King Charles and Queen Camilla - Page 12

Elspeth · #**221** 08-18-2006, 12:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Skydragon

I believe they said the same about George VI and Queen Elizabeth II at first. Poor George was described as 'uninspiring'.

They may well have said it about him, but I know they said it about his father. Someone is supposed to have referred to George V as having an alien and uninspiring court, and he responded that while he may be uninspiring, he wasn't an alien! I think there was a "damn" or something in there too, just in case people didn't get the message!

Polly · #**222** 08-18-2006, 05:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Elspeth

They may well have said it about him, but I know they said it about his father. Someone is supposed to have referred to George V as having an alien and uninspiring court, and he responded that while he may be uninspiring, he wasn't an alien! I think there was a "damn" or something in there too, just in case people didn't get the message!

You're quite right, Elspeth.

George V actually said that he'd 'be bugg---d if he was a German'. This was said, of course, in the context of War.

Or so I think,

Polly

Skydragon · #**223** 08-18-2006, 05:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by srivishnu

George VI and Elizabeth II was not trained / brought up to become monarchs.

This was from the post I was replying to "I don't see that charisma that usually monarchs have" by tdarlene. As with everything, it has to be read in context.

Much as I liked and respected the Queen Mother, as I recall reading/hearing from family that were about at the time, it was a government request that the QM leave with the princesses, not the British people who really had other things to worry about!

Wikipedia, although very helpful is not always very accurate, as shown to you by BeatrixFans post with a copy of a letter written in 1948!

branchg · #**224** 08-18-2006, 08:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by srivishnu

If The Queen could create and grant HRH Prince Philip the style and dignity of a Prince of the United Kingdom in February 1957 without seeking Parliament's approval,then why should Prince Charles get Parliament's blessing to style Camilla as The Princess Consort?

The husband of a reigning Queen does not share her rank and can be granted additional titles and honours at the will of the Sovereign. In Philip's case, he was granted the rank of Royal Highness by George VI, but this did not make him a prince of the UK in his own right.

In 1957, The Queen received approval from the Prime Minister to make him a Prince of the UK with precedence ahead of all the princes of the blood royal, including Prince Charles. That's when he became "HRH The Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh".

The wife of the King shares his rank and is Queen. To hold a lesser rank as a princess requires clarification from Parliament because it implies she is morganatic and does not share the rights and honours of a Queen Consort under the succession.

srivishnu · #**225** 08-18-2006, 10:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Skydragon

Wikipedia, although very helpful is not always very accurate, as shown to you by BeatrixFans post with a copy of a letter written in 1948!

The information in Wikipedia is the same as from the British Royal Family's web site.

Elspeth · #**226** 08-18-2006, 12:56 PM

As the daughter of the king, Princess Elizabeth was "HRH The Princess Elizabeth" regardless of her husband's title. Princess Margaret was "HRH The Princess Margaret, Countess of Snowdon" even though her husband wasn't royal.

Skydragon · #**227** 08-18-2006, 02:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by srivishnu

The information in Wikipedia is the same as from the British Royal Family's web site.

What site were you using when you stated that the Queens titles were: - HRH Princess Elizabeth,The Duchess of Edinburgh.

Wiki holds some very accurate articles but some leave a lot to be desired and should never be relied upon 100% IMO.

**Warren** · #**228** 08-19-2006, 05:01 AM

Before we all lose track, this is the post Skydragon is referring to (#205):

Quote:

Originally Posted by srivishnu

After HM's wedding,HM was known as HRH Princess Elizabeth,The Duchess of Edinburgh not The Princess Elizabeth,Duchess of Edinburgh.

I think everyone is agreed this statement is wrong and the correct style and title for the period 'Marriage to Accession' (1947-1952) was "HRH The Princess Elizabeth, Duchess of Edinburgh".

As we have confirmation from the Buckingham Palace notice posted by BeatrixFan at #212, we can safely move on.

thanks,
Warren
British Forums moderator

Next Star · #**229** 08-19-2006, 11:13 PM

I just learned that Prince Charles will not be wearing grand robes that were woren by past kings and queens but there is something else you did not know about Prince Charles when he is crowned king he will not King Charles III but he will be named King GerogeVII in honor of his late grandfather King George VI because King Charles I and II both of those kings had bad reigns.

kimebear · #**230** 08-19-2006, 11:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Next Star

I just learned that Prince Charles will not be wearing grand robes that were woren by past kings and queens but there is something else you did not know about Prince Charles when he is crowned king he will not King Charles III but he will be named King GerogeVII in honor of his late grandfather King George VI because King Charles I and II both of those kings had bad reigns.

