now - all the pleasure and privilege and gifts and infuence that go with being the beloved of the heir to the throne without the duties and responsibilities that go with the job. Now she gets the duties and responsibilities and the loss of privacy and the regimented life whether she wants it or not, and as a very private person, she probably doesn't want it at all. However, she can't use the excuse of being Duchess of Cornwall rather than Princess of Wales to get out of it - she's HRH, she's the Prince's wife, she's paid for by the Duchy, and neither of them are popular enough for her to dare to take all that and give nothing (or very little) in return. She's had a dead cushy number for years - now she gets to pay.

If it's any consolation to you (although I think you might be beyond consoling!), the title "second lady in the land" and the entitlement to curtseys from the Countess of Wessex and Princesses Anne, Beatrice, and Eugenie are going to be far less of an issue in her day-to-day life than her diary being forever full of boring routine engagements six months ahead and her loss of privacy and ability to speak her mind without getting in deep trouble. As a rule, you don't see the members of the royal family curtsying to anybody but the Queen (and the Queen Mother when she was alive); I don't think Anne and Margaret used to spend much time, if any, curtsying to Diana. So Camilla won't get the curtseys, but she'll sure get the work, if Charles has any sense of self-preservation. This whole business is too unpopular with too many people for her to dare to even appear to be freeloading.
  #527  
Old 02-20-2005, 05:10 AM
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: ***, United States
Posts: 16,894
Quote:
always found the being blessed and forgiven the most important bit of the church, their condemnations less important.
Well, I suppose so - but it still strikes me as hypocritical for the church to be in the business of conducting services to celebrate a marriage that the church refused to perform.
  #528  
Old 02-20-2005, 05:13 AM
susan alicia's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: , Netherlands
Posts: 2,529
Quote:
Originally Posted by Elspeth
Well, my suspicion is that the "men in grey suits" making these decisions have said and done as little as possible about matters for the longer term as possible, on the grounds that there's a real possibility that the Queen will outlive Charles
elspeth,

it might be the truth but it sounds scary
  #529  
Old 02-20-2005, 05:43 AM
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: ***, United States
Posts: 16,894
Well, I did mean that she'd outlive Charles naturally, not that there was any sort of plot to ensure she outlived him.

That really would be scary...
  #530  
Old 02-20-2005, 08:06 AM
trinny's Avatar
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: On the coast, Australia
Posts: 152
Thank you very much for explaining your opinions so thoroughly Moonlightrhapsody & Tiaraprin, I appreciate them very much :)
  #531  
Old 02-20-2005, 01:21 PM
abir's Avatar
Nobility
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: , Canada
Posts: 467
From Timesonline http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article...1821_1,00.html

February 20, 2005

Churchgoers ordered to pray for Camilla
Christopher Morgan

CHURCHGOERS are to be commanded by royal warrant to pray for Camilla Parker Bowles as part of regular Sunday services after her marriage to the Prince of Wales on April 8.

The Queen is planning to issue the warrant in formal recognition of her new daughter-in-law’s status as one of the most high-ranking members of the royal family.

At the moment, only the Queen, the Duke of Edinburgh and Charles are individually remembered by the Church of England in state prayers during services of matins and evensong.

Meanwhile doubts have been raised by senior lawyers over the legality of Charles and Camilla’s marriage. The couple are due to marry in the register office at Windsor Guildhall.
In a paper submitted to Lord Goldsmith, the attorney- general, Stephen Cretney QC, an emeritus fellow of All Souls College, Oxford, argues that members of the royal family are barred by a 19th century law from marrying in civil ceremonies.

The decision to change the prayers is controversial on two counts. The Queen removed the name of Diana, the late Princess of Wales, from the list after her divorce in 1996, at the same time as she withdrew her style of royal highness. The decision was attacked by Diana’s circle as “spiteful and humiliating”.

Some churchgoers may also object to praying for the woman whose adultery played a part in the divorce and who is not allowed to remarry in church.
The new wording to be used in the prayers is expected to state: “Almighty God, the fountain of all goodness, we humbly beseech thee to bless Philip, Duke of Edinburgh, Charles, Prince of Wales, and the Duchess of Cornwall.” There is a separate prayer for the Queen.

Yesterday senior church sources disclosed, after informal contacts with BuckinghamPalace, that the warrant would be issued. The palace said: “The granting of a royal warrant to incorporate the duchess into state prayers will be done in consultation between the church and the palace. That consultation has still to be held.”
Lord Puttnam, a friend of Diana, said he found the decision “a little puzzling” and said he would discuss it with bishops in the House of Lords.

Opposition will also come from groups in the church that remain opposed to the remarriage of Charles and Parker Bowles. Two bodies, Church Society and Reform, believe Rowan Williams, the Archbishop of Canterbury, was wrong to approve of the arrangements.

Senior lawyers have also voiced opposition.
They include Cretney, whose view is supported by one former attorney-general and two other former senior law officers. He argues that the Marriage Act 1836 disallows members of the royal family from marrying in a civil ceremony.

This exclusion, Cretney argues, was updated in every subsequent amending statute, including the Marriage Act 1949 which governs civil weddings today.
Cretney recommends a “simple bill putting beyond doubt the capacity of members of the royal family to contract civil marriages”.

Sources close to Goldsmith said he would respond directly to Cretney but that there could be no comment on whether the palace had asked for fresh advice.
Paul Williamson, a parish priest at St George’s, Hanworth, west London, will lodge a formal objection tomorrow to force the palace to publish its legal advice.

