branchg said:Yes, you are correct Edinburgh did not merge with the Crown. However, it is no longer a style, title or rank held by Elizabeth as she is The Sovereign and cannot be a peer.
BeatrixFan said:Well, the Duke of Edinburgh isn't strictly speaking a peer. He isn't allowed to sit in the House of Lords.
sirhon11234 said:The argument about whether camilla should be known as princess consort or Queen is tiring. I'am 100% a diana fan but Camilla is Charles's second wife and if he ascends the throne she will be Queen Consort. That title has no affliation towards Diana. Let Camilla be known as Queen Consort.
okay what do I need to look at on the BRF website.lucien said:
branchg said:Yes, you are correct Edinburgh did not merge with the Crown. However, it is no longer a style, title or rank held by Elizabeth as she is The Sovereign and cannot be a peer.
Henri M. said:No, but she still is a Peer's wife, of course.
BeatrixFan said:If it got passed in the Commons, the chances are it'd fail totally in the Lords who know that when titles start being interfered with - they're next.
sirhon11234 said:The argument about whether camilla should be known as princess consort or Queen is tiring. I'am 100% a diana fan but Camilla is Charles's second wife and if he ascends the throne she will be Queen Consort. That title has no affliation towards Diana. Let Camilla be known as Queen Consort.
Sister Morphine said:If for some reason they manage to strip Camilla of her rightful title, give her a new one and then carry on life as usual......I can't see the monarchy lasting too long after that. A part of me thinks it's just going to outrage people.
Madame Royale said:I disagree (respectively)
If this institution relies solely upon the style & title of the sovereign's spouse, then you are right, it is in trouble and if that's the case, shouldn't it be already? Tradition is since broken. If the Prince of Wales' wife can hold the lesser title (in comparison to her husband) of Duchess of Cornwall in an official capacity (although rightfully hers to use) then why should the possibility of Camilla not being addressed as Her Majesty make more of a difference? Because its an insult you think? No bigger an "insult" than the current condition and everyone seems perfectly content with that (though I'm sure some here may have an alternative thought in regards).
Camilla is the 10th Princess of Wales and the first to choose not to bear the title as her principal designation.
Whether people wish to view this as a mistake or not is entirely up to the indavidual (and they are well within their rights to think this) but its pertinent to recognise that this decision came from Clarence House and so came from the Wales's themselves.
I do not see why this decision, made by those at the core of its (the monarchy's) structural identity, should outrage the populous. Infact, I don't believe it will.
ysbel said:To play Devil's Advocate, what if Charles and Camilla announce after the succession that due to unforeseen legislative difficulties they're just planning to have Camilla crowned Queen as all the other wives of British monarchs have been and that they will put aside the Princess Consort business, would you have an objection?
Or would you accept that decision too because it came from the couple's wishes themselves?
Madame Royale said:I do not see why this decision, made by those at the core of its (the monarchy's) structural identity, should outrage the populous. Infact, I don't believe it will.
ysbel said:Oh I see. Then I assume that this statement of yours
only applies if the people at the core of the monarchy's structure identity make the decision to make Camilla Princess Consort rather than Queen.
I think its quite safe to assume that you would have quite another opinion if the people at the core of the monarchy's structural identity made the decision to make Camilla Queen.
So I think its safe to assume the identity of the people making the decision and their proximity to the structural core of the monarchy really has no influence on your own belief what title Camilla should carry.
So why even bring it up if it has no relevance on your own opinion?
Madame Royale said:What a perculiar response.lol.
The people at the core of the monarchy are the royals themselves which is what I was referring to just incase you were not.
I support any move made to make Camilla Princess Consort. Yes
If this does not happen I will gladly except Camilla as Queen Consort but we all have a preference, and normally you follow that preference first and foremost.
I except a situation for how it is and at this point in time, its intended Camilla will be Princess Consort.
You do assume alot don't you and why is it critical to bring up a scenario that is not the case? What benefit does this poses? None it would seem.
ysbel said:Because what Clarence House has stated runs counter to the laws on the books regarding the title of the wife of the monarch and British law states very clearly what is required for that to change, ie., for all the bodies of Parliament where the British monarch is sovereign to hold a vote in Parliament.
Yes, quite annoying for these pesky people to continually bring up that Charles is going to have to do something other than make an announcement from Clarence House to make Camilla a Princess Consort but what have you?
Laws are particularly annoying consistent at times and in this case are consistent regardless of a person's reputation be obtained.
They will not do that. As was stated before, the House of Commons might agree to it, but the Lords will not. You see it happen in the American Congress all the time....one house agreeing to something, the other stopping it.