I would be sorry if that is true. Although it is a nice sentiment for his grandfather, surely HM, as the assumed heir to the throne, would have given her first born son the name she wanted to see him ascend with????? Wouldn't she have taken an unlucky name into consideration?

selrahc4 · #**231** 08-19-2006, 11:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Next Star

I just learned that Prince Charles will not be wearing grand robes that were woren by past kings and queens but there is something else you did not know about Prince Charles when he is crowned king he will not King Charles III but he will be named King GerogeVII in honor of his late grandfather King George VI because King Charles I and II both of those kings had bad reigns.

The only source for this is media speculation. The Prince of Wales is not offically on record with a declaration regarding his regnal name.

**Warren** · #**232** 08-20-2006, 02:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by selrahc4

The only source for this is media speculation. The Prince of Wales is not offically on record with a declaration regarding his regnal name.

Nor what he will be wearing at his Coronation.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Next Star

...he will not be King Charles III...

The regnal name has been discussed earlier in the thread. Since it is purely media speculation there's nothing to be gained by rehashing the subject.

thanks,
Warren
British Forums moderator

Frothy · #**233** 08-20-2006, 04:10 AM

Charles II most certainly did not have a bad reign. He was one of the best kings we ever had (if you account for his lack of power). He was a great Englishman. God rest his soul.

Next Star · #**234** 08-20-2006, 06:02 PM

Many people are not delighted by Camilla Parker -Bowes marrying into the british royal family and becoming HRH The Duchess Of Cornwall.There is speculation on rather will she be queen or princess consort when Prince Charles becomes king.Only time will tell.

Thomas Parkman · #**235** 08-20-2006, 06:05 PM

Dear Members,

The present Prince of Wales is very much a traditionalist, as I understand it. So such deviations as have been discussed above would be nothing more than that, speculations. I would note the famous epigram about Charles II who was not a bad king. Charles I unfortunately for him and everybody else was a bad politician and paid an awful price for his ineptitude and inablitlity to understand the times. But then England did too. I was told by my professor in a graduate course on English history that durning the English civil wars at the end of the reign of Charles I one fourth of the adult male population of England died as a result of it.

As for Charles II, he was much too intelligent for that and was an excellent politician. In the famous aphorism: the epitaph of Charles II. "Here lies our Sovereign Lord the King, whose word no man relies on. He never said a foolish thing nor ever did a wise one." To which Charles II replied: "My words are My own. My deeds are My ministers."

When referred to as the Father of His People one wag quipped "or a least a good many of them" He notorious for being much addicted to gallantry and the result was all those lovely little children. Unfortunately none of them by his lawful consort and as a result we ended up with that idiot James II. So this fondness and problems and headaches etc with the ladies are nothing new under the sun. Cheers. Thomas Parkman

Esmeralda · #**236** 08-20-2006, 06:05 PM

Quote:

Many people are not delighted by Camilla Parker -Bowes marrying into the british royal family and becoming HRH The Duchess Of Cornwall.There is speculation on rather will she be queen or princess consort when Prince Charles becomes king.Only time will tell.

Many people are not delighted, and many people are very happy about it.

Unless special legislation is passed, she will become Queen. She can call herself what she likes, but the wife of the King is the Queen and that's it.

MARG · #**237** 08-20-2006, 06:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Next Star

Only time will tell.

Time and a law change!

BeatrixFan · #**238** 08-20-2006, 06:15 PM

Of course she'll be Queen. This is Britain, not Belgium.

Next Star · #**239** 08-20-2006, 06:35 PM

I think Camilla should not be queen but princess consort they need to change the law her reputation is not good. That is why I think she should be the princess consort and not queen. Many people think that the british monarchy will not last by her presence and her being in the royal family meaning that someday the monarchy such might be abolished. Which would be sad.

Maxie · #**240** 08-20-2006, 06:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BeatrixFan

Of course she'll be Queen. This is Britain, not Belgium.

Eh Sam, what has it got to do with Belgium? As far as I know Belgian consorts are also styled as Queen. Or is it some great and wise British saying that I'm not aware of?

I agree, of course. Changing the laws for just one person would be really absurd. Camilla is going to be Queen and I think she will be damn good at it!

Update: I'm being stupid, you're talking about princess Lilian of course... duh!