This weekend one former attorney-general endorsed Cretney’s argument. He said: “If I was advising the Queen now, I think I’d have the legislation clarified. It could be passed through both houses in about five minutes.”

The wedding has already been dogged by one legal hitch. It had to be switched from WindsorCastle to the Guildhall because officials failed to advise Charles and Camilla about the difficulties of obtaining a licence for the castle to host the marriage.

The palace remains adamant, however, that the wedding was endorsed ahead of the announcement by four independent experts.
Goldsmith will now consider whether the government may need to put a bill through parliament to allow the civil ceremony.

However, Lord Falconer, the lord chancellor, indicated last night that the government was content with the legality of the marriage, saying the prohibition on royal civil marriage ended in 1949.

He said the government had been thorough, ministers were confident of the ceremony’s legality, and they wished to put no bar in the way of the wedding.
  #532  
Old 02-20-2005, 03:35 PM
selrahc4's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: , United States
Posts: 760
Quote:
Originally Posted by Elspeth
I don't think Anne and Margaret used to spend much time, if any, curtsying to Diana.
Elspeth, you just gave me my laugh of the day
  #533  
Old 02-20-2005, 11:16 PM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 2,194
I don't think any Windsors with a lesser title than her would have.
  #534  
Old 02-21-2005, 12:12 AM
wymanda's Avatar
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Perth, Australia
Posts: 1,495
A Funny Take on the Wedding

:) :) :p

....................
Attached Thumbnails
Click image for larger version

Name:	UKComemorative1.jpg
Views:	83
Size:	68.6 KB
ID:	96350  
__________________
Everything I write here is my opinion and I mean no offence by it.
  #535  
Old 02-21-2005, 02:17 AM
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: ***, United States
Posts: 16,894
Oh my...

Now, if those were actually being marketed, the seller would make a fortune!
  #536  
Old 02-21-2005, 02:25 AM
HMQueenElizabethII's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Ryde, Australia
Posts: 3,783
How can Princess Anne, The Countess of Wessex, The Kents or the Gloucesters curtsey to Camilla?Never!
__________________
"God save our Gracious Queen,
Long live our Noble Queen,
God save The Queen"
God save Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II
  #537  
Old 02-21-2005, 02:26 AM
HMQueenElizabethII's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Ryde, Australia
Posts: 3,783
Camilla can make people hate the Royal Family if she married and be in the Royal Family.People do not like Camilla!
__________________
"God save our Gracious Queen,
Long live our Noble Queen,
God save The Queen"
God save Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II
  #538  
Old 02-21-2005, 02:29 AM
HMQueenElizabethII's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Ryde, Australia
Posts: 3,783
I remember that officially Princess Anne and Princess Margaret have to curtsey to Princess Diana but they rarely do that maybe at specially events so maybe the same as Camilla?
__________________
"God save our Gracious Queen,
Long live our Noble Queen,
God save The Queen"
God save Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II
  #539  
Old 02-21-2005, 02:32 AM
HMQueenElizabethII's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Ryde, Australia
Posts: 3,783
When The Queen Mother and Princess Margaret still alive, they did not approve with this marriage.
__________________
"God save our Gracious Queen,
Long live our Noble Queen,
God save The Queen"
God save Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II
  #540  
Old 02-21-2005, 02:55 AM
hillary_nugent's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: , Australia
Posts: 3,048
OMG i've been on holidays in the USA for almost a month and i haven't heard a single thing about this upcoming marriage ^__^ well good on Charles and Camilla i wish them all the best for their marriage ^___^
__________________

__________________
I came. I saw. I posted.
Closed Thread

Tags
camilla, camilla parker bowles, duchess of cornwall, engagement, 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


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Charles and Camilla: The Marriage (2005 and on) VuMom The Prince of Wales and the Duchess of Cornwall 1583 04-09-2015 11:10 PM
Charles and Camilla: Visit to Kuwait, Qatar, Bahrain and the UAE - February 2007 hornsen Royal and Ruling Families of the Gulf States 183 03-02-2007 06:49 PM




Popular Tags
70th birthday celebrations of king carl xvi gustaf ascot 2016 best gown best gown september 2016 best hat best outfit catherine middleton style coup d'etat crown prince haakon crown princess mary crown princess mary fashion crown princess mette-marit current events duchess of cambridge dutch state visit e-mail fashion poll grand duke jean greece infanta elena fashion iran kate middleton king abdullah ii king abdullah ii current events king felipe king felipe vi king willem-alexander member introduction monarchy new zealand nobel gala norway november 2016 october 2016 opening of parliament picture of the week prince bernhard prince charles princess marie princess mary princess mary daytime fashion princess mary fashion princess mary hats queen letizia queen letizia casual outfits queen letizia daytime fashion queen letizia fashion queen letizia style queen mathilde queen mathildes outfits queen maxima queen maxima casual wear queen maxima daytime fashion queen maxima dresses queen maxima fashion queen maxima hats queen maxima style queen rania royal fashion september 2016 state visit state visit to denmark succession sweden the duchess of cambridge the duchess of cambridge casual wear the duchess of cambridge daytime fashion the duchess of cambridge fashion the duchess of cambridge hats the duchess of cornwall fashion


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 01:29 AM.

Social Knowledge Networks

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